David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State and applaud this decision. Partial though it is, it is an improvement. We are starting from a low base. The Minister of State in his speech rehearsed criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. When reporting on the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1998, it stated that our approach to children's rights seemed to be somewhat fragmented. This was diplomatic language for saying that we had done a bad job. The committee also indicated that our welfare practices and policies do not adequately reflect the child rights-based approach enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, matters are worse than that. It is not just that the old Victorian idea about children being seen and not heard was widespread, an idea that children were, in some sense, the property of their parents and were treated as such, just as women were treated as chattels. Rather, it is also the appalling situation in which both church and State stood deeply condemned for their complete dereliction of their responsibility for looking after the welfare of children. Children were not regarded as significant or as having any right to a voice. They were serially abused, degraded, humiliated, physically tortured and interfered with sexually. This is the base from which we are starting.

A number of years ago in the House, Senator O'Toole and I advocated the Stay Safe programme to protect children in schools. We were attacked widely by elements in society, the voices of which are still being heard. The reason for the attack was that the family, as an institution, was regarded as some kind of sacred shibboleth, the interests of which were placed above those of the child. This was an horrendous absence of any type of moral value. It is always wrong to place an institution above an individual. The individual feels, bleeds and suffers. The institution is created for the welfare of the individual. I go right back to the Bible for this point. Christ was reproved for just grinding an ear of corn between his fingers. The self-righteous hypocrites of the New Testament, who are still with us, accused him of working on and breaking the Sabbath. He made the point that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is why it is so important that we recognise the humanity of children, which has been done in this amendment to the Constitution.

I compliment our former colleague in this House, Deputy O'Rourke, who was a forthright and clear Leader of the Seanad. With great skill, she moderated the committee's discussions. It is a tribute to her and all the committee members, some of whom are present, that an agreement was reached on a sensitive matter. It is useful that the agreement has the strength of the support of a committee drawn from all the political parties in the Houses. I welcome this development.

The Minister of State has indicated that voices such as those to which I referred are still active in our community. I would quote him if I could find a copy of his speech. The copy I have is not mine. He referred to people being concerned about the intervention of the State and the lowering of the threshold at which that takes place, thereby infringing the rights of the family in some way. I have also heard these opinions, but I deplore them and those who expressed them. I question their representative nature. I have heard representatives from the so-called Iona Institute speaking on this subject and advocating the rights of the family and the parent. I heard similar people when we raised the issue of fathers sexually abusing their children, at which time we were told that we were in some way interfering with the family. The family needs to be interfered with in those circumstances. It is right and proper that it should be.

The Iona Institute has every right to exist and express its view. However, let us be clear. It is an unelected, unrepresentative group of reactionary, right-wing, religiously motivated people. They have an undue prominence in this debate. Contributions to this debate should be proportionate. It is most unwise to give oxygen, in the media and other places, to this very nasty view. When I heard one of their spokespeople on the radio the other day I had an instant sense of déjÀ vu. I was thinking of my wonderful old friend and inspiration, the late Dr. Noël Browne, the mother and child scheme and the way in which the church in this country objected to the sustenance given out to nursing mothers and their children because it thought this was an interference and an undermining of its authority. Once again, the Church did not give a damn about the welfare of the mothers and their children. It was interested in its own power. I would like to think those days have gone from this society and that we will bravely support the rights of children.

We have had a number of cases like the Kilkenny incest case. In 1993 the Honourable Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness asked for this kind of referendum.

I would welcome the suggestion implicit in the wording that we would insert in the Constitution that glorious phrase from the 1916 Proclamation that the State cherishes "all the children of the State equally". I understand that is one suggestion and I hope it is taken on board. Most citizens of the country believe the phrase is already in the Constitution so let us satisfy them and put it there. Let us also remember that the word "children" did not mean people under a certain age. It meant all the people of the State because we are all the children of the State.

We need also to take our courage in our hands and look at Article 41 and this constrictive definition of the family. It does not suit the 21st century. We should look at that again, particularly if it inhibits the application of the proposal.

With regard to the question of adoption, I hope the disgraceful moral ignorance and neglect of the Government in the civil partnership legislation, where the rights of children of gay couples are ignored totally, will be addressed with the support of this proposed amendment. It will give the children some rights, at least. I know I am speaking to a sympathetic audience in this House, and in particular to the Minister of State whose decency I well understand. The Minister of State and virtually everyone in this House must agree with me that it is a nonsense that gay people can legally adopt children as single individuals, whether they are biological parents or not, but if the adopting parent dies the child is left with no rights whatever. Perhaps this will be some kind of half measure to address that.

When the civil partnership Bill comes to this House I will be attempting to amend it in order to protect the rights of children and I will be calling the bluff of the Government to make sure it is serious when it says the rights of children are paramount. It is not the rights of parents, gay or otherwise, but the rights and welfare of children which are important. I can say that with some background because I was responsible for the section of the Child Care Act which introduced the guardian ad litem principle, in the aftermath of the Maria Colwell case, in order to give a voice to children, who must be heard.