Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Once again, I congratulate her on her part in progressing this referendum. I also acknowledge the contribution of others such as those who have been mentioned - former Deputy Mary O'Rourke, former Minister of State, Mr. Barry Andrews, the late Deputy Brian Lenihan - and the important work of the NGO sector, including Senator Jillian van Turnhout, Barnardos, ISPCC, and many other organisations which have argued strongly for better protection for children, including FLAC.

It is important to say that, of course, a constitutional amendment will not necessarily change the lives of children in this country. It will, as Senator van Turnhout stated, make an important difference. There are obviously other questions that we must ask ourselves as legislators. In particular, we must acknowledge that we are facing into difficult budgetary circumstances and it behoves all of us to ensure that the vulnerable, in particular, children, are not the ones who pay the price for the economic crisis that we face.

I welcome the programme the Government has in place for change for children, in particular, the establishment of the new child and family support agency, which will be independent of the HSE. One of the difficulties that we must acknowledge is that the HSE has consistently failed children in this country and if we are going to ask the parents and people of Ireland to have confidence in child care provisions, we must say that it is important that this area moves outside the ambit of the HSE.

I bring to the Minister's attention something that I and, I believe, other Senators received today, namely, the response and analysis of the proposed amendments of the Irish Human Rights Commission. While the commission generally recognised affirmed that we are obviously going in the right direction, it made some criticisms which it is important to acknowledge.

It has, for example, observed that the current wording is too vague in identifying which rights are being recognised under the article and suggested that we need to be less equivocal regarding the obligations of the State to vindicate the rights of children in all situations. It recommended that the wording be revised to include express reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a source of rights and recognition that children's best interests must be the primary consideration in all actions concerning them. I am sure the Minister will address these comments in her response. I agree with Senator van Turnhout that it is not possible to spell out all aspects of this issue on Second Stage and I, too, look forward to more extensive debate in the coming days.

I agree with other speakers that we are taking an important step with this proposed amendment. I appreciate the warm welcome given yesterday by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, to the proposed wording. He recognised that the wording strikes a balance between protecting the interest of the child and giving due recognition to the position of the family and parental rights and acknowledged that interventions to remove a child from his or her family will be exceptional in nature.

We must not lose sight of the purpose of this referendum, which is to give children a voice and to put their interests at the centre of decisions regarding their welfare. Anybody who has listened to a child will know the old adage, out of the mouths of babes, is only too true. As matters stand, there are serious gaps and inconsistencies in the way children are heard. Barnardos estimates that only 35% to 40% of children involved in care proceedings have a guardian ad litemappointed to represent them. Placing the right of a child to be heard will ensure all our children have the right to express their views. We should not fear hearing from children. History has shown that the only people with something to fear from the voice of a child are those who have reason to fear what he or she may say. Unfortunately we do not have a proud history of listening to our children but this is an opportunity to rectify the situation. If we truly believe our children are the future of this country, it is time to prove it.

This referendum is not about changing the role of parents as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society. It is not about the organs of the State forcing their way through the doors of the average home to forcibly remove children from the arms of their loving and caring families. It is not about forcing children to be vaccinated against their parents' wishes, the right of parents to slap their children, although that is a matter I would like us to discuss, or abortion. It does, however, offer the possibility of adopting the children of married parents. Approximately 2,000 children in Ireland are currently unable to return to their families for various reasons, such as physical abuse or dependency on alcohol and drugs, but cannot be adopted by their long-term foster parents under the law as it stands. We are not only denying the chance for such children of legally becoming part of a family who knows and loves them but practical obstacles also arise, such as giving consent to medical procedures and applications for passports. If we adopt this constitutional amendment we will not be turning adoption into an easy process because the courts will have to weigh the rights of all involved while ensuring the best interest of the child is prioritised.

The amendment will make a real commitment to cherishing all the children of the nation equally by placing the children of married and unmarried parents on an equal footing. I remind Members that we only abolished the status of illegitimacy with the Status of Children Act 1987. Shame on us. The last of the Magdalene laundries was only closed in 1996. The women of the Magdalene laundries, many of whom were nearly children themselves, were often incarcerated in these prisons for the crime of having a child out of wedlock. I do not believe we will ever put that shameful episode behind us, notwithstanding the good we will do with this amendment, unless we recognise our collective responsibility for a crime against these women. We must not only apologise as a people but also make recompense before it is too late. It is easy to look to the future but there can only be a real cleansing if we truly acknowledge the mistakes of the past. This amendment is an important step in recognising the part that children have to play in society, as well as our duty to protect them.