David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join colleagues in remarking on the fact that this is the first day of voting in respect of the children's rights referendum. People who live on the islands off our coast are voting at present. It is appropriate that both sides of the argument should be presented and I hope that, regardless of the way in which citizens vote, there will be a very high turnout. All those agencies that have been involved in the protection of children and their welfare - Barnardos, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Roman Catholic bishops - have all adopted a very positive stance towards the referendum. I am of the view that the virtually unanimous support for the constitutional amendment among all parties in both Houses of the Oireachtas should be noted by the people.

I was absolutely horrified by last Monday night's edition of "The Frontline" on RTE. During the programme, a person representing the "No" side made three claims that are utterly false. The first of these is that the doors of the homes of loving and caring families will be battered down by what he described as the "austerity police" and the unfortunate children found therein would be carted off to a revived Letterfrack. That is simply and grossly untrue. Not only that, it is an attempt to create hysteria and to terrify and confuse people. There is a need for a full turnout on Saturday. We cannot be complacent and presume that the referendum will be passed. The second claim made by the individual to whom I refer was even worse. He suggested that foster parents are in it for the money, which is a disgraceful slur on decent, good citizens who take responsibility for children who would otherwise not have access to either proper parental influence or a home. I demand that the person in question withdraw the charge that these people are only taking on foster children in order to obtain ¤325 per week in respect of them.

The third claim made by this individual is one which really hits me in the heart. He cited the Roscommon incest case as a classic reason for voting against the proposed constitutional amendment. That case is the best possible argument for voting in favour of the amendment. The children in the Roscommon case were routinely sexually abused by both parents - which was highly unusual - and they were also starved, beaten and physically abused. Their welfare was threatened by the fact that - to put it in the most charitable terms - a misguided group of extreme fundamentalists incited and funded the parents involved to harass the agencies of the State by means of court action in order to prevent the children from exercising their rights. Those children suffered years of additional horror, hell and misery because there was nothing in the Constitution to protect them. If people believe in the rights and welfare of children and if they are of the view that the State should intervene and not just leave children dangling in circumstances where parents act in the unspeakable way to which I refer, then they should come out and vote in favour of the constitutional amendment.