Fine Gael last night insisted it would not be rushed into deciding its attitude towards the Government's proposed children's referendum, despite the Government's pressure for a speedy answer.
"This is an extremely complex legal area and the issues concerned need to be closely examined, particularly in terms of their effects, both intended and unforeseen," said Fine Gael TD Jim O'Keeffe.
He said he would now seek "definitive" constitutional advice from lawyers. "Our lawyers have said, not unreasonably, that they were not in a position to give an opinion on wording until they had seen the wording," he said.
"The Government has chosen to paint this referendum on the very broad canvas of children's rights, and suggests debating complicated issues in a very short time frame, instead of focusing on issues that have all-party agreement and consensus, such as the zone of absolute protection, as proposed by Enda Kenny," he said.
Labour Senator Derek McDowell welcomed the publication of the wording, but said some of its contents were "disappointing and raised questions that are as yet unanswered".
Declining to give Labour's final position on the wording, Mr McDowell said he did not believe "even with whole-hearted co-operation from the parties in the Oireachtas [ that] the proposals can be fully and adequately debated by politicians, interest groups and the general public within the strict time frame proposed by Government."
The Government, he said, had initially promised it was going to set out "in explicit form the rights of the child in our Constitution", but that ambition appears "to have been significantly diluted".
"Instead what is proposed is a form of words where, although the State 'acknowledges and affirms' the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children, those rights are nowhere spelled out. Even more disappointingly, there is to be no follow-up commitment by the State - as there is with existing and comparable constitutional provisions - to vindicate those unspecified rights.What leaps out at a preliminary reading is that so many of its provisions are enabling rather than mandatory.
"In other words, the drafters use the word 'may' every time rather than 'shall'.
"There are aspects of this package that seem to me to be cautious to the point of timidity. I do not see how a debate on all the issues raised can be held and concluded before the dissolution of this Dáil. And, given the importance of the subject matter, there is no reason why it should be," said Mr McDowell.
Green Party TD Ciarán Cuffe said not enough time is left for a "lengthy and full" debate on the referendum's wording before the general election, while it would not "properly enshrine children's rights in the Constitution".
"There are a number of positive elements in this package which I welcome, including allowing for the collection of 'soft information' on those who pose a risk to children, and the creation of offences of absolute or strict liability for offences against children."
Despite expectations, it did not detail the "explicit rights" enjoyed by a child: "From the outset, we were promised that this amendment would provide for these rights but it seems that somewhere along the line the Government has diluted this promise. It is also disappointing that the proposed wording has failed to incorporate the language of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child," he said, adding that he agreed with the call by the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, for more time for debate.
However, Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said all parties should work to ensure the referendum is held soon.
"The bulk of the Government's proposals amount to progress for children, albeit limited, and for that reason Sinn Féin will support their introduction."
