A leading constitutional lawyer has expressed scepticism about the need for a children’s rights referendum.

Speaking on the RTE radio programme, This Week, Dr Gerard Hogan, the co-author of a text book on the Constitution, and a prominent barrister, said that the current Constitution acknowledged the rights of children, although it did so in “a sort of indirect way”.

However, while he said the wording for the proposed amendment restated children’s rights “in an impressive way”, he also said he believed the suggestion that the current Constitution didn’t work well with regard to children is based on “a grotesque misstatement and misunderstanding of the present Constitutional provision.”

Dr Hogan said: “I think the advantage of this (wording) is that it expressly restates the rights of the child in a modern and impressive way.

“But what I disagree with is the suggestion that the present provisions haven’t worked well, or that they don’t strike the right balance, or are in some way responsible for lots of modern ills because I think that is just, with respect, a grotesque misstatement and misunderstanding of the present Constitutional provision.”

Dr Hogan also addressed the section of the proposed wording which introduces the concept of the ‘best interests’ of the child into the Constitution.

Everyone, he said, was in favour of the best interests of the child, but, he asked, “who is going to decide what is in the best of the child, and how is this going to be done?”

He told RTE: “We’re all in favour of the best interests of the child, and there is something of a mother and apple pie dimension to this. But in practical terms you have to ask yourself, when you’re talking about the best interests of the child, who is going to decide what is in the best of the child, and how is this going to be done? And if you’re talking about the State vindicating the rights of the child, you have to remember that this is likely to be officialdom, or some judge making this decision.”

Dr Hogan added: “This Constitutional amendment will be for life, and will be interpreted by the courts in the coming decades.

“It’s all very well to think of this in terms of Constitutional platitudes but those words will have real meaning and real significance in lots of hard cases and you have to bear that in mind.”