WHEN I published the Children Bill some days ago I looked forward to a constructive debate on the important subject of children's rights. I was therefore somewhat surprised at the ill-informed and intemperate nature of comments made on the Bill by John Waters in his column yesterday.

First of all, let's do what John Waters fails to do - let's look at the law as it stands today.

Under existing law, a husband and wife are automatic joint guardians of their child and have equal rights in relation to all aspects of family law. However, the law does not give completely equal rights of guardianship to mothers and fathers who are not married to each other.

In 1987, it was decided by the then Government to retain the automatic right of guardianship of the natural mother, but to allow the father to apply to the courts to be appointed as a guardian if he so wished.

Since the Status of Children Act became law in 1987, many hundreds of natural fathers have applied for and have been granted guardianship rights. The grant of rights to a natural father does not depend on the mother's consent and that would remain the law under my Children Bill.

However, this Government takes the view that the existing law can be improved, and that is why we made a conscious decision to institute a review of a number of aspects of the law concerning children's welfare, maintenance, custody and guardianship as well as the giving of evidence by children in civil cases.

I was not under any obligation to tackle this issue - there was no European requirement to review the law on guardians hip (the recent Keegan judgment dealt with adoption law only) and I could just as easily have let well enough alone, as Fianna Fail and the PDs did in the years: following the Status of Children Act. People can judge for themselves as to whether the term "cop-out" should apply to the opposition parties who didn't act, or to a Government that has chosen to tackle a difficult issue and try to improve things.

Mr Waters outdoes himself with his extraordinary criticism of the requirement to consider the wishes of the child, as is appropriate given the child's age and understanding, which I am introducing into family law cases for the first time. Surely, this should be the most basic provision of all in any case about a person's welfare - that the wishes of the person concerned should be listened to most carefully?

I have to say that I am disappointed to read Mr Waters trotting out the lazy line that the Bill enshrines "tenets of political correctness". Quite frankly, I take exception 4o Mr Waters attributing motives and dogmas to me, just as I am very sure that he would take exception to me doing the same to him.

For the record, what I want to see is both fathers and mothers having the maximum involvement possible with their children, in the overall context that the child's rights are the paramount consideration. That's why I'm proposing major improvements, as compared with the law at the moment.

. At the moment, many unmarried couples may be deterred by inconvenience from going to court to have the father appointed a guardian. My Bill abolishes that requirement in chat it allows guardianship by agreement. Perhaps Mr Waters would have preferred if I left well enough alone?

. At the moment, grandparents and other relatives who are denied access to a child have no redress.

UNDER my Bill, they will be able to apply for access for the first time. Perhaps Mr Waters would have preferred if I left well enough alone?

. At the moment, children can only give evidence through a TV link in criminal cases but not in family cases or other civil matters. My Bill redresses that anomaly. Perhaps Mr Waters would have preferred if I left well enough alone?

. At the moment, there is no express power to award joint custody. My Bill makes express provision for joint custody for the first time. Perhaps Mr Waters would have preferred if I left well enough alone?

. At the moment, there is no express power to award joint custody. My Bill makes express provision for joint custody for the first time. Perhaps Mr would have preferred if I left well enough alone?

These represent real achievements, and real progress in protecting, and promoting children's rights. Mr Waters could have decided to write a coherent article suggesting that I could have done more. That is the kind of argument to which I have tried to listen during my time in Government. Unfortunately, that wasn't the kind of argument that we heard yesterday.