Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Dowds asked if the goal of the children's referendum was to protect vulnerable children. It is clear that is what the goal is. I remind the public that this is already in the Constitution. It is long established in the Constitution that the State has a role in protecting children. We have taken that provision, made it clearer and looked at the impact on the child as a prime reason to take a child in and protect that child. One must look at the impact on the child. We have reformulated the Article so it focuses, not on the parental failure but on the impact on the child. We have also built in other aspects of caring for children that are very important, such as looking at their best interests and hearing the views of the child, and I will answer questions as to how that will be done. We have also added a general provision that has never before been in the Constitution.

The Deputy is absolutely right that the first goal of the referendum is the safety and protection of children who are at risk. I have already given the numbers of children who are coming before our child and family services. This is reality. Children are abused, mostly in their own homes. It is exceptional and affects a small number. Our absolute support is for the family and for every child to have the opportunity to be brought up in his or her own family and for that family to be supported wherever that is needed.

There are, however, exceptional cases where we have to do what is best for the child, to give that child a second chance. We are making it easier to give those children a second chance of family life by changing the adoption legislation. At present, one must, effectively, be abandoned until one is 18 years of age for an adoption to be allowed, that is where it is not voluntary. Voluntary adoptions go ahead. A child of married parents cannot be adopted at all.

We built in careful safeguards. This is not about snatching children. It is not about trying to undermine parents. The first goal of the State is to support parents. It is in exceptional cases where the child is not being cared for and is at serious risk that we want to give that child a second opportunity of family life.

The Deputy is right to focus on that. I take the point he is making about McKenna. Most of us are happy to debate any place where we are given an opportunity, with whoever. It is for the media to decide how they work out that balance. They are beginning to do that and to ensure that there is more coverage. I notice increasing coverage. During the campaign on the stability treaty referendum, the coverage built up as the campaign went on. This is a one-page amendment. The stability treaty had 20 pages. It should be possible for us to examine and get the information across about what is intended

To answer Deputy Fitzpatrick's question, the State already has a role in protecting children. Under the child care legislation it is very clear that the State has a role to intervene and protect children who are at risk. That continues to be the same. We are ensuring that the perspective of the child is more central than it has been in the past. For a very long time, the perspective and experience of the child has not been as centre stage as it should have been when decisions were being taken in court rooms. One can see that absence in many of the reports that are being presented to me and which have been examined in this committee.

It is not about giving more power to the State but about a balance between a family's rights and a child's rights and making sure we look to the protection of the child at all times and do not return children to situations that are dangerous. Many of the children cited in the report of the independent child death review group died at home, and 67 of them died when they were out of State care. We must be realistic in making decisions about children who are at risk and try to give them the very best chance. That is why we are putting this referendum forward.

Early intervention remains the goal, and to get support to families. That is why the word "proportionate" is included in the amendment. It allows for supervision orders, for family support and for intervention to support families. The goal is not just to place children in care. That is the last thing we want to do. If it is necessary, however, it has to be done.

Deputy Byrne asked why this has taken so long. The committee could spend a long time examining why it has taken so long. There was a combination of factors. People have called for his for a long time. For decades, we have had information about how children have been treated in Irish institutions and we did not think one of the solutions would be to put a stronger provision for children into the Constitution. For the last 20 years it has been recommended that we would do this. There were concerns that if power, authority, equality or rights were given to a member of a family, like a child, it would weaken the family. People said the same about equality for women. The truth is that if one empowers members of a family one empowers the family.

There was a political hesitancy about doing this. Catherine McGuinness called for this 20 years ago and the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children called for it. Previous Ministers of State, Barry Andrews and Brian Lenihan, and the joint committee chaired by former Deputy O'Rourke spent three years examining whether or not we should do this. If a committee of the Oireachtas is to mean anything, we should take the recommendations of that committee seriously. It held 64 meetings and heard a huge number of submissions. The committee concluded that we should do what we are now putting to the people. The Government has not delayed in putting the wording forward. We put an undertaking in the programme for Government and a referendum will be held on Saturday 10 November.

Deputy Byrne made a point about giving more accountability to projects in communities. She is right. Our reform agenda for the new child and family support agencies must involve working more closely with the bodies we are funding.

We will need to work more closely with those bodies who will be in receipt of funding and we will need to be clear about the criteria because there will need to be more accountability. Funding has been given out in an ad hocmanner in the past. We must align the priorities of voluntary organisations and statutory agencies, not least because we are in a time of such financial difficulties.

On the question about who decides on the maturity of a child when his or her views are to be taken into account, the courts have begun to take the views of the child into account. This is already a feature of child law in some areas referred to in the amendment but the amendment will strengthen this feature as it will be a constitutional provision. Judges are taking the views of children into account. In some instances the guardian ad litemsystem is used whereby a social worker or other advocate is appointed to meet the child in order to understand the child's perspective, to spend time with the child and to clarify the issues.

It is acknowledged that any child who can express a view has that view heard but there is no pressure on the child to express a view. It might not be appropriate in some circumstances such as in custody or access cases where such expression of views may be too traumatic for the child. A child may not wish to express a view or may be ambivalent in his or her views. The weight to be attached to the views of a child is a matter for the judge. The view of the child does not determine the outcome but it is very important that it is heard. A combination of common-sense in the approach to hearing the child's view along with information from expert witnesses such as psychologists and others and information from the parents, would be critical. The judge will form a view. If and when the referendum is passed the courts will have to examine how this provision will be implemented by them. I think they can learn much from international practice where the views of children are given more recognition. In my view, an eventual move towards a system of family courts is the way to deal with this issue. The Minister for Justice and Equality has spoken about moving to family courts which are less adversarial and where it will be easier for the views of everyone concerned to be heard. That is the medium to longer term solution for dealing with this issue.

Deputy Naughten will have noted in my reply to his question that quite significant progress has been made in Roscommon. It is very clear that practice has improved with more management and more services. There have been many positive outcomes arising from a dreadful situation. I commend the Deputy on his attention to this issue and the care with which he has pursued it. I have given the Deputy a number of examples of how there has been a very significant improvement in the care services.

I agree with Deputy Naughten about the need to have information at regional and local level. That information is being made more available. As soon as the new systems are in place, I will be happy to give information about services in a region or local area. Such information is important, not least because of what other members have said. It is important, for instance, to know how many children are being abused and neglected in Roscommon, Kildare, Cork and Dundalk. The community can then begin to take responsibility and be aware of what is happening in their community. As many of these cases are heard in the family courts, that information is not available. As I do not have the statistics about local areas that I would like to have, I am unable to provide them to the Deputy. However, these statistics are being gathered and collated nationally. The Department has a new ICT system and business model to ensure that kind of information is available. I expect that in the next few months I will be in a position to give the Deputy more data than has been possible to date. The Deputy's key point was about the basic data and community responsibility and I can only agree with him that we need to move to a position where more detail is available.

Deputy Naughten also asked about the audit. Gordon Jeyes has the audit and I hope we will be in a position to publish it fairly shortly. It was compiled by an outside consultant and it took that length of time to carry out the audit which is a national representative sample from a number of areas. We are not in a position to audit every case but I think it will provide useful information. I do not have a timeline for its publication but I will come back to the Deputy about the timeline. My intention would be to publish the audit as soon as possible.