Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

Good morning. I express my deep personal gratitude for the opportunity to present my key findings to the committee this morning. I do not intend to go through the detailed recommendations. I intend to stay within the ten minutes allocated me, to afford members the opportunity to put any questions they might have on the detail of the report.

As I was recently appointed as the founding patron of the Children's Rights Alliance, my first official task in that role might very well be to endorse the Chairman’s comments.

My seventh report on child protection identified several outstanding issues that need to be addressed in this area. These included how the best interests principle should be a core part of our legislative framework. Direct provision is an issue which I have raised with this committee on every occasion I have attended it. I continue to advocate on the need to address what I would describe as a potential breach not only of domestic but of international law in this area. The Child Care Act 1991 is over two decades old and it is time to review it. During the year, I met with all key stakeholders including members of the Judiciary and the President of the District Court has now published judgments in the area. This gives us a unique opportunity to examine some of the gaps in the child protection legislative framework. Internet safety of children is a key issue which I have also raised every year. We need to be ahead of the curve on this matter. A gap was identified in our laws concerning forced marriages in a judgment of Mr. Justice John Mac Menamin in 2013 which needs to be addressed.

A very significant year for child protection was 2012 with the passing of the constitutional referendum on the rights of the child. As part of that, we signed up to ensuring the best interests principle will become part of our domestic law in child protection. There are three core aspects to how best interests principles are implemented. First, it is a substantive right. Second, it is a fundamental and interpretive legal principle. Third, it is a rule of procedure. We need to ensure that this is just not an aspiration but is included in all of our laws and administrative processes in the area of child protection.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the standard-setter in protecting the rights of the child. It has four core principles. First, non-discrimination, as set out in Article 2. Second, the best interests principle, as set out in Article 3. Third, Article 6 is dedicated to life survival and development. Fourth, the voice of the child, as reflected in Article 12. There are other core provisions of the convention of which we need to be aware. The rights of parents are important and need to be considered when legislating for the rights of children, as set out in Article 5. We have had a national debate around the needs to ensure the right to identity is reflected in our laws, as clearly reflected in Articles 7 and 8. There is also the right of children and parents to have access to each other when relationships break down, as set out in Article 9. Perhaps the most important right is the right of the child to be protected from harm, abuse, exploitation, violence and neglect which is reflected in article 19. This should be the template for legislating in this area. In approaching my report, I have attempted to reflect the principles of the convention in my recommendations.

This year for the first time I looked outside into other areas where I feel child protection concerns are beginning to emerge. As I was writing my report in 2013, two key documents were issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. General comment No. 14 gives us an insight into how to imbed the best interests principle into domestic law and expounded guidelines as to its application. This should be a template in ensuring our laws reflect not only the substance but the spirit of Article 3 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee also released General comment No. 15 which ties into Article 24 of the convention, namely the right of the child to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. This is quite interesting in terms of the current concerns articulated about obesity. The committee’s comment referenced the World Health Organization, WHO, guidelines on childhood obesity and the need to address this issue. It also contained an express reference to breastfeeding. I have highlighted the issue of breastfeeding rates in this jurisdiction as the comment states there is a direct correlation between breastfeeding and lower levels of obesity citing WHO research in this area.

I have raised the issue of direct provision every year at this committee. I welcome the recent establishment by the Minister for Justice and Equality of a working group to examine this issue. I have been asked by the chair of that working group to appear before it soon. During the week, the Department of Justice and Equality issued new figures showing there has been a decrease of 110 in the numbers in direct provision. Now, there are up to 4,280 individuals in direct provision, a third of whom are children. This should give us all pause for thought. While there are 34 centres, only three of these are purpose-built. There are large numbers of vulnerable women housed with children in the centres. The system has been criticised by virtually every international body including the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. The very issue at stake here is dignity. What we all want for our citizens is dignity. When I was writing my report, the Northern Ireland High Court considered the case of a Sudanese family which it decided not to return to the Republic on the basis our direct provision system was not consistent with the best interests principle for children.

It is my considered view the direct provision system is a disproportionate response to the need to control immigration. It is arguable it breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, an international instrument to which Ireland is a signatory, and that it does not meet the right to respect for family life, not least because children do not enjoy life in a family unit but rather in a communal setting in inadequate accommodation. We have spent an entire year on the Tuam mother and baby home issue. I congratulate the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Reilly, for his comprehensive terms of reference for the inquiry into these homes. However, we should not forget that poor practices of the present can be the scandals of the future. Taking the costs of the direct provision system on mental health, child development and family life, apart from the human cost, there will be future costs on social services that yet have to be quantified. Direct provision is an issue of which we all need to be aware. Neither should we forget our past. When the Irish travelled abroad to the UK in the past, we were critical of the manner in which we were treated. Are we happy with the way we treat those who land on our shores, sometimes in a very vulnerable state?

I also urge the committee to add the case that Ireland opt into the recast reception conditions directive of 2013, which set a baseline for conditions in these reception centres and in asylum in general.

In terms of European developments, my report highlights a number of developments and I would just cite one of those, namely, the recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. This is something of which we need to be aware and must embed in our laws.

Perhaps the key recommendation in my report this year revolves around the need to review our Child Care Act. There are more than 50 recommendations on reform of our Child Care Act. I welcome the fact the in camerarule has been relaxed. The legislation introduced is a sensible balancing act between the need to ensure the right to a fair, transparent and accountable system of justice and the need to protect privacy. As I cited in my opening statement, during 2013, three cases came before the High Court, two of which were worthy of particular note. The judgment of Mr. Justice Hogan found that the absence of the same discount in regard to remission for children in Oberstown, relative to adults, was an issue that needed to be addressed.

The second issue highlighted a gap in our child protection system. A case came before the High Court dealing with what is called "a supervision order". If we are looking at keeping children in families, we need to add to the tools in the toolkit. The High Court stated that one could not attach a condition to a supervision order. Our legislation now needs to look at providing much greater flexibility to the court. This comes into sharp focus when one looks at the two Roma cases. I was asked by the Ombudsman to advise her office on the Roma case. One of the issues to emerge from that case was that perhaps there were not enough options available to those faced with this dilemma, something I will address momentarily.

Some 20 years on, the time is ripe to look at whether our Child Care Act needs updating and it is my view that it does. If we look at how society has changed in the intervening period, we see that there is a greater number of children arriving on our shores from other jurisdictions. We have a protocol with the UK. In so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we have a very good working arrangement but that needs to be extended. We need protocols across all member states and perhaps a more robust protocol with England and Wales, given the number of children arriving from the two jurisdictions.

In terms of the emergency powers being exercised, in particular, by members of An Garda Síochána under section 12 of the Child Care Act, again, we need greater protocols and greater transparency in regard to those protocols. That was a key feature of the two Roma cases and it is one that needs to be addressed. I make a number of recommendations in the report on that issue.

An issue that has received very little public attention is the number of women arriving in Ireland in the late stages of pregnancy. What seems to happen at the moment is that applications are made to the District Court when the women are in labour, which is not a civilised way to deal with this. What I suggest is that we introduce a new order. I characterise that as an emergency care order pre-birth, so that we give the birth mother an opportunity to put her position to the District Court. The District Court can do this in a manner which gives that mother the opportunity to put her position. It is about ensuring that we keep children in families rather than taking children into care system when that is not necessary. That is a more proportionate response and it is one I would advocate.

As well as the legal issues I address in my report, there is also a need for structural reform in terms of a family court system that meets the needs of our citizens, is less adversarial and promotes alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I am conscious of the fact that this matter is in the programme for Government and that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, is currently looking at this issue. However, I think both go hand-in-hand. Legislative reform and structural reform will ensure we have a more civilised system.

I will finish on two issues, the first of which is Internet safety. Many members will have seen the "Prime Time" programme prior to Christmas which sent shivers down all our spines in terms of the real dangers posed by the Internet. The fact that it is remote and anonymous seems sometimes to take away from the impact but for children, the permanence and global reach of the Internet can have profound damaging effects. Also, there are problems in terms of bringing cases against perpetrators because it is very difficult to establish jurisdiction. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, recently published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill and that there will be an attempt to deal with this jurisdiction issue.

There are two aspects of that which I have raised before this committee consistently. The first of those is the need to criminalise child pornography. I welcome the fact that happens in this Bill. Perhaps the recommendation with which I am most associated is the need to criminalise grooming. I raised this recommendation in 2007 and I welcome the fact we are at last addressing it because it is hugely important that where child protection issues are addressed and are identified, we close those gaps as soon as possible. I welcome the fact the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, proposes to do this in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill.

There are two further international instruments which I urge the State to ratify, namely, the Lanzarote and the Budapest conventions, addressing the whole area of cybercrime. It is a new area at which we need to look. In both Canada and Victoria, the area of voyeurism has been addressed. We must have zero tolerance when it comes to the exploitation of our children on the Internet.

A final recommendation I make in my report touches on the need for legislation to deal with child protection and welfare concerns in circumstances where the subject of a forced marriage involves a child. We need legislation in this area and I suggest that this gap in our legislation is closed as soon as possible.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to present before the committee and I am happy to take any questions. We should not lose sight of the fact that the present we are constructing is the future we want. I thank the committee for its attention.