John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is much that is good about this long overdue proposed amendment to the Constitution. I have always believed the absence of specific rights for children has weakened the law for far too long. I applaud the proposed rebalancing of parental and children's rights in order to ensure the problems of children in seriously dysfunctional families can be addressed and that the marital status of parents cannot be an obstacle in this regard. No child should be obliged to remain in a family which is dangerous, abusive and neglectful. The State must be able to intervene to protect such children from harm. However, I would prefer if the circumstances in which a child can be taken from his or her parents were more clearly defined. From my reading of it, the constitutional amendment does not appear to outline the position adequately in this regard. I am aware that a number of amendments on this matter have been tabled and perhaps the Government might give them consideration.

No one needs to be reminded of the horrors inflicted on generations of vulnerable children. I hope the legislation will do all that is necessary to prevent a recurrence of these horrors. Overall, the proposed constitutional amendment will help to protect children, which is an important point. I understand it will also enable the State to provide better support for vulnerable parents in circumstances where they are struggling to care for their children. Hence, we will be able to provide services to ensure fewer families reach crisis points which place children at considerable risk of harm. However, the proposed amendment is a half measure, particularly in view of the fact that the Government is continuing to cut supports for disadvantaged and vulnerable families and children. I need not remind the Government that in 1992 Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and pledged to make children's rights a reality and ensure every child would have the right to experience a childhood free of poverty and deprivation. There is nothing in the wording contained in the legislation which will hold the State to this promise. In the absence of real and practical action, the forthcoming referendum will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture to the many thousands of children at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Do the 10% of Irish children who live in consistent poverty not also deserve a modicum of justice?

Last week cuts to counselling services in schools were highlighted in the wake of an attempted suicide by a student at a second level school in Wexford. Teachers will affirm that children's lives are at stake as a result of the crisis affecting counselling services. No constitutional amendment is going to ameliorate the position in this regard. These are not good times for children who are reaching adult age. The Bill will be meaningless for the 75% of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years whose futures are uncertain as a result of the fact that they are out of work.

It is highly commendable that the Government is to strive to refocus the child protection system and increase the obligation of the State to support families. The State has always had a moral obligation to support families. Any move to place this on a sound legal footing is to be applauded. In the absence of adequate investment in child supports, however, this will prove to be just another exercise in bureaucracy. I regularly come across child welfare cases in my constituency and have written to various Ministers about instances where there is no dedicated social worker available and a care plan is non-existent. Despite promises to the effect that there would be a nationwide system, out-of-hours social work services are still provided on a very ad hoc basis. Aftercare services are, on the whole, inconsistent and erratic. I have spoken to many social workers who have acknowledged this. They may not comment publicly, but they will make their views known to politicians.

The rights the constitutional amendment will afford to children such as the right to an education are all very well, but how will they impact on, for example, parents who are fighting their way through the system to obtain the services of an SNA for their autistic children? The amendment has the potential to do a great deal of good and I will be supporting it for that reason. However, the Government is presenting a very naive view if it attempts to suggest acceptance of the amendment will mean children will no longer be at risk or disadvantaged. The only way to protect children is by investing money and resources in the relevant services. To truly look after the welfare of children, we need to find the political will to put in place a multifaceted, joined-up approach.

See this speech in context