Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, will be supporting the Bill, which is welcome, and commend the Minister on the work she has done on it. What is being done is both positive and long overdue. Observations or comments I may make should not be taken as criticisms of the Bill.

I want to highlight the need for joined up thinking across Departments if the theory is to be put into practice. It is very good that the rights of children are being enshrined in the Constitution but it is also very important that the theory is matched with practice.

I refer to the Minister's contribution on Second Stage:

Constitutional change...gives us a rare opportunity to look at ourselves as a nation and ask if we are truly espousing the correct values. It gives us an opportunity to assess what we stand for. Ultimately, constitutional change allows us to consider future generations and ask what Ireland they should live in.

Without being smart, I wish to point out that research has shown that the people who suffered most from the last budget were less well-off women and children. I note the statistics that 90,000 children in Ireland live in consistent poverty and a further 200,000 are at risk of poverty.

The Central Statistics Office published a special report on homeless persons in Census 2011 on 6 September 2012 in which it reported that one in eight homeless people is a child under 14 years of age. The report recorded 457 children under 14 years out of a total of 3,800 people homeless on a single night in 2011.

The Minister in her contribution stated: "We must hope that all children will have rights, will be protected and will be treated equally." The Minister has aspirations for the future and that is good. However, one important factor in determining how the future will be is the education system. I note that the playing field is not level in the Irish education system and this has a significant impact on the end result for children. In my view, people have every right to avail of private education for their children but the Government should make an effort to create a level playing field in so far as possible. With that in mind I do not think we should be giving State help to schools that are not open to everybody. This is an aspect of the education system that needs to be dealt with. I commend the statement in the Minister's contribution: "This is a referendum for all children but, in particular, for those children most vulnerable and most at risk."

The inclusion of children of asylum-seekers is an important provision. I refer to the recent report from the Irish Refugee Council which paints a grim picture of the State system for accommodating asylum-seekers, known as direct provision. It documents frequent instances of malnutrition among children and expectant mothers as well as diet-related illnesses among babies and young children. The study highlights cases of weight loss among children and regular complaints of hunger among adults as a result of strict family rationing. There are more than 1,700 children in the asylum system and they seem to spend on average approximately four years waiting for the processing of their claims for asylum. The report's author, Samantha Arnold, pointed out that the conditions in which the children live amounted to child abuse and neglect. This is very upsetting. She added that both Fine Gael and the Labour Party committed in July 2010 to a review of the system of direct provision but to date these commitments have not been met.

I wish to raise a technical issue which is not intended as a criticism. I note an observation by Carol Coulter in The Irish Times. She refers to Article 42A.4.1 which states:

Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings - 

(i) brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or  

(ii) concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

She questioned what would happen in cases taken against the State and whether the best interests of the child would be considered. She stated that it might mean that the best interests of the child need not prevail in actions taken by Government Departments, for example, in the placing of an asylum-seeker's children in direct provision accommodation condemned as unsuitable by many NGOs or the widely criticised practice of placing children with mental health problems in adult psychiatric wards or the provision or lack of provision for the education of children with special needs.

I am not making a criticism of the Bill but rather an observation. I hope that the State puts the interest of children first in all aspects and that this will be taken into account in the next budget.

See this speech in context