Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

Historically, with the industrial schools and the Magdalene laundries, but recently as well in terms of the children who died in State care and so on, we have ground to make up. I welcome this measure in the context that at the very least it gives us an opportunity to discuss some of these issues and put centre stage the way we defend children's rights and how we identify those rights.

The provision and the constitutional amendment is aspirational, which is a good thing. As a socialist I would generally be aspirational but the disconnect here is the major gap between establishing in theory the rights of children and the reality on the ground in terms of how we can achieve what the Government said is its objective of protecting and vindicating the rights of children against a backdrop of increased economic austerity. That is the challenge.

One would think we would all agree that basic rights such as the right to food, health care, education and so on would be guaranteed to all children and citizens but even during the boom that was not the case. Traveller children, asylum seeker children and others were left behind and in the new economic climate, with increased costs on families and a decrease in the family budget, it is clear that meeting the basic needs of children is becoming problematic for tens of thousands of families. The Central Statistics Office stated that an average family needs €810 a week to provide adequately for its needs. Clearly, most families in the State are well short of that.

The idea of a secure, happy family home is being threatened by mortgage arrears and in the way the Government is implementing changes in rent allowance, with almost 100,000 people in receipt of rent allowance, many of whom are being forced to move out of the areas they have lived in because of the Government cutbacks. Their children, some of whose parents campaigned to get them into special schools in the area, have to uproot and leave. That is not to mention all the cuts to family income support and so on.

It is unquestionable that this economic austerity is giving rise to serious mental health problems, depression and so on, linked to financial anxiety in many homes. Aware reported a 29% increase in calls to its hotline and it linked that increase directly to the debt burden. It is a constant struggle for many parents to maintain a happy home, and those who face decades of debt or the potential of eviction have a serious problem in trying to provide security for their children. Unless we address those issues this is a lop-sided debate.

That is particularly apparent when we examine the issue of education. The irony is that one of the few child-centred clauses in our Constitution is the right to free primary education but the dogs on the streets know that it is not free, and many children are not accessing it properly because of economic austerity. Education and school books costs are rising, and there is extra pressure on families. I do not have time to develop those points but it is ironic that that right is in the Constitution but in reality it is not.

Similarly, that is the case with the clauses whereby any school which gets public money should not have a religious ethos or expose children to indoctrination yet children do not have a right to be excluded from religious instruction as a normal part of the day.

This week, sadly, the issue of bullying in schools has been centre stage and the rights of children in that environment must be addressed. Huge bodies of work have been done on that but unless we address these issues we are only paying lip service in terms of the idea of protecting children's rights in an increasingly unequal society.

That might be the reason RTE and the media are not picking up on this as much as they should. Perhaps people believe that while it is important, and I am not underestimating that it is a step forward, they wonder how much will be achieved by it.

Much has been made about the way this legislation will impact on vulnerable children. The objective is to place the protection of children at the centre of decision making, which is welcome. There is much talk about early intervention, which would be welcome, but we are being presented here with another of those gaps between reality and aspiration.

Early intervention means the appointment of further social workers and gardaí and increased welfare provision to assist those who are struggling. One can dress it up any way one likes in referring to rationalisation and improved working methods, but the reality is that early intervention means more staff working hours and the adoption of a skilful approach by well trained individuals. Those who are inexperienced or overworked make mistakes and can cause damage in their interventions. Budget cuts have led to increased class sizes. How can teachers try to identify vulnerable children when class sizes in Ireland are the second largest in Europe? Last week the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, warned that class sizes were going to increase even further. In view of the fact that there is going to be a shortage of 3,000 teachers in the coming years and in the light of the cutbacks in SNA numbers, how can those on the front line in the education system be expected to identify vulnerable children? The Garda Síochána is already stretched from the point of view of resources and approximately 40 rural Garda stations have closed. How can the force be expected to maintain a watching brief when its budget has been cut by 8%?

The issue which lies at the heart of this matter relates to social workers. This is a matter in which a huge intervention is required. I understand that approximately 30 social workers qualify each year from the HSE-Trinity College social work degree programme. This is the only programme from which one can move directly to join the HSE's social work panel. Last year, however, that panel was suspended and people did not have an opportunity to go on it. The quotas are not being filled and the embargo on recruitment to the public sector means social workers are becoming increasingly stretched. These individuals are doing a great deal more of their work by e-mail and engaging in a lot less direct contact. Against this backdrop, how can children be protected? This is a contradiction, in respect of which the Government has not provide a response.

There is a concern that the increased economic desperation and deprivation being experienced and the inability of some parents to cope could result in their having their children taken from them. If better and enhanced supports were provided, it would lead to happier resolutions within the families to which I refer. I am assured by those with whom I have raised this matter that the use of the term "proportionate" is sufficient in guarding against people losing their children. I am sure we all hope that this will be the case. This is, however, a point which must be borne in mind.

There has been a great deal of discussion about increasing adoption rights and giving children the opportunity to avail of a second chance in a loving home. Obviously, the latter is something of which we would all be in favour, but we must be extremely careful in this regard. The history of adoption in Ireland is not good. There are tens of thousands of undocumented adoptees who have been robbed of their identities because of the way in which the State dealt with adoption in the past. I am aware that many of the people in question are concerned that the legislation on adoption which goes hand in hand with the referendum does not deal with issues relating to them. The legislation to which I refer focuses to a large degree on the adoption in the future of vulnerable children currently in care. That is fine. However, there is an urgent need to put in place a system to protect the relevant documents and files required for tracing families, etc. The most basic right a person has is that which relates to possessing the facts relating to his or her own identity. There is a need to place this matter centre stage. The possibility of a child who has lived in foster care for more than three years and resided with a particular family for 18 months being adopted has the potential to be good and I welcome this development. However, we must ensure the child's view will be central to this. I am glad that this aspect is being respected and emphasised.

Very few people are going to oppose the referendum. The really good aspect of the referendum is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss and highlight some of the complexities relating to the issues to which I refer. However, we need to do a great deal more to really vindicate children's rights. This will involve standing a large amount of Government policy in other areas on its head. I refer, in particular, to policy relating to economic areas. When the budget comes around, we will be calling on the Government to put its money where its aspirations lie. If it does not do so, the State will fail children yet again.

See this speech in context