Dáil debates

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

An Bille um an Aonú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Leanaí) 2012: An Dara Céim (Atógáil) - Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

12:50 pm

Photo of Séamus KirkSéamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs on bringing forward this legislation to facilitate the 31st amendment to the Constitution which proposes the insertion of a new Article 42A. As has been said, this issue of constitutionally recognising children's rights has been under consideration for some time. The Minister's predecessor had been working diligently on this for a long time. While I am not an advocate of emergency legislation or constitutional amendments, it has been quite some time since the range of issues which gave rise to this referendum, such as the institutional care of children, children in society and the adequacy of family circumstances in individual cases to cater for their needs, have been considered.

The proposed Article 42A will recognise and affirm the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child with laws enacted to protect and vindicate them. In the exceptional circumstances where the capacity of the family to cater for and avoid any level of neglect to children is a problem, the State will be in a position, as the guarantor of the common good, to step in and provide the children with foster or adoption facilities so they can move to a new family environment which will set the foundation for their well-being in the years ahead. The Minister is also bringing forward new legislation for adoption. Bringing the two forward in tandem is wise at this time.

I have no doubt this referendum will give rise to much legal debate. I hope, however, we do not get into a debate about competing rights – the rights of the family on the one hand and the rights of the individual child on the other. This legislation is essentially about providing the best possible family ambience for all children.

At this point there is no harm in deliberating on some of the underlying societal problems we have. Louth and east Meath have new urban centres sitting side by side with rural towns. From time to time, the whole gamut of social problems comes up on the radar of my constituency clinics. During the Celtic tiger era, I was always struck how some schools' boards of management set up breakfast clubs for pupils. On many occasions, I saw the benefit of these clubs at first hand in the schools. If a schoolteacher finds children coming to school hungry, there is an underlying social problem. It is not always possible for social workers to go into individual family circumstances and effect change overnight. We need to bear this in mind.

Society and societal attitudes and values have changed remarkably in this country in the past 25 or 30 years. Perhaps the problems that this legislation is focused on existed previously but because we had different societal attitudes or values they did not surface in the public domain to the extent that they are surfacing nowadays.

It is not only the extremes. Inevitably, the media and the public view will always focus on the extreme cases, no matter what the subject of debate is. The old principle that hard cases make poor law is relevant in these circumstances. Many families are in difficult socioeconomic circumstances now, more so than they would be in the normal cycle of economic well-being in the country, and they need to be considered. I imagine the proposed amendment is not regarded as a panacea to tackle these individual problems. The Legislature should consider these things. In recent times we had a crisis in funding in the health service, which is rather important for many families in the circumstances we are debating today. A decision was taken to transfer €35 million earmarked for the mental health sector to plug a hole somewhere else. That decision should be reflected on and reconsidered. There are significant mental health problems. Some are direct and some are indirect contributory factors to the problems under discussion here. There is a need to provide more resources to help tackle these problems. The mental health support programme in the Department of Health has an Achilles heel. Mental health is regarded as an area that we can provide for only if we have some money here and there. As a society we need to consider the priorities in that area and to provide the resources for it.

I hope the debate does not turn into a tug-of-war between the priorities and needs of the family on the one hand and the individual child on the other. I am sure that is not what was envisaged but it is something we need to bear in mind. There has been a change in the community support framework. No matter what the society, we have a prejudicial view that community activity only takes place in a rural environment, but the potential for it to occur in an urban environment is even more obvious provided we have good, well-motivated community leaders to make it happen.

I recall a visit to a particular school in Dundalk which focused on special needs education. The teachers were involved in service apprenticeships and youth work around the town. The school was in a area of socioeconomic deprivation. I was particularly impressed with one thing. The teacher in charge of the school went to households where children were missing from school for several days to see where they were and to ensure that their homework was done and that the work given to them by the school on that day or previous days was undertaken. We need to actively encourage family support to ensure there can be enhancement or improvements. No matter what the level of academic activity or study, it is possible with diligence and application in the family environment to effect change and improvement. Perhaps as a community we should consider where we can go into individual households and help them to reorganise. The legal empowerment to do that may be missing now but we need to consider this area. I say this as someone who has been in the House for several years.

There will be a clear and tangible benefit to us if we support families in need. Inevitably this will entail further resources being made available to us. It is a question of prioritising and anticipating the social difficulties that give rise to the problems on which this debate is focusing. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak. I support what is being proposed. I wish the Minister well and I thank her predecessors for their work in this area as well as the officials who have been dealing with the preparatory work for the referendum.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.