Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We all recognise there has been an appalling historical failure by the State to cherish all of the children equally in this country There has been an appalling record of abuse both in religious and State institutions. We had a detailed debate last night about Magdalene laundries and we are aware that children in industrial schools and other institutions were systematically abused and practically enslaved.

We must put what this amendment can do into that context to see what it can bring to our society.

There is an important aspect here: the voice of the child. Both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights give a high priority to this voice and place children's rights at the heart of legislation. There is a difference between the proposed amendment as currently worded and the wording that was recommended by the Oireachtas committee, which called for the right for the child's voice to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child. This amendment, in the text proposed by the Minister, appears to take a narrower approach. Article 42A.4.2° mentions the right for the child's voice to be heard in proceedings brought by the State. Will the Minister clarify this? If, for example, a child is in foster care and one of his or her parents, believing there are indications of either physical or mental danger, brings the foster parents to court, will the child have a voice in a case taken against the State? I would like clarification of this because it is an important point. I support the amendment but seek clarification in this regard. I realise the Minister has tried to achieve a wording that is as robust as possible, and I would like to hear her opinion on this.

There is general support for the proposed constitutional amendment. It brings necessary clarification to a number of issues relating to children's rights, particularly in the area of adoption and in its removal of discrimination between children born within and without marriage. The use of the word "shall" gives robustness to the amendment, which is important. However, even if the amendment is passed, there are and will be real questions regarding equality for all children. There is a contradiction between these aspirations and lofty aims and the reality, which consists of brutal cuts to social spending and programmes aimed at lessening disadvantage. I will highlight one aspect of this to show a glaring contradiction between what is stated in the Constitution and the reality on the ground. There is a constitutional right to free primary education, but things are certainly different on the ground. A survey by Barnardos in 2012 stated that, on average, the cost of sending a child to primary school was €355. This is mainly for books and uniforms and does not take into account the cost of school transport, trips and so-called voluntary contributions. The cost of sending a first-year pupil to secondary school, which under the Constitution is also supposed to be free, is €770. The simple fact is that the education system in Ireland favours and maintains privilege and is weighted against working-class and Traveller children and children with disabilities. Some 25% of school-leavers with few or no qualifications are from unskilled or manual-worker working-class families. These children are three to four times more likely to be unemployed and have poorer health or mental health issues.

According to the OECD, Ireland is bottom of the league in education investment, taking into account economic wealth. The early years programme is completely underfunded. The key point is that the policies of this and previous Governments and the troika have increased and will continue to increase poverty. It is now estimated that 200,000 children are living in poverty, an increase of 30,000 in the past two years. One in five households with children are experiencing poverty and one in four children between the ages of 12 and 17 years are either at risk of poverty or are living in poverty. That is based on a CSO study on child poverty from September 2012.

Every day I witness - I am sure I am not the only Deputy or public representative to do so - the isolation many families experience in regard to access to education, housing and help. For example, I recently met a woman whose child had behavioural disorders. She could not access a child psychologist and we ended up having to get an adult psychologist to assist the child. Women speak of cuts made to their rent allowance and the fact that they cannot afford to go into private accommodation because landlords still charge high rents, leaving them unable to make up the difference. There are people living in local authority housing in Dublin where damp conditions are so bad that moss is growing on the walls. According to Dublin City Council, this means there is a need for more ventilation. I was in one house which had so many vents that if one more were put in the house would have fallen down. This is what people are experiencing because of cuts in local authority budgets. Dublin City Council is not willing to insulate homes for that reason.

There are many issues facing ordinary people and their children because of cuts, and further cuts are coming down the road. We are now facing a budget for next year in which the Government proposes to introduce a property tax. This will hit poorer families most severely. There will be more than €2 billion in cuts which, again, will hit the most vulnerable and poorest families. The result of the austerity programmes is that the gap between rich and poor is at its highest in 20 years and is still widening. The bottom 10% have experienced cuts of 18% while the top 10%, which has 14 times more disposable income, have experienced of a rise of 4%. Let us put what we want into the Constitution, but this Government is directly responsible for the great level of inequality in our society and this is not being addressed.

I offer some points on children in care, particularly with regard to the lack of after-care services for those aged over 18. In 2010 only €1 million was allocated for after-care services. The number of after-care workers to cater for the needs of the children in question is entirely insufficient. The services are patchy and underfunded. The Child Care Act 1991 raises another matter we would like to see robustly dealt with in the Constitution, given what is happening on the ground. That Act states that the HSE "may" provide after-care services for those aged up to 21 years. In the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2011 the Government refused to change the word "may" to "shall", which would have given these young people a statutory right to after-care services. In spite of promises there are still no out-of-hours multidisciplinary services to meet the needs of these often troubled teenagers.

I support the good work that has been done to bring about the children's rights amendment, but there are so many things for which the Government is responsible. I will support the amendment but will hold the Government, the troika, the banks and Europe to account for any measures in the coming budget that will have an impact on children and their economic, health, education and home requirements. The right to have a roof over one's head is paramount and must be part and parcel of rights for children.

See this speech in context