Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend the Chair of the committee, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, Deputies Shatter and Howlin and their respective party colleagues and the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, for the commitment to the project entrusted to us by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I wish to record my thanks to Anne-Marie Fahy, the secretary to the committee, and our legal advisers over the past number of years. I thank all who engaged with us over that period through oral presentations and written submissions. They have contributed to what is a worthwhile result and outcome.

Sinn Féin welcomes the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. The timely publication of this report presents an important opportunity to strengthen children's rights in this State. It took 62 meetings of the committee to reach a cross-party consensus on the wording of an amendment that, if passed, will enshrine children's rights in the Constitution. The representatives from each of the political parties on the committee agreed that it is time for a referendum that will give children rights as individuals, above and beyond those derived from their status as mere members of a family unit and only a family unit based on marriage as defined in the Constitution. The proposed wording in this report is an important step on the road to cherishing all children of the nation equally. It is now up to the Government to take the wording offered and hold a referendum that will afford children specific rights to care and well-being, as well as the right to be heard in matters concerning them.

The amendment should also go some way to addressing some of the legal obstacles affecting the child protection system. If an amendment such as the one contained in the report was enshrined in the Constitution, the State would have the sufficient legal power to intervene on behalf of all children at risk regardless of their parents marital status. Some of the wording in this amendment was inspired by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Sinn Féin believes should be the absolute minimum in standards for children's rights. The principles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child have been reiterated in numerous international and national treaties and it is now time the State took a rights-based approach to how children are treated in our laws and policies. Sinn Féin is calling on the Government to table legislation to hold a referendum on the issue of children's rights as a matter of urgency.

While Sinn Féin has been a long-time advocate of enshrining children's rights, we must remember that there are not only legal issues to be resolved in order to enhance the rights of children. We have recently seen the admission by a senior HSE representative that there are more than 20 reports on the deaths of children in State care awaiting publication. Despite repeated questions on these reports that I put to the HSE via the Minister for Health and Children, which went repeatedly unanswered, it took the publication of a report by another member of the joint committee, Deputy Shatter, for a representative from the HSE to acknowledge these reports existed. Information was wilfully withheld by someone in the HSE who stated that the information I was seeking was difficult to collate. I sought this information over an eight month period. There is no room for any more cover-ups on children in State care and there is no valid excuse for the delay in publishing such reports. The HSE and the Department must be answerable to elected representatives in this House and the Upper House.

If we as Members of the Oireachtas, as parents, and as people residing in this State are to entrust the care of children whose families can no longer care for them to the State, the State care regime must be accountable and fit for purpose. At the moment, the law and policy governing children's rights and child protection is not only unsatisfactory, it is archaic and verging on the disgraceful. The Minister for Health and Children and the HSE hide behind the excuse of protecting the identity of the children who died in their care. This is a sad reflection of the reality that the HSE's care for these children only began when they died. Conducting an inquiry and writing a report containing recommendations on the plethora of inadequacies throughout the State's care system is too little too late if the recommendations are never published let alone implemented. That has been the sorry state of affairs to this point.

This is not just an issue of referendums and changes in law. An amendment that does not provide for adequate increases in resources for child services will be utterly meaningless. The State is dysfunctional when it comes to children's rights. We only have to look at the Tracey Fay report for a horrifyingly graphic illustration of that. It is only now the HSE is admitting that not all children in State care have an allocated social worker. Some children that have social workers might not see them for years at a time. The Roscommon child abuse case showed us that even where social workers for children are allocated, terrible abuse and neglect will continue. Relatives who become foster carers for children are not always vetted. The HSE could not even give me a straight answer when I asked if all of its employees who worked with children are vetted.

A clause in the Constitution for children will be toothless if there is not large-scale reform of child policy. In my view, enshrining children's rights in this manner will, nevertheless, ensure that the best interests of the child will be paramount in matters concerning custody and guardianship. This will provide a valuable platform as, collectively, we of all political views and one, work towards ensuring the best interests of the child becomes paramount in all matters concerning the child, a cornerstone of the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child. This legal change will mean that social services will have the capacity to intervene where parents are married and that children's rights will be viewed, not secondary to the rights of the marital family, but rights in their own right.

Sinn Féin pressed for the insertion in the proposed wording of a commitment to have children's voices heard. This is integral to the rights of the child. Acknowledging that particular right is imperative to the wider rights of children. The Child Care Acts 1991 and 1997 permit the appointment of, at the discretion of a judge, a guardian ad litem for a child involved in court proceedings. We must look to international best practice in this area to reform the current processes. In Scotland, a guardian ad litem is automatically appointed unless there is a major reason this should not happen. Sinn Féin believes we should be aiming for the highest standards for our children. Much can be learned from the approach of other jurisdictions in this area.

It is a shame that it has taken almost two decades for us to arrive at a cross-party agreement on children's rights. Consistently, this and previous Governments have failed to acknowledge the deficiencies in child policy and law. At last, we are getting there. The rights children will be now given must be, as I have repeatedly stated in my contribution today, complemented with sufficient resources. Teenage mams and dads, themselves children, must be supported to continue, if at all possible, in education while parenting. Children with cystic fibrosis must have the right to adequate and appropriate health care. Social worker posts must be filled and resourced. Children with mental health issues must be seen and supported immediately and not forced into adult wards. Parental support mechanisms must be in place. Children at risk must be listened to before it is too late and they too become the subject of yet another internal HSE report. Crisis management cannot be the cornerstone of how children are dealt with in this State.

There needs to be joined up thinking when it comes to policies affecting children. On housing policy, for example, is geared towards purchasing homes, and those who cannot afford housing are left to the mercy of a local authority waiting list, often for as long as five or six years, depending on the local authority in which one lives. In reply to a question I put to the Minister for Health and Children, I learned that in 2007, 1,342 children were placed in care under the heading "Family Unable to cope/Family Difficulty Re Housing/Finance." Let us consider this. Some 193 families, 6%, of those reported to be having difficulties had children placed in care as a result of their having housing or finance difficulties. That is a shocking fact. It is dreadful that 1,342 children of 193 families were placed in State care because their families were experiencing housing or finance difficulties. It is unacceptable that a child may be removed from the home because of housing or finance difficulties when to do so is not in their best interest. Some 25% of all children placed in care enter this system because the State has failed to provide their family with the support they need. These children are not in care because they are being abused; they are in care because the State, we collectively, have not provided their families with adequate homes or the means to support themselves. This must be addressed. We must never again allow children to be removed from their homes under those headings.

Would the State not be better off ensuring such children remain with their families, if it is in the child's best interests do so - I emphasise, therefore, that the child's best interests must be the absolute measurement point in this regard - and provide them with an appropriate home rather than put them in care? Why is the State willing to give a foster parent an allowance of €325 per week but will not provide financial support to keep a family together when it is, in most if not all cases, in the child's best interests to do so? This is unacceptable. When a child enters the care system the State will, as we have all too sadly witnessed, fail them again unless the Government holds this referendum and provides the resources to make the new constitutional rights to children meaningful. A new approach is clearly needed. This is only one aspect of the children's rights debate.

There remains more than 76,000 children living in consistent poverty in this State, with almost 20% of all children at risk of poverty. It is claimed that there are hundreds of children, across all 26 counties, sleeping on our streets at night and that there are thousands of children residing within a care system that is not resourced to the level required to meet their needs. A substantial number of children of the 59,000 families languishing for years on end on social housing waiting lists are living in substandard accommodation that is damp, over-crowded and of general poor quality, which exacerbates the detrimental effects on a child's well-being. Children continue to go to school hungry and to go missing from HSE care. A case in this regard was outlined to the House during the course of this debate this afternoon. Sadly, some of these children are never found. That this remains the case in this State in 2010 is reason in itself to enshrine children's rights in our Constitution and to take a proactive approach to address all other weaknesses within the care and support systems.

Sinn Féin welcomes this report. We fully appreciate the importance of enshrining in the Constitution the rights of children and do not believe that making a symbolic statement within the Constitution is enough. We believe in cherishing all the children of the nation equally and for us this means all children regardless of their family background, whether their parents are married, their economic status, gender or ethnicity. This will not be achieved by the insertion of a mere statement of intent into the Constitution. We believe that all children have a right to education, a home, to play, to be healthy and to feel safe and be heard. The proposed constitutional amendment that we have collectively recommended has in my opinion the potential to affirm those rights.

I am happy to advise the House, as did Deputy Howlin on behalf of the Labour Party, that at last weekend's Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis in the RDS a motion commending the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and committing our party to proactively encourage the electorate's support for a referendum proposal along the lines recommended was unanimously adopted. I welcome that endorsement and end my contribution by urging Government to bring forward at the earliest date possible the natural outworking of our efforts, namely, a referendum proposal that will enshrine the rights of children in our Constitution.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to be discussing this important issue today.

I wish to make some comments about the statements made by previous Deputies. I agree with Deputy O'Rourke that we will never have a better opportunity to transpose into the Constitution what represents the clear consensus and political will in this House and I am ambitious that we would do that. As she said, it is not a panacea and other reforms need to take place. Deputy Shatter made reference to these other reforms and I agree with him. The shortcomings are there for all to see and that is why I consider child protection to be my priority. It is why we promulgated the implementation plan following the Ryan report and backed it up in the budget. While we are trying to reach our targets, there are still shortcomings and some individuals are falling between the cracks. We need to be honest with ourselves. There is no point in trying to be overly defensive. I have never said we have moved from a period of oppression into liberation and it is not as if that can happen by acknowledging what happened in the Ryan report. That does not happen. This is a reform that will need to take place in partnership with and with the support of Members of this House.

Regarding specific issues from previous reports, the national vetting bureau Bill has not been presented to Government yet. The heads of the Bill should be presented to Government very soon. However, the general framework is broadly agreed by the crucial Departments involved, namely, the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Education and Science, and Health and Children. It provides a very good framework. It was very important to get that agreement between the various Departments before we proceeded further. We have got over the most difficult barrier to transpose that first report of the committee into legislation. The second is the criminal justice (sexual offences) Bill, the heads of which have been presented to Government. Progress is being made on the drafting of that Bill which is to transpose the second report into legislation.

Deputy Howlin made the point about sourcing information regarding the Child Care Act and how it plays out in the District Court in particular. Valuable work similar to that was done by Carol Coulter regarding the family law courts. The work recommended by the report will give us a much better idea of how care orders are sought, the circumstances in which they are given, how they are followed up and the care plans that are reviewed by the courts. We can look at that element of child protection which is properly prevented from publication in normal circumstances. We can find the same mechanism and that is a recommendation I would very much support.

Deputy Howlin also emphasised the individual nature of the rights of children proposed in this recommendation. It is important to note that under Article 40.3 individual rights are protected in so far as they are protected for all citizens. The Constitution undertakes to vindicate, protect and guarantee those rights. Equally we need to do that specifically for children. I do not see why there should be any difference between adults and children in that respect.

Deputy Ó Caoláin raised a number of other issues and talked about the balancing of rights, which is very important. It also applies to the publication. He was talking about the publication of reports regarding child protection. There is a real consideration of the balancing of rights. It is not a screen behind which to hide reputations. It is a genuine balancing exercise that needs to be done. I hope the independent review group we announced earlier in the week together with the HIQA guidance that was announced yesterday will ensure that in future these reports are done expeditiously in such a way as will restore public confidence in our capacity to face up to the realities of failures that occur from time to time.

I acknowledge the work done by Deputy O'Rourke as Chair. I believe the other speakers articulated her great work and her ability to bring together all of us. We worked well together and enjoyed it up to a point. I also acknowledge the Vice Chairman, Deputy Noonan, who stepped into the breach from time to time. He also provided a steadying hand when we occasionally lost the run of ourselves.

Reference has been made to the time it has taken to get to this point. We are not talking of just this committee but of previous Oireachtas committees, the constitutional review group and the Kilkenny recommendations going back over almost 20 years. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in examining Ireland's first report on the implementation of the convention in 1998, stated that "Ireland's approach to the rights of the child appears to be somewhat fragmented". The committee further reiterated the need for constitutional change having outlined its concern that Ireland's "welfare practices and policies do not adequately reflect the child rights-based approach enshrined in the Convention". It recommended in favour of the accelerated enactment of the constitutional review group's recommendations.

The committee that looked into family rights between 1997 and 2002 recommended an amendment to Article 41 to include a new section on the rights of children. It was in this context that the then Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, undertook an article-by-article review of the Constitution to examine the status of children. From this emerged the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill, which, for the first time, sought to enshrine in the Constitution rights that would accrue to children as a distinct group and not simply as human beings and individuals or members of a family unit. This article, for the first time, singled out children as a discrete group possessing rights.

The Government's policy intent in pursuing an amendment to the Constitution was threefold. It sought to provide a clearer and more direct acknowledgement of the rights of children, a restatement of Article 42.5 which would, inter alia, extend the provision to all children, and a statement which would permit the adoption of marital children and children in care. It was accepted that if the amendment was to have any chance of passing in a referendum, political consensus was essential. Consequently, the 2007 programme for Government contained a commitment to "establish an all-party Committee to examine the proposed constitutional amendment with a view to deepening consensus on this matter".

I have already referred to the previous reports. In addressing the specific issue of children's rights, the committee faced a challenge to balance the rights of families, children, marital and non-marital parents. This delicate balancing act took place against the background of the debate over whether barriers to State intervention in support of children should be altered. The new provision begins with a restatement of the oft quoted phrase from the 1916 Proclamation that we should "cherish all the children of the nation equally". Ironically, the signatories to the Proclamation were not referring to "children" as we understand the term but to the need to recognise and be tolerant of minorities - religious and political.

The newly proposed Article 42.1.2 ° clearly states that the State has a duty to vindicate the rights of children and affirms that children enjoy human rights that the State is obliged to uphold. The provision reads:

The State recognises and acknowledges the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children including their right to have their welfare regarded as a primary consideration and shall, as far as practicable, protect and vindicate those rights.

Reflecting wording included in section 3 of the Guardian of Infants Act 1964, the newly proposed article incorporates the right of children to have their welfare regarded as a primary consideration. It has been said that the requirement to take a child-centred approach to such issues is strengthened by this article, which requires that the welfare and best interest of the child must be the first and paramount consideration in areas concerned with family law decision making, such as guardianship, adoption, custody, care or the upbringing of a child.

One of those who commentated on the publication of the report, Dr Ursula Kilkelly, has stated that when these two provisions are taken together they will ensure that "decisions affecting children are focused, first and foremost, on their rights and interests. This mandates a genuinely child focused approach to the treatment of children by all organs of the State".

Article 42.2 steers a new course by proposing to require the State to recognise and vindicate the rights of all children as individuals. Under the terms of the proposed wording, children accrue rights as individuals independent of adults. Some experts who made presentations to the committee advocated a full incorporation into the Constitution of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. The committee took the approach that it did not want to recommend inserting in the Constitution provisions that the State was not in a position to guarantee.

Where criticisms of the report have been aired, attention has been drawn to the newly proposed Article 42.4. Some have suggested that any reduction in the threshold that allows for State intervention in the family should be resisted. This is construed as an attack on the integrity of the family - that in some way by giving rights to children they are being taken away from the family. This was not the intention of the 2007 Bill nor is it the intention of the current proposal. The newly proposed Article 42.4 sets a new threshold, based on proportionality. It is not a case of granting the State extra powers enabling social workers to wade into a family and remove the child or children. Dr. Geoffrey Shannon stated last week that the wording contained in the proposal makes clear that removal of the child from the family is a last resort and by providing for early intervention the likelihood of the child being taken into care is significantly reduced.

The time available to me is very short. The rest of my prepared speech is available for Members. Members will also want to know when we will proceed with this proposal. It took two years for the committee to put together its recommendations. It is now up to the Departments to look at the committee's recommendations. I am determined that we will bring it to Government at the earliest possible opportunity and that the Attorney General will give his view. We may have to discuss that matter further. I look forward to any further discussions about the wording and how we can ensure we get full Government support because it is a very significant achievement to get political support on this issue. It is not easy to do that at the best of times but the motivation behind the committee was to focus on the best interests of children. I thank all of the committee members for their co-operation on this crucial matter.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not a member of this committee but I compliment its Chairman, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, and the members of the committee on their important work.

Campaigners for children's rights in this country have long sought a constitutional amendment to protect children. My colleague, Deputy Shatter, has been lobbying for such an amendment since the 1970s. Those campaigners have been subject to a number of unsavoury accusations over the years, mostly suggesting that giving children rights would somehow damage the family or would not be in the best interests of families. The theory appeared to be that children's rights constituted a zero-sum game - the family had to lose if the children were to win. That can only be true in circumstances where the parent abuses the child, for example, where children are beaten, sexually abused, raped or bullied. In those circumstances it would be abhorrent to seek to trap a child within the family when they clearly need to be removed for their own protection. Families within which a child is abused do not deserve the protection of the State or the law.

Until very recently we had not accepted the need to protect children in the manner in which it is now proposed. For example, social workers were traditionally painted as Orwellian figures intent on snatching children from the hands of loving families. They were figures to be feared and were viewed as people in society who were in some way distrusted. That must be the reason there is so little outcry at the dire shortage of social workers in the State and the extremely restrictive hours they work. Generally, we hear about these issues in the context of systems failures. The question is asked: where was the social worker? Why was the social worker not present? Why was the social worker not informed? I would prefer to ask the question: why does the Government believe social workers are only required during office hours? Why are social workers regarded as not being needed at weekends? Similarly, foster families were not given the credit they deserved. For some reason there appears to be very little effort to encourage foster care in the State.

In the past 18 months I have asked parliamentary questions about specific care plans for foster children. The figures I received clearly show that in areas such as Dún Laoghaire, Dublin south east, Dublin south city and Dublin west, the Health Service Executive currently has care plans for less than 50% of children. Undoubtedly, there should be care plans for all children in care. Foster children are often in a vulnerable position and need that basic right.

Regarding the court orders granted to facilitate children entering care, where a court order fails to specify visiting arrangements regarding supervised access by parents, those in loco parentis or other parties the HSE tends to allow access in an almost ad hoc way which is often detrimental to the child's interests and a cause of great distress for them.

I regret the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, has left the Chamber but I will have another opportunity to inform him that we should be careful about the way section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991 is applied, which deals with the manner in which court orders are granted. The interpretation of such court orders by the HSE often works in a way that is detrimental to the child and that is not specifically intended when the case is initially heard before the sitting judge. The manner in which these orders are interpreted, or the manner in which silence with regard to a specific aspect of care is interpreted by the HSE, can cause some distress for those in loco parentis.

I am aware of a case where a child would begin bed-wetting when a parental access visit was upcoming, such was the distress caused by such visits. The mother would constantly threaten to take her away from the safe and loving foster home in which she resided. The mother threatened to come to the child's school to embarrass her and to appear at her First Holy Communion to spoil her day. The visits were harrowing for the child who was a vulnerable victim of psychological abuse arising out of inept and abusive parenting, yet those visits were allowed because the law is currently balanced in favour of the parent, often to the detriment of the child.

The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children has done major work on this issue in the past three years. I commend the members for their role in what is undoubtedly an historic political development. I specifically compliment the enthusiasm and tenacity of the former Minister, Deputy Mary O'Rourke.

Since 2007 the committee has met on 62 occasions in 15 public sessions and 47 private sessions. It published two interim reports as well as a lengthy, well-researched final report. My colleague, Deputy Shatter, using his vast expertise as a family lawyer and his sincere personal commitment to protecting children's rights, has played an important role in the committee and has represented our party extremely well.

The amendment proposed by the committee is clearly imbued with an ethos of child welfare. It strikes an appropriate balance between child welfare on the one hand and parental rights on the other. In respect of parents, it refers to both rights and responsibilities, for example, the right and responsibility of parents to provide according to their means for the physical, emotional, intellectual, religious, moral and social education and welfare of their children.

The suggested amendment also provides that where the parents of any child fail in their responsibility towards the child the State, as guardian of the common good, shall, by proportionate means, as shall be regulated by law, endeavour to supply or supplement the place of the parents, regardless of their marital status.

Should this amendment be passed, and I sincerely hope it will be at the earliest opportunity, I expect the State will honour its new constitutional responsibilities by providing adequate resources to ensure that children's rights are protected, that social workers are available around the clock and that children in the State's care are placed in secure foster homes, where possible, and not dumped casually in hostels or bed and breakfast accommodation.

In recent times we have encountered a catalogue of horrors when it comes to child abuse. The first scandal to emerge concerned the church. It emerged that children in industrial institutions and in residential care had been abused by some clergy for decades. The State has faced up to some of its responsibilities in this context by establishing a compensation fund for some of those victims, yet it continues to dodge its responsibilities when it comes to educational settings. The Murphy report revealed a litany of abuse in educational settings, including in my own constituency. I have repeatedly referred in this House to abuse in primary schools. Although the State continues to be the paymaster of teachers and those who have been shown by the courts to have abused young children in care, it washes its hands of responsibility, sheltering under a legal loophole that allows it to blame the shallow-pocketed boards of management rather than acknowledge its own culpability.

If we are truly to protect and cherish children's rights, the legal position that allows the State to pick and choose what it takes responsibility for in educational contexts must be closed.

I wish to refer to the closing comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, who acknowledged the report and its all-party content. We now await the date or the machinery to facilitate the referendum. As a Member of the House, I and others would be most disappointed if the momentum which has now been gathered on the publication of the committee's report is lost. The momentum must give rise to a situation whereby the referendum Bill is introduced at the earliest opportunity. We should hold the constitutional referendum in the summer, at the earliest. It should take place by September or October at the latest. A commitment must be forthcoming from the Government, which I ask for at the end of this debate, on when this important constitutional referendum will be held.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I am delighted to acknowledge the presence of my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke. I deliberately sat on the benches which she controls on our behalf. She looked very well on the front bench. I am not being patronising. I have known the Deputy for a long time and she has always taken a particular interest in this area. I share a constituency with a close relation of hers, which has not affected out relationship, which tells one a lot about the Deputy. In my early days as a community worker and politician she always showed an interest in what I was doing, in particular during her term as Minister for Education. It is relevant to make those comments because the debate is about children.

I have often said I came from a generation, as did others in the House, where life in school was much more difficult than it is nowadays. I went to Synge Street and Drimnagh Castle at a time when children were disciplined in a particular way. I remember a famous broadcaster, whom I will not name in case I get into trouble, said he left a particular school early because he perceived the regime as being brutal. I can look back on my school days. I went to the nuns in Clarendon Street, the Loretto Convent on the Crumlin Road, Synge Street and Drimnagh Castle. I look back on my school days in a positive way and have nothing to be upset about.

I came from a generation which, as one went around the streets, one always heard people saying that if a child did something wrong he or she would end up in some terrible institution. We now know that the gossip on the street among very young children was a reality. The Murphy report was mentioned; I have read recent reports. The situation was horrific. During my time as a politician, like everybody in the House, I have experienced people who come to clinics and advice centres, and whom I meet in my constituency. They come to us with all sorts of stories, issues and problems. I am based in Tallaght and there are many things happening in my constituency which upset me deeply.

People came to me who were victims of abuse and wanted to tell their story. I told them I was no expert and that I am a back bench Deputy. As all Members of the House will know, the people who were badly hurt just want to talk to somebody. They trust people. I am not being virtuous, but in any work I did with a number of people I tried to help them in a positive way. Some of the stories were very upsetting. On the report, it is important that we understand we cannot return to the same place. People in the House have different political perspectives and views on this issue, but I applaud the publication of this report. I complement all my colleagues. Deputy O'Rourke is on record as complimenting all of her committee colleagues on the manner in which the report emerged. There may have been some dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but it is important that the report has been published, and we should do something about it.

On a day in which the business of the Dáil has been dominated by other issues which upset people, it is important to discuss this issue. I will have other opportunities to discuss Tallaght hospital. I wish to refer to the meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, of which Deputy Gogarty is Chairman, which was held today. An all-party approach was taken in the discussions with representatives from the NCSE regarding the proposed cuts in the numbers of special needs assistants in various schools. A number of schools were highlighted and gave evidence, included St. Joseph's Special School in Tallaght. It is relevant to discuss it in a debate on the rights on children and the importance of children in our lives.

I watched the committee meeting today and compliment my party colleague, Deputy Flynn, and my constituency colleague, Deputy Hayes, and other colleagues who made strong points on this issue. It is about protecting children and the rights of children. I hope these issues continue to get attention. Like everybody else, I try to bring my life experiences to politics. Like other Members of the House, I have had children and am now a grandfather. I am not being virtuous or patronising. It is important to try to understand that people are upset about the report which was released and the manner in which it was dealt with. One hears different views on the content of the Murphy report, how it affected people and the response of the Church.

Tallaght was in the eye of that storm because the Tallaght-based bishop, Dr. Eamon Walsh, offered his resignation to the Pope. It is an issue which is of concern to people. We are in a time when, politically, there are many issues to be addressed. This week there are many pertinent issues in my constituency to be addressed, but the rights and protection of children must be uppermost in everyone's mind. It is important to do that. I hope the Government is examining carefully the report of the committee of which Deputy O'Rourke was Chairman.

Colleagues have different political perspectives. I have listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, speaking a number of times on these issues. He was in my constituency last Tuesday to launch an initiative with South Dublin County Council and the HSE on the protection of young people who, for one reason or another, might find themselves homeless. It is important that we support them. I am glad Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, and Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, are in the House. I hope they convey my regard for the job the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, is doing. It is important that the public have confidence in the system and be comfortable about what is being suggested.

When the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was established by both Houses of the Oireachtas in November 2007, Deputy O'Rourke was appointed as its Chairman. I understand due to the complexity and sensitivity of the work of the committee, it had to extend the time-frame for its work on a number of occasions. I understand it met on 62 different occasions. I know from community groups that the committee sought submissions from interested bodies and members of the public, and advertised publically for such submissions.

I was told by Deputy O'Rourke that 175 written submissions were received, which dealt with some or all of the issues which arose from within the remit of the committee. In September 2008 it presented its first interim report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the proposal to give legal authority for the collection and exchange of information concerning risk or the occurrences of endangerment, sexual exploitation or the sexual abuse of children. Work in this regard was ongoing.

The opportunity to make a brief contribution on these statements is welcome. I have listened to many of the comments of my colleagues. It is important that Dáil business be ordered such that these matters can be discussed. I hope the all-party approach evident in regard to this business continues. I congratulate all members of the committee under the chairmanship of Deputy O'Rourke and wish them well. I expect that they will want to see progress in this matter. They have my strong support in that regard.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to raise an issue I raised last night concerning the case of a young 16 year old Chinese girl who came to Cork on 22 January on a flight from Barcelona. She had false documentation and the Garda and immigration officers at the airport correctly stopped her and put her into HSE care. She spent her first two nights, which were over a weekend, in what has been described as emergency foster care in Carrigaline, County Cork. A social worker with the HSE and the children's services were supervising and supporting her over that weekend. She was then removed to what are referred to as "supported lodgings" in Carrigaline for 25 and 26 January and then she disappeared. This is the most recent case of a child disappearing while in the care of the State and the first time this has happened to a foreign national in my constituency or Cork city.

I examined this particular case and asked how it could be allowed to happen, the lessons that could be learned and what is being done to find the girl. I looked at websites such as www.missingkids.com. One should consider the number of young Chinese girls who have gone missing. The Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, acknowledged this problem last night. Seven girls, who were 16 or 17 when they came to Ireland, have gone missing from their accommodation, mostly in Dublin. The case of Ms Li Chen, which occurred in Cork, is the most recent. On 25 December 2009, a 17 year old girl, again from China, went missing from her accommodation in the Dublin area. A 17 year old girl, now 18, went missing from her accommodation in Dublin 6 on 20 August 2009. A girl, again a Chinese national, went missing from her accommodation in Dublin 7 on 20 June 2009. A 16 year old Chinese national, now aged 17, went missing from her accommodation in north Dublin city on 7 June 2009. On 18 April 2009, a 17 year old from China went missing from her accommodation in the Dublin 7 area. On 13 March 2009, Ms Ai Jiao, a 16 year old girl, now 17, left her accommodation at 6 p.m. and never returned.

I have serious concerns about the support structures and procedures in place for taking into care unaccompanied minors, or children, who come to Ireland, illegally or legally. So many 15 year olds, 16 year olds and 17 year olds, and younger children, have gone missing while in the care of the state, and not just in the past 12 months. From the figures I received last night, I understand 47 minors disappeared from State care last year. Only 13 of these have been located since.

Irrespective of whether a missing child is a 16 year old from China or a 16 year old from Cork or Roscommon, that we can stand over his or her literally disappearing into what is potentially an underworld, be it the sex industry or a kitchen or restaurant for the purpose of work, is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that the State and the agencies operating under the control of the Government which are responsible for children cannot put procedures in place that are more effective than those in place at present.

I spent quite some time yesterday talking to the HSE about the Li Chen case. It was open regarding all the procedures that were put in place and maintains it met the standards expected of it on the basis of the protocols and procedures that are in place. If this is the case, the procedures need to be reviewed. We need to learn lessons from what has happened and, most important, ensure everything is being done to locate the children.

In the Li Chen case, the Garda applied all the standard protocols that apply when children go missing and has done all that can be expected of it. However, that is not really the issue; the issue is that we do not know what has happened to dozens of missing children. They may have been exploited, advantage may have been taken of them or perhaps they have simply run away. That we do not know is not acceptable.

There would be a political outcry if we could not answer hard questions as to what happened an Irish child who went missing. How someone can simply vanish from State care on the main street of Carrigaline when she does not speak English, has no money and no official identity documents is simply beyond me. This is not a question of blaming anybody but about trying to establish what happened and learn lessons from it. It is a matter of putting new procedures in place to ensure it will not recur and, most important, doing everything we physically can to establish the location of the children. Many of them are now 18 because they came to Ireland at the age of 16 or 17 but that is not the point. The point is that they may well be in the basement of a brothel or have been trafficked to another destination.

I do not want to exaggerate for effect but really believe the Government must take this issue very seriously. We need to examine how we protect, support and defend the interests of children that enter this State, as well as our own children, in a way that is consistent and far more effective than that evident at present.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members for their contributions to this constructive and well informed debate. It is a timely discussion given the many issues that have arisen in the past two weeks in respect of children and their care. I thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, and the other committee members for the hard work and expertise they have brought to bear in the past two years in the preparation of this report and the previous two reports. As other speakers said, Deputy O'Rourke has brought great skill and compassion to this task, as is evident in the final report.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the initial response of the House to the third and final report. The two interim reports, on soft information and absolute and strict liability, respectively, made recommendations in regard to legislative solutions to those issues. Both the Office of the Minister for Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are in the process of bringing forward legislation in respect of the first two reports. In regard to the third and final report of the committee, this House and the Seanad have indicated that time will be required for a full consideration of the family law issues raised in the proposed amendment, namely, the rights of children; intervention of the State on a proportionate basis where the parents have failed in their responsibility towards children; involuntary and voluntary adoption of children; and children's interests to be paramount not just in judicial proceedings but in "the resolution of all disputes", including determination of the broad issues of "care" and "upbringing".

The committee considered that the current constitutional framework creates, in certain cases, a difference in treatment between children of marital and non-marital families. The committee was also concerned that where parents were found to be experiencing difficulties in regard to the care and upbringing of their children that there should be proportionate intervention by way of assistance and support. The committee is of the view that it is only in cases where there is a genuine threat to a child's safety or welfare that the courts or the State should be entitled to intervene and that such intervention should be proportionate.

The committee considers that there should be specific rights attributed to children in the Constitution, including the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their safety and welfare, the right to an education and the right to have their voice heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting them, having regard to their maturity. With regard to adoption, the committee took the view that the proposals set out in the Bill currently before the Oireachtas are helpful. However, it voiced its concern that children who are currently in long-term foster care may be precluded from adoption by their foster family where it would be in their best interest to be adopted.

The Minister for Health and Children presented a copy of the committee's third report to the Cabinet last week. Ministers were asked to consider the content of the report and to revert with opinions and comments on the various recommendations. The Taoiseach has outlined to the Dáil that the Attorney General will be asked to examine the constitutional ramifications arising from the proposals contained in the report. There have been calls to commit immediately to a timeframe for a referendum. We must bear in mind that the committee took more than two years to get to its current position, after much discussion, debate and consideration of submissions from interested parties. It has taken time to get to where we are and we should not now rush into a referendum without considering the various issues that have been drawn to our attention. As such, the Government intends to proceed cautiously in considering the full import of the proposal before committing to any timeframe.

Further work is required before this referendum is ready to be presented to the electorate. Elements of the proposal, for example, those related to adoption, require legislation to be drafted prior to the holding of a plebiscite. Other aspects of the proposed wording may or may not require draft legislation, depending on the advice of the Attorney General. It is the Government's intention to ensure that clear and intelligible information is provided to the public in any referendum campaign. All of us in this House have learned from past mistakes in terms of the conduct of certain referendum campaigns. These are complex issues and it is important that the public has as much information as possible. The House might give some time and reflection to considering how the referendum campaign can be promoted and support won for the proposal. We are all aware from experience that certain issues need to be teased out comprehensively if we are to be confident that the electorate will accept a proposal put forward by the Government and the Oireachtas. All of these elements of the staging of a referendum will require time and planning. The Oireachtas carries a significant responsibility in seeking to ensure that children are properly valued and protected in our society.

Deputy Coveney referred to the number of young Chinese girls who have gone missing in the State. The Minister is aware of the situation and has received a report in this regard from the Health Service Executive. The Garda National Immigration Bureau is investigating the case of Ms Li Chen as part of a broader review of the issue. An Adjournment debate on this matter took place last night during which reference was made to the specific issue of Chinese people entering the State. The age of these girls is not certain but will be investigated in the context of the investigation by the Garda National Immigration Bureau. I assure Deputy Coveney that this matter is being actively pursued.

As I said, we have had a constructive and timely debate on this issue. I thank the committee once again for its tremendous work in preparing its third report. There is a requirement for debate in the broader public domain in order to explain the complex issues and to advance this agenda. I am pleased to conclude the debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews.