Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

While I am in favour of choice in education, including multi-denominational education, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is much de facto multi-denominationalism. My nephew and nieces have been educated without exception in Catholic schools, yet they are still members of the Church of Ireland. I am a member of a board of management of a school which is under Church of Ireland management but which has a 70% Catholic intake. Therefore, I do not think one should paint the system in the South as more rigid than elsewhere. It may have been that way 30 or 40 years ago, but that is not the case today.

I do not normally speak in these debates because it is not possible to follow every policy field with close attention. However, I warmly congratulate the Minister of State with responsibility for children on the pioneering work he has been doing. Tackling child poverty and disadvantage through the health, education and social welfare systems is obviously a high priority. There has been tremendous growth in excellent child care facilities in villages, towns and cities all over the country, and I am sure the good work will be continued. Consideration should be given to the problems of obesity and higher priority accorded to providing sports halls and facilities in schools, particularly at primary level. Referring to a previous debating point, it is good that corporal punishment should be discouraged, even in the home. Whether it is practical to penalise it, except in clearly defined and extreme circumstances, is another matter.

I welcome the idea of a constitutional amendment, although, having being involved in some others, I do not underestimate the complex task of finding the right formulation. However, it is right that children should be recognised as autonomous human beings rather than simply being subsumed into the family. When the Constitution was written, people across the board had much more authoritarian ideas, and the role of parents, Church and State was taken for granted. There was no question of children's rights differing in any way from those of their elders and, as they would have said in those days, betters.

It would be a good idea in many instances to have children represented separately. I do not know whether it would be practical or popular, but I believe it should apply not least in separation and divorce cases. I know judges take account of children's interests, but if there were constitutional backing, it might become a more central factor. The creation of an Ombudsman for Children is a very important step towards recognition of their autonomous rights.

Incidentally, in another judgment, the Supreme Court has reprimanded the State regarding the separation of children from immigrant parents. It is fitting that the rights of children would not be subjected to the exigencies of immigration policy, and we will have to rethink the matter. That is the advantage of having a written Constitution and a Supreme Court.

Two other matters relate to anti-social behaviour. There has been a development in towns throughout the country of housing liaison officers becoming involved in order that the problem is not dealt with in a purely criminal or legal context but in a holistic social fashion. Many measures not directly connected with the law can improve the situation. Another idea from across the water that the Minister might consider, which I found both intriguing and amusing, is sending difficult children to the best boarding schools instead of placing them in detention, the reasoning being that their fees are still considerably less than the cost of a State place of detention. Perhaps that might be explored with the boarding sector.