Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their informative and useful statements.

It was very generously acknowledged on all sides of the House that Ireland has come a long way in the past ten years in implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that progress was endorsed by the UN committee that examined our record thereon. There is no doubt the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children gives renewed focus to issues relating to children within public administration. Equally, the appointment of a Minister of State regularly attending Government meetings ensures that, as never before, children's interests are taken into account before it arrives at decisions.

The Taoiseach's recent announcement on behalf of the Government of its intention to hold a referendum on children's rights to accord them a central place in the Constitution is an important development regarding their status. The status of the child as a rights holder was highlighted by the UN committee as a concern in its concluding remarks. I have been charged with the responsibility of initiating a process of consultation and discussion with the other Dáil parties and all other relevant groups over coming weeks. That process aims to achieve consensus on the wording of an appropriate amendment regarding the place of children in the Constitution. It is the Government's intention to find a wording that reflects the Irish people's desire to establish robust safeguards for the rights and liberties of all children and enshrine the highest possible standards of protection.

The Supreme Court's judgment this week brings into focus the Taoiseach's wisdom in proposing a referendum. That the case took 19 days of argument in the High Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court demonstrates the complexity of the issues. The Supreme Court judges have delivered separate judgments outlining their view of the law applicable to the dispute, and each requires very careful consideration. I have examined the implications of all such judgments for the proposed referendum. It may be that they have implications for the content and wording of any constitutional change, and judgments may also have implications for legislative change in our adoption code. The exchange between the committee and the delegation can be seen as useful and constructive, and I know the Government will take into account the concluding observations in developing children's policy.

In the very short time left it will not be possible to comment on the complete list of issues raised by Senators, but I will deal with several. Senator Browne raised the issue of access to psychological services for children. The current position is that all primary and post-primary schools have access to psychological assessments, either through the National Educational Psychological Service or through the scheme that it administers for commissioning psychological assessments. Schools that do not currently have psychologists assigned by NEPS can avail themselves of the scheme, whereby schools can have an assessment carried out by a member of a panel of private psychologists approved by the service, with fees paid directly.

Senator Brian Hayes asked that I reply on the assessment of children in care and the procedure for returning children to their families. Under the Child Care Act 1991, the HSE has statutory responsibility in the area. The dominant focus has been on the protection and care of children at risk, but we have shifted to a more preventative approach. It should be noted that 90% of children in care are in foster care placements. A designated social worker is allocated to children as soon as the need for admission to care is identified and for as long as they remain in care. Social workers co-ordinate care arrangements and have responsibility for ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and standards, including an assessment of the young person's needs, care planning and review, including consultations with the young person, families, foster carers and other significant parties.

Regarding care planning for children in foster care, the Child Care (Placement of Children with Relatives) Regulations 1995 set out the legal requirement for the development of a care plan. That must be reviewed every six months for the first two years and thereafter annually. The regulations also set out some of the areas that must be considered by the assigned social worker in reviewing the care plan, including whether the child's circumstances have changed and whether it would be in the child's best interests to return to the custody of his or her parents.

Senator Henry raised several issues regarding mental health, including the Mental Health Act 2001, which entered force on 1 November 2006. The Act provides additional safeguards for the protection of the very small number of children requiring involuntary detention owing to mental illness. From now on, all applications for the involuntary detention of a child must be made by the HSE to the District Court. The HSE has put in place interim arrangements for the treatment of children in adult units pending the provision of the dedicated child and adolescent beds. As Senator Henry is aware, the Government adopted the report presented to it earlier this year in this regard. All children admitted to adult units will be treated on a one-to-one basis by appropriately trained staff. The Mental Health Commission has also issued a code of practice relating to the admission of children under the Mental Health Act 2001. In recent years the HSE has made significant progress in the provision of additional child and adolescent consultant psychiatrists to support the work of community-based child and adolescent multidisciplinary mental health teams. There are now 70 child and adolescent consultant psychiatrists employed by the HSE. Having said that, I take Senator Henry's point that progress must be made in respect of this area.

The National Office for Suicide Prevention, which is responsible for the implementation of the national strategy or action on suicide prevention, supports a number of initiatives to promote the mental health of children and to prevent suicide. These include programmes in schools, projects in youth organisations and related services, and the provision of information for young persons on dedicated websites.

I thank Senator O'Meara for the good wishes she extended to me as Minister of State with responsibility for children. The Senator referred to pre-school education. I agree it would be a desirable objective to ensure every child in the country should obtain such education. I was pleased to hear the Senator state that she would like to see those disadvantaged areas and other areas that are not availing of pre-school education to obtain access to it first. The latter is extremely important. I commend the Senator because in the lead-up to a general election, it would be easy for any political party to state it would like to ensure that every child should have access to a guaranteed free year of pre-school education. It must be acknowledged that a large number of children are already obtaining pre-school education thanks to the efforts and contributions made by their parents. It is vital to ensure that, in the first instance, those who do not have access to such education should obtain it. That is the important first step because it will lead us close to the position where all children will have access to a pre-school year of education. The wealth of evidence that the latter does so much good in the context of the later development of children is overwhelming.

The Senator raised a number of other points. She referred to the detention of children in prisons, which is extremely unusual. The Government has accepted my proposal that the use of St. Patrick's Institution will be phased out. Under the new Children Act, child detention schools will become the model for all offenders under the age of 18. The necessary commitments have been made, in financial and planning terms, by the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science and work on this project is well under way.

The age of criminal responsibility was discussed when the House debated the amendments to what has become the Children Act. I disagreed with the United Nations on this matter in Geneva. I was not prepared to take responsibility for stating that a ten or 11 year old could never commit a homicide or an aggravated sexual crime. I disagreed with the UN because I was obliged to take responsibility for commencing the legislation. It is easy for committees to indicate what is desirable, but they are not obliged to face victims and state that offences never occurred. That is the obverse of what the UN recommends. However, I accept that the latter must consider matters exclusively from the perspective of the child and criticise us on that basis.

Senator Leyden referred to the considerable progress that has been made in the provision of community child care facilities. There is no doubt a substantial investment has been made in that regard. The Senator correctly indicated that child care facilities are increasingly replacing national schools as the focus of interest for many local representatives. We have renewed the child care investment programme for a further five years in order that we can continue to roll out investment in this area.

Senator Quinn raised the question of denominational education. This matter did not feature very strongly at the hearing in Geneva. The committee was impressed by the achievement and performance levels of our school sector and by the levels of attainment that Irish students, in the context of international standards, achieve. However, the Senator made his case on an entirely different basis and stated that, as is the case under the Constitution, parents have the right to determine how their children are to be educated. The Education Act recognises a variety of patrons. I accept, however, that because Educate Together is the most recent patron, it has more temporary schools than other patrons that already have ownership of lands and established buildings, not that they are always satisfied with the condition of the latter. Educate Together has a difficulty in that it possesses a large number of temporary schools. The Government has increased the amount being invested in the schools building programme. There is no doubt we must try to give increased priority to the completion of Educate Together schools.

Senator Quinn referred to a number of phenomena in respect of multi-denominational and non-denominational education. The Senator spoke about the massive growth in the numbers seeking non-denominational education and the recent waves of immigrants. It would be dangerous to assume recent immigrants to this country necessarily want non-denominational education for their children. My experience, as a representative of the constituency which probably has the largest proportion of immigrants in the country, is to the contrary. I have discovered that many immigrants want religious education in schools because they tend to use their religion as an identifier in their country of arrival. I will, however, draw the Senator's observations to the attention of the Minister.

There is a great deal of wisdom in what Senator Mansergh stated, namely, that we must give consideration to schools exercising greater flexibility in this area. There are a large number of Catholic schools in Dublin in which are enrolled large numbers of immigrant students who profess different religious faiths. Arrangements will have to be devised for these children. I am aware that some within the Catholic Church have acknowledged that. A degree of flexibility will have to be developed in the system in respect of the different conscientious preferences of parents and for their proper accommodation.

Senator Feeney referred to pre-school education and the need for play facilities. Along with Senator Mansergh and several other Members, she also referred to the separate representation of children in the courts. I am giving further consideration to this matter in the context of the legislation relating to children and the guardianship ad litem issue. I am somewhat dissatisfied that while we provided in the Child Care Act for a guardian ad litem to be appointed to a child, we have never defined what should be the function and scope of this service. It is important that it should be regulated and that there should be a clear set of standards.