Maria Corrigan (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the highly important report before Members and welcome to the House the Minister of State, who I note has been present for the entire debate, which is a significant reflection of his commitment to the work that must be done in this regard. In particular, I welcome the reasonable debate that has occurred in this Chamber this afternoon. As other colleagues have observed, a substantial amount of work has been undertaken by this all-party committee, which commenced with a proposed wording that sought to address several different aspects. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the joint committee's Chairman, Deputy O'Rourke, and to all its members, including my Seanad colleagues, all of whom are present in the Chamber, namely, Senators Fitzgerald, Alex White and Feeney. The two interim reports and the final report are a demonstration of how politics can be done and how it can be both constructive and effective. This is to be welcomed, particularly in the context of what has occurred in the last couple of weeks.

The background to the establishment of the joint committee was the desire to fulfil Ireland's obligations with regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the strong public desire to ensure no constitutional impediment existed to ensuring the strongest possible protection for children. The interim reports, to which the Minister of State already has referred, addressed the issues of soft information and absolute and strict liability. This final report and its proposed wording for a referendum on amending the Constitution addresses a number of issues. Very importantly, it acknowledges the right of children to be treated as individuals and to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting a child, subject to his or her age and maturity. This has long been sought and reflects the contents of more recent legislation to come before the Houses. It acknowledges the right of children to be treated equally, regardless of the marital status of their parents and acknowledges their right to an education.

Significantly, the report before the House and the proposed wording address a number of obstacles that had prevented the opportunity of adoption being available to some children, such as, for example, the voluntary adoption of children of married parents. In the course of their work on the joint committee, its members became aware of the cases of hundreds of children who are in foster care at present and who have had happy and fulfilled development within those settings. As those children reach the age of 16, 17 or 18, the families with whom they are living seek the opportunity to adopt them but because they are children of married parents, this is not possible. I welcome in particular the report's addressing of this obstacle.

Throughout its work, the joint committee also heard from a number of people and organisations of increasing concerns that the bar for the State intervening in child protection cases required a threat of imminent death and therefore made difficult any intervention by the State to protect a child's welfare and best interests on some occasions. I believe the recommendations to address this issue are generating the most concern regarding this report and the proposed wording. The joint committee was conscious of the sensitivities of the issues raised and did not seek in any way for this debate to become polarised or to be centred on the rights of the family versus the rights of the child. The joint committee stressed clearly that in the vast majority of cases, it considered that the best interests of the child are served within the family and it gave recognition to this point by not seeking to change Article 41, as well as by making an explicit reference in the proposed wording to the rights of the family to determine the education of the child and, if they felt fit to so do, to provide education in their own homes for their children, as well as to the right of the family to determine moral and religious upbringing. Where intervention is deemed to be necessary, the joint committee has recommended that it be proportionate. As other colleagues have remarked, this is a particularly vital inclusion. Initially, it is a question of seeking to provide added protection and support for families. The Minister of State clearly outlined the intention that the removal of a child from a family is the last resort. The goal is early intervention to support the family and the child and to avoid the necessity for the child's removal arising.

In my experience, families are the strongest advocates for children. In some of the cases that recently appeared on the national stage regarding realising the rights of children, it was the families that took court cases on behalf of children in nearly all instances. This is an important point we must keep in mind. Therefore, in strengthening and acknowledging the rights of children, we are strengthening the family's armoury in seeking to have children's rights realised. It is important that the rights of both should not be perceived as being incompatible or mutually exclusive. That perception is not helpful and has not been the situation in the majority of the cases taken in recent years. In many instances, a child's rights would never have been realised if not for the advocacy and campaigning of his or her family.

When one listens to the concerns and arguments tabled by people who are worried that the acknowledgement and strengthening of the rights of the child will take away from the rights of the family, one realises that fear and anger over the current system as it relates to cases on child care, child protection and child custody lie at the heart of their concerns. I refer in particular to the rights and protection for fathers. We must take some responsibility. The practice of not recording decisions has resulted in only anecdotal accounts and accounts of the most extreme nature being available for our information and consideration, especially in child care cases. This has left us exposed to some accurate accounts but also to some myths and fears about what is occurring. Most seriously, it has left us without a sound and reliable evidence base of what is actually occurring in such cases. The committee recognised this as a deficit for future plans, considerations and developments. Therefore, I welcome the final report's recommendation that a mechanism should be developed to enable the reporting of such cases without putting in jeopardy the anonymity and privacy of the parties involved.

Let us be clear. The State is not looking to take children from their families. Policies across all areas of care are focused on keeping the individual, be he or she a child or vulnerable adult, in his or her own home. However, we cannot be intimidated by people who seek to scare us into turning a blind eye to unsafe situations in which children are in danger. As a country, we already have a shameful history in this regard. There is no honour, humanity or Christianity in so doing.

The final report is a genuine effort of an all-party group to provide a better situation in terms of the rights and safety of all children. I urge Members to consider this intention and to make constructive suggestions and comments that will enable us to realise this legitimate goal.