UN Report on the Rights of the Child on Child Care Services in Ireland: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. Fahey)

I welcome this opportunity to address the House on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ireland is a party to this convention.

Successive Irish Governments are well aware that the decision to ratify any convention involves the voluntary acceptance of obligations and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is no different.

The Taoiseach has asked me to prepare a comprehensive statement on the rights of children and there has been an informal Government decision in this regard. The Department of Health and Children has been assigned the lead role in co-ordinating the response on these issues across the range of Departments concerned. This will require detailed work by the relevant Departments to decide on how some of the more wide-ranging articles of the convention might be put into practice. The objective of this exercise will be to improve the co-ordination of policies for children across Departments, to promote a rights-based approach and to progress the recommendations of the UN committee.

When ratification of any convention is being considered an initial assessment is always conducted into the compatibility of the convention which it is proposed to ratify with the Constitution, our current legislation and any proposed legislation. Consideration is also given to any necessary administrative steps which will be required to give effect to the convention in question. This procedure was fully followed in the case of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The decision was that there was no incompatibility between the Convention on the Rights of the Child and our Constitution and legal provisions. For that reason, the convention was ratified without any reservations.

The UN convention follows the model of most similar conventions in that it includes a mechanism to monitor compliance with its provisions. This is a necessary discipline — it is useful to have an independent outside assessment in this area.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has what is probably the most thorough such monitoring mechanism. It involves a reporting system — States Party to the convention prepare reports in a standard format which are discussed in draft forms with the relevant NGOs. There may be agreement or disagreement following these consultations but I am happy to report there was broad agreement between the Government Departments concerned and the NGOs when we carried out this exercise.

The report is then submitted to the appropriate monitoring committee — the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This committee is a high powered body, comprising international experts in the field and highly experienced in its task. It holds a pre-sessional hearing at which it considers the Government report in conjunction with the NGOs who are in a position to brief the committee and to have a substantial input into its analysis of individual country reports. The NGOs bring their specific expertise to bear and, in conjunction with the expertise of committee members, the joint analysis can be formidable.

I pay tribute to the work of Irish NGOs — primarily the Children's Rights Alliance, the ISPCC, UNICEF and Focus on Children. They made a very significant input both into the finalisation of the Irish Government's report and also into the preparatory work of the UN Committee.

Following the pre-sessional hearing, the committee submits a list of additional queries to the Government. Generally, these are issues which have been highlighted by the NGOs.

The culmination of the monitoring process is the detailed examination by the UN committee of individual country reports. The committee's examination of the Irish report took place in January and the Irish delegation was ably led by my colleague, Deputy Liz O'Donnell, Minister of State with special responsibility for human rights.

The committee's examination was thorough. The delegation, which included officials from the Departments of Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Education and Science and Foreign Affairs and also from the Office of the Attorney General, was involved in assisting the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, in responding to some very searching questions from the committee. Following this examination the committee issued its conclusions and recommendations.

Before summarising these recommendations, I shall identify strengths and weaknesses of our performance. Our consultation with NGOs was thorough. The Department of Foreign Affairs took the lead and the views of NGOs were welcomed and their input is valued. Some States Party to the Convention did not make similar efforts to involve the NGO sector but no criticism has been made against us on this score, nor do I believe any such criticism could fairly be made.

The NGO sector has spoken appreciatively of the openness of the Government Departments concerned to full and constructive dialogue. The main NGO, the Children's Rights Alliance, which is an umbrella organisation, reciprocated when it discussed its pre-sessional submission with the Government Departments concerned. This mutual recognition and respect is healthy and constructive and it ensures that issues are clarified prior to any public airing of issues which it is not possible to resolve. I welcome this approach and I am sure it will continue.

Our national report was a comprehensive analysis of our compliance with the convention. It sets out the position which was current at the time in a very lucid and readable fashion and is an excellent snapshot of the overall response of the State to issues affecting children. In its concluding observations the UN Committee expressed its appreciation of the comprehensive nature of the report and also of the additional material which had been supplied following the pre-sessional hearing.

Our presentation to the committee in January was professionally handled. The ministerial delegation included officials from all Departments involved. It was in a position to respond very effectively to a wide range of questions raised by the committee. In its concluding observations, the committee welcomed the constructive, frank and open dialogue it had with the delegation. In informal discussions with committee members and with observers from international bodies which are routinely represented at committee sessions the performance of the delegation was favourably commented on and this is something we can be proud of.

I wish to address the points made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its concluding observations. The purpose of the committee is to criticise the performance of countries which have accepted the disciplines of the convention. It is not the committee's role to award plaudits — in the case of developed countries in particular, the committee makes assumptions about the commitment of the country concerned to ensuring compliance with the convention and the availability of resources to ensure this happens. Accordingly, it is easy to misconstrue the committee's concluding observations if one is unfamiliar with its remit and I ask Deputies to bear this in mind.

The committee commented favourably on Ireland's commitment to adopting further measures to implement the convention. It noted with satisfaction the welfare services established for the benefit of children and their families. The committee also expressed appreciation at the high level of education and the advanced health system available.

The committee welcomed recent law reform measures — especially the reference of the question of incorporating an amendment into the Constitution guaranteeing children's rights to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. It also welcomed the enactment of the Child Care Act, 1991; the Family Law Act, 1995; the Domestic Violence Act, 1996; the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 and the proposed education and adoption Bills.

The committee commended Ireland on its efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation. It was particularly complimentary in regard to the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996.

The committee then moved on to areas of concern. It commented on the absence of a national policy in regard to children which led to the State's response to the rights of the child being somewhat fragmented. This is an issue we will have to address and I am anxious to bring forward proposals, which I intend to do shortly. The committee felt existing services for the welfare of children do not adequately reflect the child's rights approach of the convention and commented that not enough emphasis was placed on preventive measures. We agree.

In response to this comment, many of the initiatives taken since 1991 in the context of bringing the Child Care Act into operation have been in response to specific problems. I do not need to remind Deputies in detail of the series of reports regarding the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the Kilkenny incest case and the Madonna House inquiry, which pointed to the need for the rapid development of our child protection services. The criticism of the committee is not without merit but it is a counsel of perfection: we dealt with the problems we faced at the time, and in the circumstances I do not see that there was an alternative course of action. Considerable investment of over £50 million has been made since 1993 in providing an effective infrastructure to enable health boards to carry out their responsibilities under the Child Care Act, 1991, to protect children at risk. The position has now changed, a significant base of services is in place and the committee's criticism is one we can now take up.

In regard to the development of preventive services, I recognise their importance in adopting a strategic approach to helping families and am fully committed to expanding such services. I expect this issue to be addressed comprehensively in the forthcoming report of the Commission on the Family and our response will be developed in that context. I am conscious of the need for early intervention and am developing a series of pilot projects in conjunction with health boards and voluntary agencies in selected disadvantaged communities to identify strategies that will be effective.

The committee was critical of the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on child care issues. However, since the hearing last January, my responsibilities in regard to the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have been clarified and interdepartmental co-ordination arrangements have been put in place. This goes a long way towards meeting the committee's criticism. There has been much co-operation and co-ordination between the three Departments since I took over, following the footsteps of Deputy Currie. It has now been put on a formal footing.

The committee welcomed the decision to establish a social services inspectorate but was critical of the absence of an independent monitoring mechanism such as an ombudsman for children. The social services inspectorate will be put in place this year. As I said previously, the establishment of an ombudsman for children is not my priority for 1998 but I note the committee's criticism and recognise that the issue must be addressed as soon as we can get around to it.

The committee was critical of deficiencies in our statistical information. I accept this area is in need of improvement and intend commissioning a consultancy study on this issue during the current year. In regard to promoting awareness of the Convention, the committee felt not enough had been done. This is an issue we are addressing in conjunction with the Children's Rights Alliance. My Department is involved with the alliance in preparing a publicity campaign and I intend to meet its members shortly to discuss the matter. I recognise we also need to promote awareness of the Convention among the relevant professionals and we will also be looking at this.

While recognising the willingness of the State to co-operate with NGOs, the committee felt their potential in contributing to the development of children's rights had not been fully recognised. This is a point we will consider and while I do not wish to be over-defensive I think it is a somewhat unfair criticism. One of the main characteristics of Irish public administration is the close working relationship between all Government Departments and other statutory bodies such as health boards and local authorities and the voluntary sector, and clearly this will continue. I welcome suggestions from the NGO sector in response to this point.

The committee was critical of the current age of criminal responsibility, which is seven, and the proposal to increase this to ten in the Children Bill. This criticism has been considered and was comprehensively responded to at the meeting. When the Children Bill is enacted it will include many substantial measures to update our juvenile justice system and at this stage I do not intend increasing the age of criminal responsibility beyond ten. I think the committee's thinking in this area is influenced by the practice in civil law rather than common law jurisdictions.

The committee raised issues in regard to social exclusion of children, particularly the deprived and children from traveller families and refugees. The concerns expressed by the committee will be taken on board. The committee was critical of the failure to take account of the views of children in the family, school and society. Clearly, innovative responses will be required to allow society in general to respond to this criticism.

The committee expressed concern about the lack of prohibition in legislation of corporal punishment. I should explain to Deputies that the Convention per se does not call on states party to it to prohibit corporal punishment but the committee sees this as being implicit in it. It would be reasonable to ask why the framers of the Convention did not include such a specific provision if that was what was intended but this is an issue on which it would have been difficult if not impossible to have reached consensus and I am not sure I can solve that conundrum. Currently corporal punishment is banned in schools but “reasonable chastisement” of children by their parents is not illegal. This is an issue on which we perhaps need a wider debate and I would welcome views.

The committee also criticised the lack of mandatory reporting mechanisms in the case of child abuse. Again, the Convention does not provide for the introduction of mandatory reporting and there is considerable divergence of views internationally on this issue. However, the committee's views are noted and the Government is committed to the introduction of mandatory reporting within the lifetime of the current Dáil.

The committee is concerned at the position of children born outside marriage and I will be responding in detail to this matter in reply to a parliamentary question this afternoon. The committee also addresses issues relating to disability, drug and alcohol abuse as well as teenage suicide. Clearly these are important issues separate from our responsibilities under the Convention.

The Convention also recognises the important role played by education in the development of children and stresses the need to ensure all children have full right of access to education services. The Convention emphasises the particular need to ensure that children with special educational requirements have access to an education service which enables them to reach their full potential. We all agree we have some way to go before achieving that objective.

The commitment of the Government to ensuring equality of access to education services is reflected in the Education (No. 2) Bill, which contains statutory safeguards for the rights of all children, including those with disabilities, to an education service. One of the key objectives set down in the Bill is that of promoting equality of access to and participation in education and the promotion of means whereby all students may benefit from education.

Following publication of the Bill, the Minister for Education and Science and his officials have had consultations with a wide range of interests in education, including parents of pupils with disabilities. The Minister is currently considering proposals for amendment to the Bill to further clarify areas of concern to such interested parties. The Minister has committed himself to addressing, as far as practicable, the shared objective of strengthening the educational rights of parents and their children. In this connection, I am pleased to note the welcome for the Education (No. 2) Bill expressed by the Children's Rights Alliance.

The many detailed recommendations made by the committee are being examined in the Government Departments concerned. One of the problems I have faced, especially in the Department of Health and Children, is a shortage of staff to progress the many initiatives under way in the child care area, including the adoption area. I have finalised my discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, in regard to additional staff and expect to announce the details shortly. This will be of great assistance in bringing our consideration of the issues raised by the committee to a conclusion.

The convention adopts a radically different approach to children than we are used to. It presents challenges to the State, society generally, schools, everybody dealing with children and, in particular, parents. No one should be afraid of the principles set out in it. We will all benefit from living in a society where the position of children is recognised and cherished.

The convention should be seen as a positive document. The principles set out in it should guide us all. The debate should attempt to address it in an informed way. It would be a great pity if the many significant developments of recent years were to be devalued in an attempt at point scoring. Let us recognise instead that, while much remains to be done, much has been achieved and for most Irish children, though unfortunately not all, life is rich in many possibilities for a full and happy life.

I look forward to the debate and responding to the points Deputies will make.

Mr. Shatter

I listened to the Minister of State's contribution in the context of it being a response to the criticisms voiced by the committee which looked at our performance concerning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, while I have no wish to engage in political points scoring, I found it extraordinarily depressing. It was a litany detailing the complaints made by the committee, noting them in some instances and commenting that perhaps something will be done about some of them on some specified date. There was a failure to acknowledge the extent of what needs to be done if the rights of children in this State are to be fully protected.

The Minister of State is correct that, fortunately, many children lead enriching and good lives and many of the problems we will discuss do not touch on the majority of children in this State. The convention is primarily concerned with ensuring that the rights of children are properly protected and that, where children are in difficulty, due to family problems, abandonment, neglect, personal difficulties or difficulties due to circumstances over which they have no control, certain minimum standards will be applied.

It is clear the Government has no coherent policy or approach to any of the issues which directly affect or impact on children. Its record is little short of appalling compared to that of its predecessor. I say that as much in sadness as in anger. The previous Administration took children's issues by the scruff of the neck, imposed on Government Departments a degree of co-ordination that had been sadly lacking and, as a consequence, produced within its short lifespan a series of Bills which had long been awaited and were badly needed.

The Government has been in office for ten months. A political party such as the Fianna Fáil Party or the Progressive Democrats which said so much about these issues on the Opposition benches could have been expected to have legislation prepared to be put through the House on assuming office and a coherent idea of the direction it would take. To date, no legislation relating to children has originated from the Government. The only legislation relating to children that it has enacted is legislation published by the previous Administration which did not manage to get on the Statute Book before the last election was called.

When the Government came to office we returned to the past chaotic position when various Ministers had different responsibilities for children and child care and there was a total lack of co-ordination and co-operation. The Minister of State was not allowed to fulfil a co-ordinating role until his ministerial colleague at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, found herself embarrassed at the hearing which took place before the United Nations committee. I say that with no sense of satisfaction but with regret.

If the Government was serious about the Minister of State fulfilling a co-ordinating role and having the capacity to bring forward the many initiatives required, he would not have to justify, every two or three weeks, his inaction and inability to deal with issues by citing the lack of staff within his Department. I would have expected that by now he would have been allocated the funding required to ensure he had adequate staff to make a dynamic impact on the various issues that need to be addressed.

The only legislation the Minister of State has promised to introduce this year is the Social Service Inspectorate Bill. It is not listed among the Bills to be given priority which have some prospect of being published before the summer recess. There is a minimal possibility that it will be published this year.

We have been informed by the Minister of State that it is the Social Service Inspectorate Bill to which he will give priority over and above all other issues concerning children. God help us if that is the speed at which the many outstanding issues that need to be addressed will be addressed. Apparently, everything else is on hold while this legislation which might be published before Christmas is being drafted and prepared.

The Minister of State is correct that a number of things the United Nations committee said were praiseworthy in the context of the advances made in relation to children but it remains the position that in a broad spectrum of areas, in the context of legislation, administrative practice and social services, the best interests of the child are not being properly protected in this State, although they might nominally be protected under legislation which genuflects in that direction.

It is extraordinary, no matter how deficient the number of staff, that the Minister of State's Department is bereft of up-to-date statistical information to analyse needs in the area of child care. This is highlighted in the United Nations committee's report. It was highlighted by me, well before the committee published its report, in questions tabled last year. There has been a series of questions tabled not alone by me but other Deputies, including Deputy Shortall who is in the House, seeking information about issues on which one would expect the Department to be fully informed. For example, Dáil questions have been tabled seeking to ascertain how many reports have been made to health boards of alleged child abuse, physical and sexual, at particular moments in time which remain to be investigated. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions this year where the health boards stood on 31 December 1997, the date by which they were supposed to collate statistical information. As we approach 1 May 1998, I understand the Minister for Health and Children is unable to tell the House how many reports of child abuse or neglect made to the health boards remain to be investigated and in respect of which no assessments have yet been undertaken, as of 31 December 1997. I find that quite extraordinary.

The Minister was asked in a parliamentary question last week about the number of children in care at the end of 1997 and whether they were in residential or foster care. His Department was only able to give statistics for 1996. On 23 April 1998 the Minister could not tell us the position at the end of 1997. That means the Minister and his Department, when making policy decisions and determining financial allocations for children at risk, are flying on a wing and a prayer and making "guestimates" of the extent of problems. Health boards have not yet been properly disciplined to ensure they maintain accurate and up-to-date records in regard to fulfilling their duty to ensure the welfare of children in each health board area is protected, as required by the Child Care Act, 1991.

The United Nations committee is critical of this State's failure to have coherent and up-to-date statistical information on children, particularly children at risk, available to it. What is the Minister's response? He told us today he accepts improvement is needed in this area and that he will commission a consultancy study on the issue. I asked the Minister very substantial questions in the Dáil on this issue a couple of months ago. Has the need for a consultancy study only occurred to him now? What has the Department been doing about this issue?

Does it not occur to the Minister that it an outrageous failure on the part of the Department of Health and Children, which bears central responsibility for ensuring the child care system is properly funded, not to have up-to-date and comprehensive information available to it on children at risk and what the social services are doing to protect them? That is inexplicable and an indictment of the manner in which this Government is dealing with its child care obligations. It is symptomatic of a lethargic approach which is in violation of our obligations under this convention. We have a very profound duty to ensure children at risk are properly protected.

The Minister said that he does not see the appointment of an ombudsman for children as a priority. An ombudsman for children, which was recommended by the Children's Rights Alliance and the need for which was accepted by the previous Government, would have provided a central focal point to ensure the departmental failures in assessing the impact of child care legislation and of maintaining up-to-date information would be rectified by an independent person who saw that as a primary obligation. Presumably, the Minister's consultancy study may redo some of the work done previously by the Children's Rights Alliance and return to us in a year's time to say that part of the solution is a children's ombudsman.

There is no reason the Minister could not put in place a children's ombudsman at the same time as dealing with the social service inspectorate. We have been told the social service inspectorate will commence operating without a statutory basis and that the legislation will eventually be put in place. While that is not a satisfactory arrangement, at least it means a step forward. When will the social service inspectorate start operating? I recall the Minister telling us towards the end of last year that it would be operating by the spring of this year. If the Minister has a difficulty in drafting the necessary legislation to give the ombudsman a statutory base, there is no reason it could not be put in place on a temporary basis while the legislation is being prepared. The need for such an individual is quite clear from the Minister's departmental failures.

This Government lacks a dynamic in dealing with the issue of children's rights and protection. We have watched the Government muddling along in the adoption area. The adoption legislation which was finally passed recently was initially brought before the Dáil and Seanad by my colleague, Deputy Currie, when he was a Minister of State. The Government did not have any new insights which would enable it to make any changes or amendments to that legislation, beyond changing a reference to "the Minister for Health" to "the Minister for Health and Children". That is indicative of the fact that the Government has no additional policy initiatives in the adoption area.

A Supreme Court judgment was delivered in the past two weeks dealing with the issue of the rights of persons placed in an adoptive arrangement prior to 1952 to trace their parents. The waiting period for that judgment was used as an excuse by the Department for not drafting legislation to deal with the issue of adopted children tracing their origins or making available to natural parents of such children a statutory mechanism to enable them to make contact with their children. It is extraordinary the Minister did not refer to that issue.

The Supreme Court judgment has effectively said that children have a right to trace their origins and natural parents have a right to privacy. It is for the Oireachtas to legislate to reconcile those rights and put in place mechanisms which facilitate people who wish to make contact with each other. What are the Government's intentions in regard to legislation in that area? Thousands of people are affected by the need for such legislation. There is not an adoption agency which does not receive inquiries on a weekly basis about the tracing of origins. There are no proper statutory arrangements in place to facilitate dealing with this in a coherent manner. The Government has an obligation to put those arrangements in place. If the necessary legislation is not provided, the United Nations committee will be extremely critical of this State, and rightly so, as this falls within the rights of children.

It is time for the Government to take some important initiatives. I note with great sadness there was nothing in the Minister's speech to indicate any initiatives on any matters affecting children.

Members and the public have watched the litany of court cases in which convictions have been sustained for child sexual abuse. We have observed the manner in which people have courageously come forward in this area and in some instances, convictions were sustained as a result of their courage. As far as I am aware, there are at present over 100 cases in the courts in which members of religious orders, religious orders themselves and the Roman Catholic church are defendants in proceedings in which damages are claimed by victims of abuse suffered at the hands of clerics. This has been a source of great pain and distress to many members of the Church who had no idea these incidents were taking place and who now find they were unwittingly working in their parishes with child abusers. The case of Fr. Payne was mentioned in the newspapers this week. He has finally and rightly been convicted for the acts he committed. A prosecution would not have been taken without the courage of Mr. Madden, who effectively outed Fr. Payne. We have also had a considered and genuine public apology from the Christian Brothers who in a public and correct fashion have confronted what was done by a very small minority of their members.

It is time the Government took initiative in this area. If we allow matters to continue as they have we will find that, within 18 months to two years, the number of cases for compensation sought by people who are the victims of abuse at the hands of members of religious orders will exceed 100 to 200 and will go well beyond 1,000 to 2,000. This issue will not go away.

There have been indications from some members of the church that they would welcome consideration being given to the formation of a tribunal to deal with these claims. While the State is not liable for these cases, the Government should discuss the matter with the Catholic Hierarchy with a view to seeing if legislation can establish a form of tribunal to allow the victims of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of members of the clergy seek compensation from those responsible for the hurt they suffered without having to go through the full panoply of the civil court system and without incurring the delays and expense involved in that system. It is not good enough for Members of this House to sit back and watch what is happening. It is also insufficient for some of those in authority within the church to wring their hands and say they sympathise and are willing to offer help while they vigorously defend within the courts system the actions being brought and by so doing add to the hurt of those who have suffered.

Before I am accused of having a vested interest in this tragic problem — I have said it before in this House — I know of about five cases in which my law firm represents people who are the victims of abuse in such circumstances. A very small number of people are represented by my firm. They feel they are entitled to compensation and there are many more in that position.

It is time an initiative was taken in this area. We are not merely like spectators at a football match watching from the sidelines. We are observing tragedies that befell children in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s who are now adults coming out into the open. We must provide a means to ensure that the consequence of what people suffered is addressed in a humane and sensitive way and that it does not necessitate hundreds of people going through the type of pain and difficulty that was inflicted, for example, on the McColgan children by the health board who they sued because of its failure to take appropriate action in circumstances in which they suffered unspeakable horrors within their family.

The case involving the McColgan children gave rise to a great deal of public concern. We were told that a report on whether the health board failed in its duties with regard to the family in the late 1970s and 1980s would be furnished and made public. Has the Minister received the report? If it is being delayed what has he done to hurry up the health board in producing it? I always had reservations about a health board arranging for a report on itself. The report should have been conducted by an independent group appointed by the Minister. However, he chose not to take that option. He now has a responsibility to ensure that whatever report is being prepared is rapidly completed and published.

The Minister is not clear on what he intends to do to ensure that the rights of children, as outlined in the convention, are more widely known and understood. Nor is he clear on what he intends to do to ensure that those rights are fully and comprehensively reflected in Irish law. The review committee on the Constitution recommended that Articles 41 and 42 require amendment and that the rights of the child should be given a higher regard than they appear to be given in the Constitution.

The report of the review committee, which deals with a wide variety of issues with different levels of priority, is being considered by a committee of this House. There is no reason the Minister could not ask the committee to indicate whether it agrees with the recommendations made with regard to children's rights, or, if it has any differences with the review committee, to indicate them to the Department. There is also no reason he could not bring forward proposals on the constitutional changes which the review committee has recommended. He might indicate to the House if he is prepared to do so. Has he any interest in doing so? If the committee examining the review committee's report recommends to the Minister that the report's recommendations will involve a constitutional amendment, will he implement that recommendation? We are entitled to know if he has a view on this and the action, if any, he intends to take.

There are practical problems in dealing with children which, on very limited occasions, are highlighted. Many disputes relating to children are dealt with in the courts system. The vast majority of disputes in the marriage breakdown area or between parents who were not married to each other, in relation to the care, custody and upbringing of children take place in the District Court. Some District Court judges deal with such cases with great insight and sensitivity; some should not be let within ten miles of dealing with them.

Special training is not provided to the Judiciary to ensure that those adjudicating on disputes over the future welfare and upbringing of children have the necessary background and insight to make decisions in a way that protects their welfare and does not exacerbate family conflict. Some District Court judges seek reports from welfare offices attached to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to facilitate them in determining the outcome of such disputes. I have highlighted in this House on a number of occasions over the past six months that the welfare services are incapable of meeting the demands made on them. For example, if a District Court judge in Dublin seeks a family assessment to be undertaken to help him or her determine the outcome of a child custody dispute it may take six to nine months for such reports to be prepared. On occasions, the welfare services have told the courts they are unable to undertake assessments because they are understaffed and overworked.

As he now has a co-ordinating role in this area the Minister might tell us what initiative, if any, he is taking in that context? Is anything being done? Have there been any substantial staff increases in this area and will there be in the future? Does the Minister know the extent of the problem at present in the courts system in having independent assessments carried out by welfare officers attached to the Department of Justice? It is not clear if he knows anything about that. A Law Reform Commission report made recommendations for a radical overhaul of the manner in which the courts deal with all types of family problems, including disputes in relation to adoption, custody of children and childcare applications. Does the Government have any policy to implement that report? There was no mention of it in what the Minister of State said today. This is all to do with ensuring a uniformity of approach in the protection of the welfare of children and that those involved in making decisions have the necessary background training and understanding to approach matters properly.

The United Nations committee expressed the view that insufficient steps have been taken to promote widespread awareness of the convention and it remains concerned at the lack of adequate and systematic training on the principles and provisions of the convention for professional groups working with and for children, such as judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel including police officers, health professionals, teachers, etc. The Minister said in reply to Dáil questions that money is being put in place in the health boards to provide training for social workers in some of these areas, but he said nothing about what the Government intends to do in relation to members of the Judiciary. I do not believe that is acceptable.

In relation to the education of children, what is happening in this State with regard to children who have special needs, who are unruly or who suffer special difficulties is little short of a national disgrace. Every few weeks on a regular basis parents take cases to court to seek to require the Department of Education and Children to provide educational facilities for children with special needs. It was only this week such court proceedings were brought by parents seeking financial assistance to provide a special educational structure for an autistic child. Some health boards in this State send children abroad and spend enormous sums of money providing an educational system for children that should be provided in this State, other health boards are not addressing the issue and end up defendants in court proceedings. I understand we are spending in the region of £2 million per year — the Minister might confirm that figure — providing for the funding of specialist schooling abroad and in defending such court cases. We are defending the indefensible.

I hope the Minister of State will tell us what initiatives the Government is taking to ensure we have correct educational facilities for children with special needs whose parents are under great pressure and still want the best for their children. We want to ensure children who have been difficult during their childhood can grow and mature into adults who can have a fulfilled life. To date it has been clear the Government has no coherent policies to address this area.

Ms Shortall

I am glad that finally we have an opportunity to comment on the report of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Ireland appeared before that committee in January and it is regrettable we did not have an early opportunity to debate that important report. In spite of numerous requests to the Taoiseach to allow Government time for such a debate, nothing happened for three months. I am grateful to my party Whip, Deputy Stagg, for pushing this matter at the Whips' meeting last week. Because of that we have a few hours to debate it today.

I am disappointed the senior Minister is not present, given the importance of the subject. The Minister's title in the Department was changed by the Government to the Minister for Health and Children, but it seems he is Minister for children in name only. On a number of occasions when he was asked questions on childcare matters or other issues relating to children he invariably passed the buck to his junior Minister. With all due respect to the Minister of State present, if the Government is serious about dealing with the childcare crisis and in view of the damning report from the UN, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, should at least have taken some time to speak to us today on what he proposes to do in response to that report and to outline if he has any policy in this area. I am disappointed he has not seen fit to take the time to do that.

The double act played by the Minister and the Minister of State in this regard is incredible. The Minister has abdicated all responsibility for children and has passed the buck to the Minister of State and when the Minister of State is pressed on any matter he complains he does not have the necessary resources or the staff and meanwhile the Minister manages to get away scot-free. His absence today is disappointing and seems to be an indication of the lack of priority he attaches to all matters relating to children.

I have no intention of point scoring and I do not believe in that type of politics, but this is an opportunity for Members to call the Minister and the Minister of State to account for what they are doing in respect of children's rights. What we have heard so far from the Minister of State is bitterly disappointing. It is defensive in the extreme. He sought to downplay the many serious criticisms contained in the UN report and to highlight the few positive comments on Ireland made by the committee. This type of defensive approach to childcare issues is unacceptable. As politicians, we all must recognise we have failed children in many respects because over many years we have not given children's issues the political priority they demand and deserve. That applies to successive Governments, but we had started to make some progress. That was largely due to the work of the campaigning efforts of many of the NGOs. Childcare issues were starting to appear on the political agenda and were receiving greater attention, but unfortunately the Government has rolled back on much of that progress.

The only way we will make progress on childcare matters is for us to be honest about this. To do that, we must admit that we failed people in this respect in the past. We must give the area of children's issues much greater political priority, put it on the agenda and be honest about what is needed in terms of resources, staffing and funding. We must also start to lay out a systematic strategy for tackling the issues and for ensuring all concerns are addressed. That requires honesty. We need to be upfront about what is required, about the neglect at official level down through the years and the need to adopt a systematic approach to this area.

I was disappointed the Minister of State was so defensive about what we have been doing, what his Government has been doing and the lack of honesty shown in his approach to this. Children, especially those at risk and who are most vulnerable in our society, need someone to champion their rights, someone who will fight for them and insist their rights are met in full. They need someone who will campaign for them. Unlike adults, children do not have a platform, by and large they do not have their own campaign and lobby groups and for that reason we need someone who will fight their corner for them. That is the type of Minister we need in charge of children.

The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, said the approach taken by the UN committee is new and it will take some time to get used to it and to bring our services up to the required standard. However, I remind the Minister that Ireland signed the UN convention in 1992. There has been much time to bring services up to standard, to put this matter on the political agenda and to get used to taking the rights-based approach to children's issues. To say it will take some time is not an acceptable excuse since we have had eight years.

The Government organised the build up to the previous election campaign and its entry into power particularly well. It had access to huge resources in terms of marketing, opinion polling, research and public relations. From where those resources came is another matter, but it put huge resources into getting the campaign right and gauging the mood of the people. It set up focus groups and brought in lobby groups. Fair play to the Government; it put in the effort and it gauged the mood of the people. However, I am surprised that it completely overlooked the area of children and their rights. It was not a priority area and it did not recognise its importance.

When the Government came into power there was scant reference in its programme to children and the need to tackle this area in a serious manner. The previous Administration made some progress in trying to overcome the institutional barriers to the provision of good quality child care services through the co-ordinating role of the former Minister of State, Deputy Currie. His brief straddled the three unwieldy Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Education and Science and Health and Children in an effort to draw together a coherent policy on children. However, there was a complete rowing back by the Government on the small progress made in that regard. It did not appear to recognise the need for this co-ordinating role. It did not recognise the major problems which result from the unwieldiness of those three Departments and the fact that child care issues, particularly those relating to vulnerable children and children at risk, have always been the poor relation in the Departments which always had more important matters with which to deal. The Government appointed a Minister of State with responsibility for children but his brief only extended to the Department of Health and Children.

When the Government's mind was focused on the need to account for itself before the UN committee and defend some of the practices in Ireland, it realised there was a major problem in relation to co-ordination. There was a change in policy and arrangements were made to extend the responsibilities of the Minister of State to the other two Departments. This act alone indicated that there was no appreciation on the Government's part of the problems which exist and how they might be overcome.

While I welcome the extension of the Minister of State's responsibilities, it is not enough. Most people involved in child care recognise the need to be much more radical in terms of putting children's issues on the political agenda. The only way that will ever happen is by the creation of a new Cabinet post of Minister with responsibility for children's affairs. Children's issues are covered by so many different Departments and they are always bottom of the list. An example is the issue of juvenile justice in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There are many high profile issues with which the Minister must deal but little attention, time or resources are given to the area of juvenile crime which involves children who are most at risk. It is the poor relation and it has received little or no time throughout the years.

The Minister for Health and Children and his Department also deal with major high profile issues daily. Issues relating to children are way down the agenda and matters relating to children at risk rarely get attention. This also applies in the Department of Education and Science. Mainstream education in primary schools is the least well funded sector and children with special needs barely get a look in in the Department. It is not good enough to have a Minister of State with roving responsibilities. He does not have a place at the Cabinet table. Lip service is paid to this area. If we as a society are serious about putting children's issues at the top of the agenda and ensuring there is total accountability in that regard, a senior Minister with sole responsibility for all matters relating to children must be appointed.

The days of making excuses about interdepartmental rivalry and turf wars are gone. This problem has been long recognised and there is a need for concrete proposals on how it will be overcome. I am discouraged by contacts I have had in various Departments because of the apparent lack of understanding of the nature of the problems relating to children on the part of senior personnel who have responsibility for policy. This area will not be driven by people involved in turf wars or old ways of thinking in Departments. It must be politically driven and given priority by the Government through the establishment of a senior ministry.

In spite of the Minister of State's attempts to downplay it, the UN committee highlighted 17 different areas of serious concern in relation to the way in which our child care services are organised and funded. The first relates to the fragmented approach to dealing with child care services and the fact that there is no comprehensive policy. The Government's manifesto had many different policies about many different matters, but it had no policy about child care. I pressed the Minister on this aspect at Question Time and he mentioned examining different areas and attempting to address issues in a piecemeal fashion. The problem is that the Government has no considered or comprehensive policy on children. It is made up as the Government goes along or in response to a crisis which arises. It is policy on the hoof. A considered approach is not taken. There are enough reports and people involved in the NGO sector to tell the Government what problems exist. People are more than willing to sit down with the Minister and work on the development of a policy.

Services have evolved in an ad hoc manner over the years, often in response to crisis issues. There is a need for a policy which has a clear strategy in terms of how it will be implemented. Regrettably, the Government does not appear to have paid any attention to this area. There has been no debate on a possible strategy and, therefore, there is no concerted approach to tackling the problems. I appeal to the Minister of State to take on board the UN committee's serious criticism and to develop a strategy and a framework in which we can start to deliver adequate child care services to address the real needs which exist.

Regarding the drawing up of the strategy, I appeal to the Minister of State to involve the NGOs as much possible. The expertise lies in this area. Clearly it is not in other Government Departments where there is departmentalised thinking. If a matter relates to child poverty we are told it is not the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science and if it relates to educational opportunities we are told it is not the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. There has been enough buck passing. NGOs are aware of what is needed, they take a broad rather than a departmental view and they should be fully involved in drawing up the strategy. Will the Minister outline the timescale involved in implementing that recommendation? It is important to do more than pay lip service and vaguely aspire to take on board the criticisms of the UN. We must be very specific and have a clear timescale. I would welcome further detail on that matter.

The UN committee very much regrets we do not take a rights-based approach. The constitutional review group considered the charter and the constitutional amendments required. What are the Minister's proposals in that regard? One of the problems with setting up a review group or a committee is that we are told work is ongoing and questions are not answered. Given that the committee examined the UN Convention, what are the Minister's intentions with regard to the recommendations? Will he give a timescale for their implementation?

Lack of co-ordination is central to this matter. The only satisfactory way of overcoming this problem is by appointing a senior Minister with responsibility for children. The Government has not given a commitment in that regard. In the absence of such a policy, what does the Minister intend to do to improve co-ordination? Has he considered setting up a child care authority on a statutory basis? Such a request has been made by a number of groups and individuals working in the area of child care.

A major issue of concern highlighted by the UN committee is the lack of an independent monitoring mechanism. Promises in that regard were made to the committee before the election and in January by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. The impression was given that this matter was ready for hearing by the committee, but there has been no follow through on it. There is need for an ombudsman for children and a social services inspectorate. At the UN committee the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, said that priority would be given to the establishment of a social services inspectorate which would concentrate on child care. Some time later the Government published the programme of legislation, but the social services inspectorate proposal had gone off the list and instead there was a proposal for a child care inspectorate. I asked the Taoiseach in the House whether a child care inspectorate is to be set up instead of a social services inspectorate, but he did not understand the importance of the two proposed bodies. Will the Minister clarify whether it is intended to set up two separate inspectorates or, in the event that only one is set up, what it will be called? Has the Minister abandoned the idea of an ombudsman for children? What is the follow through on the commitments given in January?

There are lacunae in statistical and other information relating to children. In recent months I tabled many questions to the Minister in this regard and invariably received replies stating that the data requested was not readily available. Promises were given that the Department would contact the eight health boards to get the information and would forward it to me, but that takes a long time. If that basic information is not available in the Department, what work is the Department's planning unit doing? That unit is supposed to consider statistical data, plan ahead, consider the needs and ensure proper services are put in place to meet them. There is a complete absence of basic computerisation in the Department and health boards and, therefore, there is lack of information. That matter needs urgent attention. We must ensure information is provided on all children as defined by the UN, that is all persons up to the age of 18 years. What steps is the Minister taking to deal with that problem and will funding be made available?

Attention is drawn in the UN report to a number of shameful areas in regard to children such as the high incidence of teenage suicide, the incidence of alcohol and drug abuse and the large number of early pregnancies. There seems to be a difficulty in putting those problems into a social context. When we debated the EU report on substance abuse the Minister was extremely defensive and trotted out what various health boards are doing, but that is not good enough. Social analysis is necessary to find out why there is a high rate of alcohol and drug abuse, suicide and teenage pregnancies among our young people. Unless there is analysis of that information, we cannot put in place the services required.

In regard to education, there is concern about high drop-out rates and poor school attendance rates. The Government said it is taking those concerns seriously. It is of major concern to me that there are non-attendance rates of up to 30 per cent in many schools in disadvantaged areas of Dublin. We all know the implications of that for the future welfare of those concerned. Yet the school attendance Bill, which is urgently needed, has dropped down the agenda and there is a vague promise that it might be introduced later this year. That is evidence of lip service to this whole area. School attendance is a key issue. It is often the earliest indicator that there are serious problems in a child's life. Yet we are not serious about putting in place a proper service. That should be given priority if we are to tackle child welfare issues. When questions about this matter are raised with the Minister for Health and Children we are told it is a matter for the Minister for Education and Science. Clearly there is lack of co-ordination in this area.

Many criticisms of services relate not only to lack of co-ordination but to serious under-funding. That is not recognised or understood by the Government. Some months ago the Minister admitted there is a serious problem of underfunding in his Department. The Minister of State said that approximately £100 million would be required to put in place the child care services required, and that is probably a conservative figure. Given the research facilities available to the Minister in the lead-up to the election, why did he not recognise that need and, when he came to office, put forward proposals for funding those essential services? It should have been a priority for the Government in the budget to find the £100 million to put in place those vital services. At a time of plenty, when money was available, there was an opportunity for the Government to introduce creative and effective measures in this area. It missed that opportunity. For example, it became a priority for the Government to halve capital gains tax, a measure which will cost the taxpayer more than £40 million in one year. That would have gone a long way to put in place the type of vital child care services we require.

Clearly, addressing child care and child welfare issues is not on this Government's political agenda because it has chosen to put substantial amounts of money back into the pockets of people who are already well off. When it had the opportunity to put a large amount of money into the services needed, the Government resisted it. It was not important to the Government to do so and it gave money back to those who did not need it. Again, children have to wait for the proper services.

In spite of the Minister of State's apparently sincere approach to this area, it is hard to take him seriously. It is also hard to take the Minister and, indeed, the Cabinet seriously. When the Government had the opportunity to do something radical and significant about improving our child care services, it chose instead to ensure it was pay back time for the wealthy backers of the Government parties. It has neglected its responsibilities in terms of providing services for children. The performance of the Department of Health and Children, at senior and junior levels, and of the Cabinet over the past ten months has been bitterly disappointing. They have had several months to consider this report. Although people were new to the job and the Minister of State did not have responsibility in this area previously, they have had ten months but they have not yet come up with any concrete proposals to tackle these glaring problems.

I would like the Minister of State to answer the questions I asked. I cannot hope this Government will do anything serious about children's rights and disadvantage. The Minister for Education and Science was in the Dáil last week debating the Education (No. 2) Bill and I appealed to him to be serious about educational disadvantage. I appealed to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to look at income support for children. Progress was made in recent years in that area where we had started to allocate money where it was most needed, but this Government has rowed back on so many fronts.

I am bitterly disappointed by the Minister of State's performance to date and that of the Government in relation to child welfare. I intend to continue to press him on this issue. I will ask the Minister, who is supposed to be responsible for children, to come to the Dáil to speak to us occasionally about the needs of children. It is not good enough for him to walk away from the issue in the manner in which he has done. I pay tribute to the work done by so many campaigning NGOs in this area over the years when it was neither fashionable nor profitable for them to be involved in these areas. They have built up a considerable wealth of knowledge and expertise which the Minister is wasting by not learning from it. I appeal to him to rethink his approach in this area.

Mr. P. Carey

I welcome the opportunity presented by this report for a considered debate on the rights of children. While I do not blame anybody for pointing out the deficiencies in the performance of a particular party or Government, it is important we recognise that children come first. Let us consider their rights and how we can deliver a better service to them.

The Minister of State had a co-ordinating responsibility in a previous Government in the area of youth work and sport and his record will stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny. He put youth work on a secure footing and I have no doubt he will champion the rights of children in his present ministry. This report is welcome but we must do better — to use a phrased used by teachers. There is no point pretending recent Governments have blazed a trail of glory in the provision of services to children and young people. We have a patchy record and reviews dating back to the review initiated by the late Frank Cluskey in the 1970s which examined in detail the deficiencies in the system at that time, through to the most recent reports, all indicate that the resolve of State agencies has been less than satisfactory in many cases.

Like Deputy Shortall, I pay tribute to the magnificent work done by the NGOs, including the ISPCC, the Children's Rights Alliance, Barnardo's, Focus Housing, Tabor House and so on. If the voluntary sector did not underpin much of the provision for child care and youth services, we would have a very poor service. We should actively engage them and avail of their considerable expertise.

There is a number of positive notes in the report. The committee appreciated the high level of the education and health systems. It also noted the recent efforts undertaken in the field of law reform and welcomed the enactment of the Child Care Act, 1991, its amended version in 1997, the Family Law Act, 1995, the Domestic Violence Act, 1996, the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, and the drafting of the education and adoption Bills. The committee commends the numerous efforts and concrete measures taken to protect children from sexual exploitation, including sex tourism. It also notes areas of concern and it is important that we address them. Let us not be afraid of criticism. I would prefer to be severely criticised if it resulted in a better service.

The committee regretted that the State's approach to the rights of the child appeared to be somewhat fragmented. If we had a tune, we could sing it. Services for children have been fragmented for years and not only in the areas of education, health, justice and social welfare covered by the Departments but also in those areas at local level. I commend the efforts of the previous Government and of our Government to bring some form of coherence to delivery of child care services. However, much more needs to be done and it will involve the co-ordination of resources in terms of professional services and finance.

The committee also noted the lack of adequate co-ordination among bodies in promoting and protecting the rights of the child. We have been weak in this area over the years and have delivered a service without being sure of its focus.

The committee notes that in certain instances statistics on the problems of children are being collated only in respect of children up to the age of 15. That is a serious deficiency. On the one hand the education system is used to collate whatever information is available while on the other the services of the Department of Health and Children and the health boards are used. I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to commission a consultancy study on this issue during the current year. I am surprised that was not done many years ago.

The committee is also concerned about the disparities with regard to access to education and health services. While recognising the steps already taken, the committee notes with concern the difficulties that children from vulnerable and disadvantaged groups continue to face, including children belonging to the traveller community, those from poor families and refugee children, with regard to the enjoyment of their fundamental rights including access to education, housing and health services. That is a serious indictment and I am glad we are now addressing this problem.

The views of children are not generally taken into account in the family, at school or in society. As a nation, we do not often take into account the views of children, and in the past people used to say that children should be seen and not heard. I welcome the measures being taken in this regard, particularly in the Education Bill, to take account of the views of children.

When I worked as a teacher we introduced a child centred curriculum which was excellent in that it encouraged children and young people to become actively involved in the development of policy at local level. That approach does not seem to have continued but I welcome the Minister's comments recently, in the context of the development of school plans, that the views of children and students would be taken into account with those of parents, management and teachers.

The committee expressed concern about the incidence of teenage suicide. Concern was also expressed about children who are excluded from schools because of sanctions imposed by teachers and the adverse effect that generates which can sometimes have an impact on drop-out rates and school attendance. That is a significant and long agenda and I want to address a number of the issues involved.

Education is the key to addressing many of the problems currently experienced in this area. In the area of pre-school education, we have relied for too long on the goodwill and co-operation of groups like the Irish Pre-School Playgroups Association which operates playgroups often in cold, damp and badly resourced rooms in community centres, the basements of corporation tower blocks and so on. The Early Start programmes were an important initiative and they are having a dramatic impact not just on the lives of three and four year old children but also on the lives of their parents. I compliment the previous Minister for Education on introducing that initiative which to a certain extent replicated the headstart programme in the United States in that it intervened not only at an early stage in the child's life but also brought some coherence to bear on the delivery of services to children. Speaking from some first hand knowledge of the initiative, I welcome the fact that children's nurses, social workers, family therapists, teachers and child care assistants are working together in the interests of children. I am aware that an evaluation of that initiative is currently being undertaken but I have no doubt it will be beneficial in the long-term in addressing issues such as early school leaving and the detection of difficult behaviour.

The mother and toddler groups set up by the Eastern Health Board throughout its area — I have seen a number of them in action — is an important initiative. It focuses on issues such as breast feeding, the health care of children, the avoidance of abuse, etc., and it is having a major impact in these areas.

I compliment the Minister for Education and Science on his initiative in setting up the forum on early childhood education. I realise the report has not yet been finalised but I understand there seems to have been an important engagement on the part of the partners in education in the forum. I have no doubt the recommendations of the forum are eagerly awaited and hopefully will be acted upon.

The initiative whereby children with special needs are integrated into mainstream primary and post-primary schools is beginning to bear fruit. The Joint Committee on Education and Science discussed the report of the Special Education Review Committee last week. It is appropriate to suggest at a policy level that we should integrate children into the mainstream education system — that is long overdue — but it involves a commitment to the training of teachers and the provision of child care assistants, resource teachers and classroom assistants because every child is unique. The child with special needs who is integrated into a mainstream primary school needs a great deal more support than the average child.

I am concerned about the level of integration of traveller children in mainstream primary schools. In many cases, there is a receptive approach taken to the integration of these children into the education system. I am not entirely convinced there is a willingness in many areas for full integration of traveller children in mainstream schools. I am aware of the initiatives undertaken, certainly by the Eastern Health Board in the Dublin area, in setting up pre-school playgroups on some of the settled and sheltered housing sites, which are proving to be effective. The sheltered workshops for travellers that are blossoming throughout the Dublin area are doing excellent work.

We should all be concerned about the drop-out rate from primary education among traveller children. I am concerned that the number of travellers availing of post-primary education is extremely low. That problem must be examined in great detail. Perhaps the home-school liaison service could be expanded with a view to integrating such groups into the mainstream system.

Approximately 20 years ago, arising out of a report commissioned by the late Mr. Cluskey, two excellent initiatives were brought forward. The neighbourhood youth project and the youth encounter project were set up as pilot projects and seem to have remained as such. There has been a reluctance on the part of successive Governments to expand the neighbourhood youth projects — perhaps they are seen as a challenge to the system. These initiatives are an attempt at co-ordinating services for young people at risk in disadvantaged areas. They are expensive, which is to be expected with any worthwhile initiative, but the benefits outweigh any cost that may arise.

The youth encounter projects have the designation of special national schools. There is one of these projects in Dublin, one in Cork and another in Limerick, and they cater for approximately 25 children and young people. These projects should be replicated throughout the country. Discussions are taking place with the Department of Education with a view to developing models based on the youth encounter projects. Time has moved on, and a modified version of the youth encounter projects may be what is called for.

I welcome the Minister's initiative on eight to 15 year olds and early school leavers. That will help to identify trends and may even identify some of the causes of the problems. I commend the initiative of some school principals who, in trying to tackle the problem of early school leaving and school dropout have, arising from the demographic dividend, assigned some of their teachers as school counsellors under the Breaking the Cycle Initiative. It is often assumed that school counsellors are required only at post-primary level. They are just as necessary at primary level. They are certainly useful as remedial and resource teachers, and I hope that initiative will be underpinned with resources fairly soon.

Parents should be more actively involved in initiatives to combat such problems as substance abuse. Recent programmes which have been piloted and which are now being delivered in some primary schools will have an impact on children, their rights and lives. The employment this week of an extra 15 psychologists by the Department of Education is a welcome development. It is not very long since we had a school psychological service which was that in name only. A committee sitting at the moment is expected to report within the next month on the service, the form it should take and how it should deliver its services. I have no doubt that school attendance and other issues will be addressed. I am committed to bringing forward a school attendance Bill at as early a date as possible.

In the area of special education, the exclusion of difficult children from school is a serious problem. It is being addressed to a certain extent in the Education Bill and elsewhere. It is unsatisfactory that so many children under the age of 15 are arbitrarily excluded from school. They inevitably get into trouble. This is a nettle we have to grasp, and it has been grasped to a certain extent in the Education Bill. The whole area of special education needs to be looked at again. I wanted to range over a number of areas relating to young people but, because of time constraints, I will conclude. I welcome the opportunity of the debate. We should not be afraid of criticism provided we build upon it.

Ms McManus

This is the most significant report on the rights of children that this Government is likely to receive in its lifetime, but its response is profoundly disappointing. A junior Minister came into this House and made a statement, but the senior Minister is nowhere to be seen. That is the first point that has to be made, and it sets the tone for this whole debate in a most dispiriting fashion.

The speech by the junior Minister was illuminating in that it showed up the paucity of his thinking about his area of responsibility. It is clear that he has no strategic approach, even though the report and recommendations from the UN committee have at their core the requirement to produce a strategy on the rights of children.

It would be no harm to start at the end of the report, at recommendation No. 41, which directs that the presentation made by the Government and the response of the UN committee in the form of this report be made widely available to the public, and that the report be published and disseminated in order to generate debate and awareness of the principles of the UN Convention. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people in Ireland have no knowledge, or very minimalist knowledge of the convention and what it could mean for children here. Nothing more clearly defines the Government's lack of intention as regards taking real, effective action on this convention than its approach even to the report itself, even to whether it will be disseminated. If this report was good news, it would have been put between glossy covers, it would have had an introduction from the Minister, there would have been a press conference and children there to satisfy the photographers. It would have been splashed in the papers as a good news feature to promote this Government and the two Ministers. It is not good news. This report is real news and, as far as this Government is concerned, that means it has to be buried. I went to the Oireachtas Library to get a copy of the report and I was amazed to get a sheaf of photocopied pages.

On a continual basis I asked the Taoiseach to have the debate which was promised at the UN committee. I was given the brush-off time and time again. It was promised here before Easter and it is only now we are having this debate. The fact that the senior Minister does not even bother to come into the House is a disgrace. The junior Minister disappeared as soon as he made his response. He does not have to stay here, but it is indicative of how little he is taking on board in relation to this project. This is a major project affecting thousands of children, but he is not even here to listen. That this convention and also the committee hearings got any type of platform is thanks to the nongovernmental organisations, particularly the Children's Rights Alliance. Without them the Government would have succeeded in burying the whole embarrassing business.

The Minister stated he supported the development of an awareness campaign and that he will be meeting the Children's Rights Alliance shortly. In view of his inauspicious record, I would like the Minister to spell out the extent, nature and funding of this campaign. The report itself is extremely comprehensive. It is not written about services as we would like to see them. It is written about our services as others see them, in this instance a distinguished expert group looking at the full range. There is something rather laughable about the Minister trying to diminish the value of this report by stating that the committee makes assumptions about the commitment of any developed country and that its job is to be critical. The job of the UN committee is to assess not what we think we are doing but what we are doing to comply with the convention. The committee has done its job and has done it well, and we should record our gratitude for that work.

It is in many ways a damning document. I accept that, and I do not lay all the blame on any Minister, senior or junior. However, it is also a true document of grave importance that must not be shelved. The central point is outlined in recommendations Nos. 6 and 28: "This is the suggestion of a national strategy for children incorporating the principles and provisions of the UN Convention in a systematic way in the designing of all its policies and programmes". It is a theme returned to in the report, the urgent need to bring a coherence and clarity into what has become a ridiculously fragmented and at times chaotic range of services.

The strengthening of the relationship with NGOs is emphasised. I have no doubt but that to create such a strategy would be an enormously progressive move but, so far, the Minister has not undertaken to make even that central commitment. That commitment is needed because despite prosperity and economic growth, life for children is in many ways becoming more unequal, more exploitative and sometimes more dangerous. Children comprise a large proportion of our population and they depend on us to protect their rights. However, we also depend on them to guarantee our future. Yet, at the end of the 20th century, thousands of Irish children fall far short of having basic equality. A section of the 1916 Proclamation deserves repeating:

The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally..

Some 80 years later, our children live in a republic in which the objective encapsulated in that statement is still beyond their reach. We do not cherish our children equally and some not at all.

The lack of planning has impacted at national level but especially on specific service areas. Children at risk or children taken into care are referred to in the report. In the Eastern Health Board region, health professionals are slow enough to take children into care and that is not a bad thing. However, even with that caution there is, in the Eastern Health Board region, a chronic overloading of the system. It is breaking down because there are too few residential places, the existing ones are invariably full up and foster homes are becoming scarcer.

We all recall the recent case of a young person with a learning disability who was on heroin and was living on the streets because there was no safe refuge for him. He was not the only young person in that situation. Another young person suffering from cerebral palsy was living on the streets for weeks. A 13 year old girl on heroin was homeless for five weeks. Teenagers can be difficult to place in foster homes because they may be considered to be too much of an undertaking or a challenge. However, there was an instance of a new born baby abandoned by its mother, being left in hospital by the health board because it had nowhere to place it in care. What does that tell us of our commitment to children? The lack of suitable accommodation has become so serious that in certain cases, leaving the child in the abusive situation is almost becoming the preferred option for the health professional. Building a high support unit is all very well but St. Ita's in Portrane is not the right place to locate it. Much more must be done.

The Minister should tell us if he intends to have an ongoing effective targeted campaign to encourage fostering. It will become increasingly difficult to obtain foster places as more women go out to work and the pool of foster mothers grows smaller. The health board must work harder to ensure places are found. Children as young as 14 or 15 are being told when the health board office closes at 5 p.m. to go to the Garda station and wait until after 8 p.m. for the emergency service to open. I know of a case where it cost £5,000 a week to keep youths in a guest house. Where is the sense in that? Is it not an indication of how chaotic our services are and of the importance of developing a strategy?

One relatively small item in the report which the Minister could have addressed and from which he could have won some brownie points is breast feeding. There is a low level of breast feeding in Ireland but there is at the same time a good representative organisation in the La Leche league. The Department has a strategy in favour of breast feeding. It is a good thing because it is natural, protects the baby, helps the mother and is, therefore, something to be encouraged. La Leche is in danger of having to cancel two weekend training courses for 100 leaders because the Department of Health and Children has failed to respond to a request for a modest amount of money. Will the Minister of State tell the Minister and the Department that we are talking peanuts in financial terms? The Department of Health and Children refuses to display La Leche leaflets but has no problem referring people who seek them to La Leche which then has to cover the postage costs. That is miserliness. La Leche has requested assistance to reprint its excellent leaflets which the Minister of State, who is a doctor would appreciate. If nothing else comes out of this debate, and I have a horrible feeling that nothing else will, can it be ensured that the level of breast feeding is improved?

I would like the Minister to refer to his intentions for the Ombudsman for Children. The Taoiseach stated that legislation would be ready and published by the end of the year. It is a longer time away than any of us would want. The Minister should tell us precisely what is in his proposal for the Ombudsman for Children.

I am concerned about education. While early school leavers have been rightly targeted by the Minister for Education and Science, young people are still suspended or expelled from school without a proper system being in place to ensure they are given the education they are entitled to and are required to be given under law. There is also still an unacceptably high number of children who have no access to remedial teaching although they need it. In west Wicklow, for example, six national schools do not have a remedial teacher. At a time of such prosperity, surely it can be ensured that such a basic educational requirement is quickly met.

I do not want to heap blame on the Minister for all the ills in the area of child care because that would not be right. However, any Government must be judged by the effort it puts in and the choices it makes within the confines within which it must live. I find disturbing the failure of the Government to provide resources and to ensure the Minister for Health and Children does not neglect children. If anyone is guilty of neglect, it is the Minister, Deputy Cowen, because he is the voice of children at the Cabinet, but I suspect that voice is never heard when it comes to the hard bargaining for resources.

When the Government was obliged to make a presentation to the UN committee, it should have been seen in a positive light as kickstarting a strategy in the area of the rights of children. The idea of children's rights is new to us. It has not been part of our tradition but we are growing towards it and that is a good thing. The Minister must give effective leadership in this. I stress again the need for a strategy and ask the Minister to say why he has not stated that he will draw up a strategy based on the UN convention as has been required. People want the needs of children to be met at a time when there is plenty of money available. It is a question of setting priorities rather than of resources not being available.

The public does not want to see children homeless, begging on our streets or addicted to heroin, but that desire must be translated into effective political action. The Government has not met that core requirement. The UN convention and the committee hearings offered it an opportunity to live up to that challenge, but it failed to do so. I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will realise the problem will not go away. The health board will not suddenly be in a position to meet the demands of modern urban life which is creating serious problems for families, particularly children.

Will the Minister refer to the constitutional issue and the co-ordinated actions of the various statutory agencies? The review group has done its work; it is now a matter of Government direction. The anti-poverty strategy is set in the context of a budget in which the rich were enormously enriched and the poor slipped back a few paces. What does the Government intend to do to seriously tackle poverty and protect children, the largest section of the poor? It is interesting to note in the report that the UN committee sees us as a developed, economically prosperous and socially advanced country with a strong identity. That is only part of the picture. The other side is spelt out in the report in a way that we cannot disregard.

Will the Minister reply to all the questions posed by Deputies and move forward on this issue? He should not abandon the process and move on to the next business. This is much too important to put aside in the hope that the problem will go away. That will not happen unless a strategic approach is adopted to address the underlying problems that prevent children having and expressing rights.

Mr. Dennehy

I wish to share time with Deputy Keaveney.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dennehy

I too welcome the opportunity to address the House on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is the role of Opposition spokespeople to be as negative as possible and to point out the shortcomings on all matters. However, it was the nation, not the Government, that was examined by the UN convention and the actions of successive Governments were measured. We must all contribute to meeting the needs of children and a knee-jerk reaction will not be sufficient.

Deputy McManus outlined her approach when she was in office which tended to involve calling press conferences, gathering people around her and producing flashy reports. I do not agree with that approach. Her childish criticism of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, in particular, went down badly. She referred to his absence from the House. She knows he is directly responsible for these issues. He has been in the House since the debate started. She participated for 20 minutes and left. The least a Minister is entitled to is to leave the House to have something to eat at some stage during the debate. I am deeply disappointed at her childish criticism. She referred to a case where a health board had to place an abandoned baby in a hospital because of a lack of places. She participated in Government for nearly four years and left office less than 12 months ago? What does that say about her track record?

We must adopt an honest approach and continue to work collectively in terms of children's needs. Successive Governments and society have let down children and we are seeing the proof of it now. I have spoken on a number of occasions about children's needs. Our Constitution tended to be used as a hideaway for inactivity. Mr. Haughey was the first to nominate a Minister with direct responsibility for children's needs. He tried to co-ordinate the efforts of the Departments of Health, Social Welfare, Education and Justice, all of whom had a finger in the pie, but merely pursued their own roles. We have moved forward since then, but much more remains to be done.

A change of mindset is needed in our approach to the rights of children. The Minister of State made an honest contribution. He pointed out that one of the problems he faces, particularly in the Department of Health and Children, is the shortage of staff to progress the many initiatives that are under way in the area of child care. He also pointed out other areas that need to be addressed.

The report contains many welcome recommendations. The Minister of State correctly stated it is not the role of the UN to tell us how well we were doing in meeting the needs of children, but to point out our shortcomings. It is inevitable, therefore, that the report will highlight many negative aspects about participating countries. We need somebody to point out what needs to be done and I welcome the UN's intervention. I also welcome this debate. It is a timely reminder of the need for the rights of the child to be incorporated in all aspects of public policy.

The report highlights a number of important aspects. It is appropriate that we recognise the extraordinary contribution of voluntary agencies and organisations, without whom many child related issues would have gone undetected in local communities. There is not enough co-operation between agencies with responsibility for the protection of children. I welcome the UN's recommendation about the appointment of an ombudsman for children and a national child care authority. I urge the Minister to appoint an ombudsman and set up such an authority as soon as possible.

There are many positive aspects about our child care policies to counter the negative aspects highlighted by the Opposition. Deputy Carey outlined some of the positive programmes that have been put in place in the past ten years. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill and the decision to establish a social services inspector are two examples of recent initiatives, but there are many more. The report correctly raises concern about other situations such as the lack of guarantees for the child to maintain contact with both parents after divorce. In this context it is important that we are aware of the need for further changes and improvements and that programmes are put in place and carried through, regardless of political or other changes. There will be changes but we need to be continually aware of them and work for the good of children.

We must put child welfare at the centre of all Government policy. That implies the need to address a massive range of issues. I mentioned those arising from the report but there are many others such as adequate child benefit in specific, targeted situations; the provision of low-cost, quality child minding facilities; pupil:teacher ratios; a clean, safe environment in which children can play and learn; a sensible restriction on children's working hours — I am sure this will be debated during forthcoming legislation on pub opening hours — proper health and safety regulations to care for young people who have to go to work and measures to tackle school truancy and dropout rates. Deputy Martin is currently tackling many of these issues and the provision of secure units for young offenders which will not be colleges of crime. Each of these issues must be addressed if we are to truly care for all our children.

However, there are many other issues which must be addressed. As chairman of the Southern Health Board for a number of years I worked on the issue of the right to education for the severely and profoundly mentally handicapped. Issues such as this cannot be put aside and only reacted to in response to a UN advisory group or anyone else. We need to work with these people as a birthright to ensure that every possible facility is put in place for them.

There are many other areas which need to be addressed. Traveller children were identified in a report. We also need to address the issue of the children of refugees. They are covered under the Refugee Act, 1996, so they should be catered for if we fully implement that Act.

There are other issues such as mandatory reporting of child abuse, which the House will need to discuss in a clear and non-political manner. There are diverse views on whether this should be implemented. Some professionals have voiced fears yet committed voluntary groups have indicated that we will not get anywhere until we have a proper reporting system. We need to work with a clear commitment to benefit children.

I have had the privilege of being involved with the Togher Family and Pre-school Centre, which has produced more benefit in my area than every Minister or departmental secretary who held office. It started as a voluntary group of citizens which now has programmes in place which, if replicated throughout the country, would greatly assist in redressing problems, particularly those in disadvantaged areas.

Family support centres and other such facilities need support, particularly financial support. They are capable of securing local input. There will be times when they need professional support from health boards, psychologists and so on, but they are largely self-supporting in terms of staff. However, they need a national commitment and in looking at child care areas we should copy the best examples. Deputy Carey mentioned a few examples in education which might be costly but we should seek to copy the best examples.

I have an interest in this area as I am a trustee of the Togher family centre. As chairman of the health board on four occasions over the past 12 years I have been worried about facilities for the handicapped. It was only the combined action of parents which forced successive Ministers and Governments to take action. I do not want to see that in future. Facilities should be provided as a right. I hope we will move forward in a positive way as a result of this debate.

Cecilia Keaveney

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993 with the decision that there was no incompatibility between the Constitution and the convention. In January 1998 Ireland became the 88th out of 192 signatories to be examined. It is healthy to have a body which looks at the functioning of a convention when ratified and I hope that such a committee is in operation for all EU conventions.

Such a procedure provides an opportunity for constructive criticism and I would like to think that is what Ireland received. As Deputy Dennehy stated, the role of the committee was to find fault as opposed to highlight what we were doing right. It is only by discovering what we are doing wrong that we can make corrections. At the same time finding out what we are doing well will have an impact on other countries.

Ireland's implementation of the provisions of the convention underwent rigorous examination and we were found to be in need of more action in many aspects. However, it was also privately acknowledged that Ireland was by no means the worst. The committee received substantial replies to the issues it raised. We took a serious attitude to the committee and this was appreciated. The openness of this approach is of great importance if progress is to be made on child care services.

Ireland was complimented for the law reform measures introduced such as the Child Care Act, 1991; the Family Law Act, 1995; the Domestic Violence Act, 1996; the Family Law Act, 1996; the Sexual Offences Jurisdiction Act, 1996, and other measures on education, adoption and the protection of children from sexual exploitation, in which it was recognised that we were almost leading the world. The committee also welcomed the decision to establish the social services inspectorate which the Minister intends to have in place this year. It is an important move forward.

The co-ordination of people and services can be applied to every sphere of life, particularly in relation to child care facilities. I often come across situations where one is sent from Billy to Jack or from Mary to Joan before one gets the appropriate section of a Department or body. Things are improving but more has to be done. However, the role of Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is very important. It is a difficult role. It is one thing to be involved in a specific subject but when issues such as children cross so many divides it is difficult to pull things together and I wish him well on the many different ideas he is trying to pursue. As mentioned by Deputy Dennehy there was a reference to staffing and I hope that matter will be addressed. As his role transgresses the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice and Law Reform it involves a multi-departmental team of officials. Multi-disciplinary measures are vital to improving co-ordination. We need a comprehensive policy on children and we are moving in that direction.

Many voluntary groups such as the Children's Rights Alliance, the ISPCC, UNICEF, Focus on Children etc., all of whom I compliment, are doing important work in relation to children. Rather than focus exclusively on providing secure units — I accept there are children who will need that type of assistance — we should move towards prevention rather than fire brigade measures. I would hope the idea of prevention being better than cure will persist and gain momentum from support staff.

It was appreciated by the committee that in the main Ireland has a good health and education system. However, much remains to be done in the fields of education and justice to help prevent children needing some of the child care measures. Education needs to be brought to as many people as possible at an early stage. I appreciate that for the previous Minister and the present Minister this has become a priority.

I agree that society is changing, that children are beginning to speak out and are being heard. I hope the child at risk will continue to be identified. School attendance should be monitored. If children are not at school, why? What are the background problems? When children have physical difficulties they need the facilities of a child care assistant. Those with learning difficulties need help. I could continue ad nauseam in relation to remedial teaching, as I did last year, and succeeded in getting one extra teacher. I look forward to substantial improvements in that area and in technology.

Children at school need a child-centred curriculum. The role of music and arts within the schools will have to be developed. Children who lag behind, become disinterested, lack discipline, give trouble to the teacher, do not attend school, end up on the streets where they encounter problems with drink and drugs and eventually have a meeting with the gardaí.

I congratulate all involved in the juvenile liaison programme and with sport. A great deal of help is available to children who are identified at an early age. I compliment all those who are doing such good work. If time permitted there is much more I could say on this topic. I wish the Minister success in implementing the various ideas. This is a useful debate. Perhaps the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child can be looked at again in five years' time.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. It is clear from the presentation to the UN committee at Geneva in January that the Government has no co-ordinated policy on children and child care services. On assuming office the Taoiseach fragmented responsibility for a variety of children's services among a number of Ministers and Ministers of State and re-erected the political and bureaucratic obstacles to reform which had been removed by the previous Government.

When appointed Minister of State in 1994, Deputy Austin Curry was given full responsibility for child care services and children's legislation across the board. The proposal to establish a children's ombudsman has been abandoned under the guise of long fingering, although it has been strongly recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and Children's Rights Alliance.

It is ironic that under pressure at the hearing in Geneva, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, announced the Government would have a single Minister with sole responsibility for children's affairs. She also stated, under pressure, that the issue of an ombudsman for children is to be reconsidered.

During the past seven years there has been a plethora of reports recommending the implementation of proposals including the appointment of an ombudsman, yet the Government procrastinates. Our children are the most precious part of our society. They are the future of society. They are the future leaders, educators, carers, providers and princes of industry and commerce, yet the State stands indicted in its attitude to them.

The Minister of State, under the international spotlight, was forced to accept there is a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments and a piecemeal approach to childcare in Ireland. She admitted also that a unique emphasis in the past on the rights of parents, as well as the secrecy which surrounds child abuse, dogged the effective vindication of children's rights. We must accept that signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child involved obligations. The Government is reacting to specific situations rather than seeing children as having their own rights, including the right to a safe childhood. Children are not being consulted in any way whatsoever in Irish society.

In the committee's report in relation to Article 44 of the convention, it is significant and highly enlightening that of the 41 comments made in the final report only three outlined positive aspects. There were 18 subjects of concern and 18 suggestions and recommendations for improvements. The committee highlighted and regretted that the rights of the child in Ireland appear to be fragmented. It highlighted the fact that there is no comprehensive national policy which fully incorporates the principles and provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, encompassing all areas covered by the convention.

A member of the committee, Mrs. Palme, a distinguished psychologist and widow of Mr. Olaf Palme, late Prime Minister of Sweden, outlined a difficulty that had not yet been resolved was that of co-ordinating policy and action relating to child abuse and family affairs. Even if steps were being taken towards improving departmental co-ordination she stated there was a need for a more independent body such as an ombudsman to promote and protect children's rights. She highlighted the fact that one-third of all children were dependent on support systems in Ireland. The unequal circumstances which persist must generate a sense of discrimination among children and she asked how the authorities would deal with the problem. Perhaps the Minister will outline his proposals to deal with this severe criticism.

Another member of the committee, Mrs. Ouedraogo, endorsed the view that an independent institution such as an ombudsman would be better able to co-ordinate action for the protection of children at all levels and commended the establishment of a national mediation service as part of the Government's policy on the family. It was also pointed out that the child tended to be viewed within a family context rather than as an individual.

The committee was also concerned that the welfare policies and practices prevalent here do not adequately reflect the child's rights based on the approach enshrined in the convention. In addition, there is concern that not enough emphasis was placed on measures of a preventive nature. The Minister of State outlined that data on homeless children was being collated and a consultancy study initiated to harmonise the various health boards' interpretations of what constituted abuse. Has this work been completed and what was the outcome of the deliberations?

The Minister of State also announced that the Government would establish an independent social services inspectorate in early 1998 with a view to monitoring and evaluating the quality of service delivery as experienced by users and carers, which would consist of a multi-disciplinary team of social services professionals. The inspectorate is supposed to promote the development of national quality standards to be used as benchmarks. It would also initiate research work, contribute to training programmes, implement recommendations of review reports and provide policy development information. I would appreciate if the Minister would inform the House about the progress made in this area.

The committee's report is extremely critical of the lack of adequate co-ordination among bodies in promoting and protecting the rights of the child. It has noted the establishment of various Government bodies responsible at national level for the welfare of children but regrets the lack of co-ordination among them. Mr. Fulci, a member of the committee, said he had the impression that despite a wealth of legislation and regulations, Ireland lacked a national strategy for children in the framework of the convention, and national, regional and local mechanisms for ensuring its implementation. Co-ordination is urgently needed, which was the message the Irish delegation said it would bring back to the authorities.

While the committee welcomed the decision to establish a social services inspectorate as a supervisory mechanism, it remained concerned about the lack of an independent monitoring mechanism such as an ombudsman or child's rights commissioner who was accessible to children, would deal with complaints or violations of their rights and provide remedies for such violations. I asked the Minister to outline when legislation would be introduced to establish a children's ombudsman. Fianna Fáil was committed to this in its Programme for Government and the issue must be handled as a matter of urgency to ensure and provide legal safeguards for children.

The principal themes of such an ombudsman should be: first, to introduce fully to Ireland the spirit and detail of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we have signed; second, to cater for children and young persons in difficulty; and third, to give young people rights of participation in society. The UN Convention should be an important ideological instrument for asserting children's perspective. The ombudsman should systematically review legislation affecting children and propose amendments to make Irish law reflect the State's commitments under the convention. Children's perspective must be made a natural ingredient of all relevant new legislation. Consultation procedures on new legislation must be created and the Ombudsman should make recommendations to Government bodies and be involved in drafting legislation. The children's ombudsman should also have the task of disseminating information and knowledge on the convention to the public, professionals working with children and decision makers.

The convention is something which has to be lived, this means adults behaving towards children in such a way as to respect and sustain their full human dignity. It also means shaping society so that children and young persons receive the protection and support they need in order for childhood and adolescents to have an intrinsic value. The children's ombudsman should be involved in trying to implement the convention in local government. He or she should devote special attention to the question of children at risk of victimisation and sexual abuse — these should be matters of prime concern to the ombudsman.

He or she should also act as a spokesman for children and young persons. One of the tasks should be to represent children and young persons and to assert their interests in the community. He or she should represent young people by trying to secure for them the opportunity of speaking for themselves and gaining respect for their opinions. This should apply both in personal matters and in the community as a whole. The ombudsman should also deal with suggesting ways in which co-determination for children and young persons can be developed — for example, in custody disputes.

Children and young persons should be allowed say their piece and be heard on issues of concern to them. Allowing children and young persons to have their say should be the core of the ombudsman's perspective, otherwise he or she is likely to lose sight of what they want. In the eager pursuit of change, one deceives oneself into thinking one knows what is best for children. At best, this is an adult perspective of children. In many cases it is also good for children and young persons but this is not to be taken for granted. In Ireland children and young people have no channel for conveying their opinions to the people who make the decision. Politicians often speak about children and young persons; at best we may speak of them but it is seldom we speak to them.

The children's perspective needs to be promoted in a more systematic and efficient way. In order for children's and young people's rights, needs and interests to attract sufficient attention, someone must speak up for them and defend their cause. A special advocate, who would give children and young persons a voice and would be capable of viewing social developments from their perspective, is needed. That is what the role of a children's ombudsman should be.

The UN committee's report draws attention to certain lacunae in the statistical and other information collected by the Government, including with respect to the selection and development of indicators to monitor implementation of the principles and provisions of the Convention. The committee notes that in certain instances statistics on the situation of children are, amazingly, only collected for children up to the age of 15. This is a severe indictment of the Government's approach to children. Facts are vital to ensure proper decisions are made and correct conclusions reached. Professor Kolosov, a member of the Committee and a professor of international law in Moscow, pointed out that the statistical data provided did not correspond to the Convention's definition of the child as a person under the age of 18 and thus did not enable the committee to carry out a meaningful evaluation of the real position of children in Ireland. In contravention of Article 4 of the Convention, the State thus has not undertaken to take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures to implement the Convention. Although no doubt the Government has comprehensive census figures at its disposal, it provided figures relating to children under 15 and persons aged 15-24. I do not understand why it could not have submitted information on those under 18 or, if it wished to give figures for those under 15, also to provide figures for those aged between 15 and 18.

The committee was critical of the Government's decisions in its approach to creating an awareness of the convention in Ireland. It was its view that insufficient steps were being taken to create a high level of awareness of the principles and provisions of the convention. It was concerned at the lack of adequate and systematic training provided for professionals and others involved with children. How does the Minister of State propose to create a high level of awareness of the details and objectives of the convention across the broad mass of society?

The committee was concerned that non-governmental organisations would not be fully utilised in the development of policies on children. I pay tribute to the Children's Rights Alliance, ISPCC, UNICEF and Focus on Children on the significant role that they play.

On the definition of "child", the committee was concerned about the low age limits set in domestic legislation. The case was made that it was impossible to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 because of cost factors. This is unacceptable. My colleague, Deputy Currie, will deal with this matter at length. He did extensive work in this and other areas when Minister of State with responsibility for children. It is unacceptable that children as young as seven or eight are dealt with in a criminal rather than social context. They are victims of circumstance rather than deviants. The State has not provided the necessary funding to provide proper care for children at risk and the children of dysfunctional families. A national child care agency should be established so that the Government will never again find itself embarrassed at the committee in Geneva.

On the principle of non-discrimination, concern was expressed at the disparities in terms of access to education, housing and health services. While recognising the steps which had been taken, the committee noted with concern the difficulties faced by children from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds, including children of travelling families, poorer families and refugees, with regard to the enjoyment of their fundamental rights. This was a severe indictment of the Government's approach to those from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds. Are there plans to ensure this issue is dealt with comprehensively?

On the implementation of article 12 of the convention, the committee was concerned that within the family, schools and society generally the views of children were not being taken into account. It described pre-school education as a vital phase in a child's development. Although the recommended age for enrolment at primary level is six, the report indicates that 54 per cent of four year olds and 99 per cent of five year olds attend primary school. The committee maintained that early school enrolment had been shown to cause intellectual fatigue. There was speculation on whether there was a link between this practice and the high drop out and absenteeism rates. The committee recommended that the Government should consider providing pre-school services for all children between the ages of two and five and abide by the recommended age for enrolment at primary level.

Ms M. McGennis

I congratulate the Minister of State on adopting such an honest and open approach to this report. In the short time I have been a Member of this House and in the time I was a Member of the other House I do not recall any Minister showing the same degree of honesty and openness. It establishes a precedent which I would like to see followed. The Minister of State said: "Before summarising these recommendations, I would like firstly to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our performance". For far too long there has been a tendency to ignore criticisms levelled against this State on any issue.

Deputy Neville, with whom I soldiered in the other House, said the Government should feel embarrassed. If Members approached the report in an honest way, then everyone should feel embarrassed as all parties, bar one, have been in Government since 1996. The problems did not start in the past six months. It is unfortunate that Members opposite have engaged in point scoring. They should have approached the debate in a constructive way and acknowledged both our shortcomings and the good work which has been done.

I congratulate the Children's Rights Alliance and its constituent bodies on the work they did with the Minister of State and NGOs in preparing our response to the United Nations committee. While there were differences, everyone was in agreement on the final report presented. That demonstrates the commitment of the Minister of State to this area.

Many have suggested that the Minister of State has been inactive and have commented on the fact that the matter is being dealt with at Minister of State level. I crossed swords on numerous occasions in the other House with Deputy Currie when he was Minister of State with responsibility for children. What specifically was done during his period of office? In dealing with issues about which I felt passionately and which are addressed in the report, I recall saying to him that no action was being taken apart from the establishment of task forces, discussion and consultation groups. The matter of truancy and school attendance was referred to a committee three years before the election and nothing was done.

Mr. Currie

It was referred to a task force which reported.

Ms M. McGennis

The point is that nothing was done during the Deputy's term of office.

Mr. Currie

Action was taken.

Ms M. McGennis

On mandatory reporting, the Deputy rightly engaged in consultation and discussion. On adoptions, an area in which we clashed bitterly, no decisions were taken.

It is unfair and wrong to suggest brave new initiatives taken by the previous Minister have since fallen by the wayside. That is not my understanding of what happened in the past eight to nine months. My understanding is that even in Adjournment matters which were referred to the Minister of State with responsibility for children, the lack of co-operation and accountability by other Departments was quite obvious. That is highlighted in this report. The Minister referred to the work of the ISPCC. The ISPCC is not totally beloved but I congratulate it on the role it has played with great gusto in promoting and provoking debate in this area.

The area of corporal punishment is identified in the committee's report. The debate provoked by the ISPCC on the right of parents to use corporal punishment or to correct their children in a manner which the ISPCC would find unacceptable is very worthwhile. The ISPCC is saying things which have not been said by politicians or others in the public arena. Regardless of whether people agree with its proposals, it has managed to open up the area of children's rights.

I spoke in the Seanad on a number of occasions on areas of family law and on the divorce Bill. I stated repeatedly that if Governments — and I hope this Government will take this on board — when drafting legislation started from the premise of what is best for the child, we would have a much better and healthier society which valued children. I welcome the fact that this is also the view of the committee and that the Minister has referred to it.

The Minister stated we did not expect to get a school report giving "As" in all subjects. The duty and task of the committee was to identify our shortcomings rather than what we had done right. While the committee commented on the improvements which had occurred, its task was to identify and convey to the State where it had still not reached the level of responsibility demanded under the convention. The Minister made that point very clearly.

It is unfortunate that prior to and during this debate people singled out the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and spoke of her being grilled for hours and castigated by the committee. That would have been the situation regardless of who had to bring the report to the committee. As the Minister said, the job of the committee is to identify what we are doing wrong and ensure we correct it. Both sides of the House must acknowledge this area is a priority and the Government will have to provide the necessary funding — the Minister openly acknowledges his Department needs additional staff.

The Constitution Review Group, of which I am a member, is considering specific rights of children and I will support any recommendations it makes for changes to the Constitution to recognise children's rights. The problems posed by the Constitution for health workers came to the fore in the reports on the Kelly Fitzgerald case and the Kilkenny incest case. It was stated several times in the report on the Kelly Fitzgerald case that the refusal of the father to allow health board officials and social workers access to the child contributed to the problems in that family. None of us can stand over a situation where the parental rights enshrined in the Constitution could put young children at risk. If it is necessary to alter the Constitution to rectify such matters we should undertake to do so as speedily as possible.

The Minister outlined the positive aspects of the committee's findings. I welcome its appreciation at our high level of education and our advanced health system. It also welcomed the enactment of the Child Care Act, 1991, the Family Law Act, 1995, the Domestic Violence Act, 1996, the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, to which I referred and the proposed education and adoption Bills. I will refer to the adoption Bill later. The Minister knows my feelings on this matter, which is due for discussion by our parliamentary party soon.

Everyone is very interested in the proposed education Bill. When I spoke on Second Stage of the Education (No. 2) Bill I referred to the fact that children as young as ten years of age are dropping out of the school system. There is an urgent need to put mechanisms in place to address this. It is unacceptable that gardaí are expected to act as school attendance officers. I have this mentioned to the Minister for Education and Science. Very young children who drop out of school will obviously get into difficulties and this area must be addressed. I urge the Minister not to embark upon consultation, discussion or debate but to put in place the necessary procedures, in conjunction with the Minister for Education and Science.

The home-school liaison scheme works to a certain degree but it must be strengthened or expanded. Barnardo's is engaging in this work in projects in Mulhuddart and Tallaght and the Minister has sanctioned funding for a Barnardo's child care project in Cherry Orchard in my constituency, which I welcome. I know what such agencies can do on what might be considered a shoestring budget. They are liaising with school authorities and law enforcement agencies to identify children whose brothers and sisters have got into trouble. They invite parents, usually mothers, to avail of parenting skills training and second chance education. I appreciate Barnardo's work in that area and the Minister's sanctioning of a child care project in the Cherry Orchard area.

The Minister referred to the £50 million which has been made available since 1993 — I recognise that part of that funding was provided during the term of the previous Government — to enable health boards to fulfil their responsibilities under the Child Care Act.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Family, established by the previous Government, invited Fr. McVerry and various other providers of hostel accommodation and places of refuge for young homeless children to make a presentation. Health board officials were also in attendance. Some NGO providers were critical because they found it very difficult to identify where this money had gone. The large sums which had been allocated at the bottom end of the scale to enable the health boards fulfil their responsibilities did not appear to have filtered through in terms of beds, accommodation and places of safety for children. I recall a suggestion that much of the money had been taken up with the bureaucratic implementation of the scheme. Will the Minister respond to this and to the suggestion that it is necessary to identify, monitor and evaluate what the health boards are doing with the large amount of funding that was made available, a substantial amount of which was provided by the previous Government?

I welcome the Minster's commitment to the establishment of a social services inspectorate for children this year. It should be established as a matter of urgency. The need for an Ombudsman for children was mentioned by the committee, but I welcome the Minister's honesty in acknowledging that while he intends to proceed with the recommendation it is not a priority. If a timetable of work is produced detailing the changes to be made during the life of the Government to acknowledge the deficiencies recognised in the committee's report, it will have more than benefited our children.

The need for additional resources in disadvantaged areas was raised by the Minister and by Deputy Neville. Nobody in this House could argue that sufficient finance is being made available in all areas. The health boards have committed themselves to providing a family centre in Cherry Orchard, presumably with support from the Minister. There are probably many other areas in Dublin and other urban constituencies where they are undertaking this kind of work. It is a tangible recognition by the health boards of the need not only to work in areas of crisis but to intervene before a crisis arises. The provision of a family centre in a disadvantaged area like Cherry Orchard is an attempt to prevent crises arising. The committee recognised that we have put insufficient resources into problem prevention.

I will speak at length on the adoption legislation when it is introduced. Given the Supreme Court decision, I do not expect further prevarication; I know outside groups will not accept it. There was much concern that nothing was happening. The decision castigated all politicians for doing nothing in this area from 1952.

The committee also rightly recognised our shortcomings in relation to minority groups and travellers. While previous Governments and the State have been criticised for lack of action, society should be reminded that it has a huge responsibility. There is no point in Governments introducing legislation, such as the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Bill, if society does not become more concerned with areas relating to children, disadvantage and minority groups. When politicians seek support from all communities for places of safety for battered wives, children at risk and travellers communities must respond positively.

Mr. Currie

I looked forward to a constructive debate, but it is regrettable that some of the comments have been negative. Surprisingly, most of the negative comments have come from the Government benches. For example, Deputy Dennehy said the job of Opposition is to be as negative as possible. While that is the attitude often adopted by Fianna Fáil in Opposition, I do not accept it. I am surprised that some speakers on the Government benches appear to have adopted it.

A number of Members used the word "defensive". I am prepared to take on the Deputy at any time but she knows I have time constrictions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Currie

Political leadership is not being provided and child care issues are not being politically driven. From my experience as Minister of State at the Department of Justice, with responsibly for children, I know of the hard work of the officials in the three Departments over which I had responsibility. I also know of the commitment, beyond the call of duty, of many of them. I do not point the finger at them and I support the Minister's comments on extra staff and more money. I tried to get this and would have eventually succeeded. However, the finger points at the political masters who are not driving this issue in the way it should be driven.

I paid special attention to reporting of the Geneva meetings. One of the headlines declared: "O'Donnell grilled for six hours". The Minister of State had an uncomfortable time, which, to an extent, was predictable. Anybody else would also have had an uncomfortable time. However, it was made more uncomfortable because her co-ordinating role had been dropped and the Government was welching on its commitment to establish an ombudsman for children. Those are two of the factors that made the criticism in Geneva greater than it ought to have been. The Minister of State referred to the exceptional nature of what happened in Geneva, but it should not have been any surprise to the Government. We had the example of what happened to the British when they went to Geneva sometime previously. The Minister should have been aware of that because his officials and the NGOs were aware of it. He should have been properly prepared for what happened at Geneva, but for the reasons I outlined in relation to the lack of co-ordination and in terms of an ombudsman our representatives got a harder time than they deserved.

I was amazed that when the Minister of State was appointed he was not given a co-ordinating role between the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which I had previously. That was one of the first weaknesses I recognised. When I was appointed Minister of State I was given specific instructions to make progress on the full implementation of the Child Care Act, the children's juvenile justice Bill and the school attendance Bill. I and the Government that appointed me Minister of State with those co-ordinating functions recognised weaknesses arising from such a lack of co-ordination.

One of the first things I did was to set up a co-ordinating committee between those three Departments which met every Wednesday morning. The Minister indicated in reply to a question I tabled recently that the co-ordinating committee for children's affairs met 103 times between 20 December 1994, the year our party entered Government, to 26 June 1997. Why was that co-ordinating role dropped?

Mr. Fahey

It was not.

Mr. Currie

It was dropped and had to be reinstated later as a result of a direction from Geneva. The children's co-ordinating committee was also dropped. Why was that done, particularly when the Taoiseach praised me in this House for what I had done as Minister of State for children with responsibility for co-ordination? I direct Deputy McGennis's attention to the Official Report which states the Taoiseach praised me for my co-ordinating role. What is the co-ordinating structure now? Is there any such structure between the Departments?

Mr. Fahey

It is the same as it was. It has not changed.

Mr. Currie

It is not comparable to one I had which was very successful.

There was also a Cabinet committee on children's affairs which I chaired. It carried considerable clout at the Cabinet table because the Ministers from the three Departments, for which I have responsibility, and the then Ministers for Social Welfare and Equality and Law Reform were represented on it. That added to my co-ordinating role to provide the necessary clout at the Cabinet table to implement decisions.

Deputy Shortall raised the question as to whether the solution in this area ought to be the appointment of a separate Cabinet Minister and the establishment of a Department for children's affairs. In the absence of proper co-ordination that must be the way forward. If there is not proper co-ordination, there is not a case for not having a separate Department to look after the interests of children.

Regarding an ombudsman for children, I gave money to the Children's Rights Alliance to part-fund its proposal for an ombudsman for children and I received its good report recommending an ombudsman in some context. We have seen the vacillation of this Government on the appointment of an ombudsman for children. I had a consultation process on mandatory reporting and arising out of that I made certain proposals. I did not and still would not recommend mandatory reporting, but I took the view, like many voluntary organisations working with children, that an independent mechanism for the protection and promotion of children's rights is required, in other words, an ombudsman or a commission for children such as has operated successfully in countries like New Zealand, Norway and Sweden for many years. That was the reason I part-funded Children's Rights Alliance to undertake a joint research project into the feasibility of such an initiative and its report, seen and heard — promoting and protecting children's rights in Ireland, was published in September 1996. With minimum delay I announced the Government's response to the consultation process on mandatory reporting in December l996, the central feature of which was agreement, in principle, to the establishment of an ombudsman for children, but much preparatory work remained to be done. In April 1997 I established an interdepartmental working party to work out the necessary practical details. The first warning signal after the general election came with the failure of the Fianna Fáil-PDs programme for Government to obtain a commitment to an ombudsman for children, even though such a commitment appeared in those two parties' election manifestos. On formation of the Government there was a dismantling of the co-ordinating arrangement I established. It was clear to me then and it is clear to me now that children's issues had slipped down the agenda of the new Government. This is shown by the confusion and double speak on the official position on an ombudsman for children.

In October 1977, shortly after Deputy Fahey was appointed to office, he told me in response to a Dáil Question that he was not convinced that this is the most effective mechanism for vindicating the rights of children. On 17 December last, in response to a question I raised on the Order of Business, the Taoiseach said the commitment in the programme for Government will be met and the proposal for an ombudsman, which is well thought out, will be implemented in due course. When I asked the Taoiseach to confirm it is a commitment of Government, he replied, "yes". There was no such commitment in the programme for Government and the Taoiseach was factually incorrect in that regard, but he gave a commitment on record to appoint an ombudsman. I again raised the matter on yesterday's Order of Business and asked about the current position on an ombudsman for children to which the Government is committed and the Taoiseach replied it is hoped to have proposals on that later in the year.

Some of the issues raised in Geneva which caused the greatest problems are covered by the Bill, for example, raising the age of criminal responsibility to ten years of age and then to 11 and 12 years of age. The Bill also covers provision for out of control children. Nothing was done for 20 years. This was followed by two years of achievement, but now another year has been lost. How many more years will it take? This is a serious indictment not only of the Minister of the State but also of the Minister for Health and Children and the Government. There is no excuse for the delay.

There was a reference to the school attendance Bill. When I left office this Bill, which updates 1926 school attendance legislation, was ready. It is disgraceful that nothing had been done by any previous Administrations about this matter. The Bill was ready when I left office. What happened to it? I understand there was a problem in relation to the regional education boards because the new inspectorate system I proposed was linked to them. However, that was a year ago. There is also a lack of co-ordination and progress in this area.

I appeal to the Minister of State to involve the NGOs and the Children's Rights Alliance. On the basis of experience, they are sincerely committed to the welfare and protection of children and we will need their help in future. I make the point, more in sorrow than in anger, that in relation to the welfare and promotion of children's interests, the past year has been a colossal disappointment in many respects.

Mr. Gormley

A grilling by a United Nations committee for six hours, which was the experience of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, appears to indicate that at best Ireland has been seriously deficient in meeting its declared international intentions in advancing and protecting the rights of children. At worst, a strong case can be made for the existence of a degree of governmental negligence that has been totally unacceptable.

The United Nations committee was extremely well informed in knowing about and inquiring further on the plethora of incidents, events, crises and scandals which have involved and enveloped children in Ireland in recent years. The questioning of the UN committee was a mirror image of Irish attitudes to children which was not apparent in political debate previously despite the efforts of non-governmental organisations such as the ISPCC and the Children's Rights Alliance. For too long, and much too often, children in Ireland have been hidden and when seen, they have not been heard. Irish children have been subjected to collective indifference and unspeakable cruelty and horror.

To conform with accepted international standards, it requires not only a change of policy and legislation but ultimately a change of mindset. The words of the UN committee give us cause for concern. A Russian member of the committee complained that Ireland has a "patronising approach to children". He continued: "The child does not feel himself a full member of society." The chairwoman of the committee, who is from Barbados, said that the submissions by the Irish "lacked the sense of the children as people". She said there was much talk about the protection of children, but not enough talk about their empowerment. She felt in terms of Irish policy that children were invisible.

The Swedish representative, Ms Palme, who is the widow of the former Prime Minister of Sweden, strongly criticised the current policy of the Government to establish a social services inspectorate ahead of the creation of an office of ombudsman for children. The case to establish a position of children's ombudsman is unanswerable and the Government should have its policy informed by views expressed in the House rather than respond to the international embarrassment provoked by the UN committee. The Government's defence to date of its deficiencies in these areas has been one of watery self-justification. For the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to argue that welfare issues must be prioritised before the issue of children's rights is to ignore that a properly codified system of rights, if implemented, will avoid a repeat of the band aid approach to children's policies.

In Geneva, Israel's representative on the UN committee asked the obvious question that the Government appears unwilling to confront. How can Ireland have the second highest level of child poverty in Europe while boasting of its status as the Celtic tiger? This inconvenient statistic shatters the myth that a successful economy equals a successful society. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, must have, and should have, felt severe embarrassment as the UN committee proceeded through a litany of inconsistencies in Irish law as it relates to children from the absurdly low age of criminal responsibility to the failure, despite legislation, to stop children being referred to as illegitimate.

Our mindset in relation to children can only be changed when we have or can achieve a more open and honest society. When we examine the publicly highlighted incidents of child abuse in recent times, it is surprising to discover how little we know about these events. Many reports, including those on Madonna House, the Kelly Fitzgerald case and the X case, have been conducted but few have been made fully public. Without open honest debate we cannot hope to bring about the changes in standards that are required. Honesty is needed in regard to mandatory reporting. It is uncertain whether the Government supports this concept. Its position on Deputy Shatter's Bill indicates it is less than honest on the issue.

Respective Governments have failed to recognise and respond to the cross-departmental nature of children's issues. The previous Government attempted to address this issue, but that attempt was somewhat lessened by this Government. A dramatic change of approach is needed. An example of where cross-departmental co-operation is lacking is that where there are declared policy positions on children's rights, the practice varies widely from policy. Distinctions are made in creating different classes of rights for different groupings of children. An example is the failure of the Minister for Education and Science to implement the findings of the High Court O'Donoghue case regarding the educational rights of mentally handicapped children.

I will conclude by quoting the words of the Lebanese poet, Kahlil Gibran: "Our children are not our children but are part of life's longing for itself". If we remember these words, as legislators we may begin to produce laws for children rather than laws for adults to apply to children in an adults only world.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 30 Apr 1998

UN Report on the Rights of the Child on Child Care Services in Ireland: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1998