We will now hear a presentation by the National Youth Council of Ireland. I welcome Ms Mary Cunningham, Mr. James Doorley and Mr. Gearóid Ó Maiolmhichil and perhaps they will decide what way they wish to lead off.
Constitutional Amendment: Discussion with National Youth Council of Ireland.
Ms Mary Cunningham
I thank the Chairman for giving the National Youth Council of Ireland the opportunity to address the committee. We made a written submission to the committee earlier in the year. The context is changing constantly so it is a useful and important opportunity for us to come and make an oral submission.
We intend to do our presentation in two parts. I will lead off on the part which looks at the issue of children's rights, and then my colleague Mr. Gearóid Ó Maoilmhichil, national co-ordinator of child protection for the youth sector will deal with child protection issues. After this, Mr. Doorley, Mr. Ó Maoilmhichil and I will welcome the opportunity to engage in further discussion with the committee.
The National Youth Council of Ireland is the umbrella body for national youth organisations in Ireland. Our membership consists of more than 50 organisations and includes all the main youth work providers, as well as specialist organisations working in environmental youth work, faith-based youth work, youth drama, Irish language youth work, organisations working with young Travellers and young people with disabilities. We also have the youth wings of almost all the political parties in membership. We are more than 40 years old, we are a social partner and are named in the Youth Work Act 2001 as the national representative body. I hope that gives us the bona fides to address this committee.
NYCI has been concerned that issues around the welfare and protection of children and children's rights appear to be considered as one and the same. This has led to confusion and to recent suggestions that this matter can be dealt with by legislation. Our written submission and current position remain committed to the need for constitutional reform to enshrine in the constitution the rights of all children living in Ireland. A constitutional amendment is necessary and is the only possible route to provide express rights in the Constitution to recognise children as holders of rights in their own right, and to ensure the legal system bases its decisions on children consistently on principles of the best interests of the child. We also believe many of the child welfare issues can be addressed by legislation and Mr. Ó Maoilmhichil will discuss this.
The original proposed wording fell far short of commitments made by the Government over the past ten years and of what was stated by the Ombudsman for Children and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its concluding observations in September 2006, when it recommended that the State make efforts to strengthen children's rights to express their views in all matters affecting them, including through constitutional provision. It also pointed out that the State needed to undertake further action to incorporate the convention into domestic law to ensure the general principle of the best interests of the child is a primary consideration without any distinction, that this principle is fully integrated into all legislation relevant to children and to ensure the best interest principle is applied in all political, judicial and administrative decisions as well as in the projects, programmes and services that impact on children. It also recommended that children be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceeding affecting them, and that due weight it given to their views in accordance with their age and maturity.
We also felt the proposed wording fell far short of the commitment made in November 2006 by the then Taoiseach to put the rights of children in a central place in the Constitution. He went on to say that in that way the people could show the value they attach in the aspiration of the 1916 Proclamation to cherish all the children of the nation equally. The previous wording was not a children's rights amendment but a child protection amendment.
While the NYCI supports the efforts being made to increase protection for children and to remove any legal loopholes that might minimise that protection, we believe these steps will only afford additional protection to a small but important number of children and will not in themselves enhance the rights of the majority of more than 1 million children in Ireland. The original proposal that the existing rights contained in Article 40 of the Constitution could be extended to apply equally to children and did not need explicit or exhaustive restatement gives an uncertain and weak level of constitutional protection to children's rights, leaving the courts to enumerate or identify rights through case law.
To ensure that children's rights are given paramount importance in Irish law, they must be clearly and comprehensively defined in the Constitution. Looking at best practice internationally, section 28 of the South African constitution provides one of the best examples of how this can be done. By neglecting to provide a detailed framework of rights, the State is providing a vague and ambiguous statement on children's rights which will add little value in terms of the desired outcome of enhancing the rights of children.
We also pointed out in our submission that it is sometimes argued that any enhancement of the rights of one group can only be at the cost of the rights of another and that it is a zero sum game. The same argument has been raised in this debate — that giving rights to children takes rights away from parents and the family is weakened as a result. However, we believe this ignores the fact that many of the rights of children and parents are mutual. In my experience, both as a parent and a professional, the primary advocates for the majority of children are their parents. Enshrining children's rights in the Constitution will serve to provide greater clarity to legislators and the courts, policy makers, providers of services, parents and children on an area that historically has been unclear. It will enshrine greater protection to children from prejudice, discrimination and injustice.
Parents have nothing to fear from an amendment that enshrines children's rights in the Constitution. In fact, giving protection to children's rights should mean that the State will support all families more effectively in order to vindicate the rights of children and parents together. The NYCI is calling for children's rights to be placed firmly back on the agenda. This requires a renewed commitment to re-introduce a constitutional amendment on children's rights. As stated by Deputy Brian Lenihan, when he was Minister of State with responsibility for children, this is an great opportunity to make a difference for children. The constitutional amendment has the potential to bring about significant and positive change in the lives of children living in Ireland. The wording chosen will be crucial to whether that potential is realised.
We urge the committee to consider including express rights in the Constitution and, in doing so, to place the best interests of children at the heart of our law. We hope this committee, the Government and the political parties can demonstrate the leadership required to make Ireland one of the best places in the world to be a child. My colleague, Mr. Gearóid Ó Maoilmhichil, will deal with the child protection issues.
Mr. Gearóid Ó Maoilmhichil
Time has passed since we made our initial submission. As the co-ordinating body, we work from the premise that a child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. That is the basis on which we work each day with our member organisations and with young people who are not members of recognised youth organisations.
I wish to refer to a few items which have developed since we made our submission, notably, Garda vetting, soft and hard information on Garda vetting — we hope to be engaged in some aspects of that — the need for pan-European vetting of people who have come here, who hope to work with children in this country and who are welcome to do so, the age of consent and the issue of strict liability which is currently on the agenda.
Before I do that, we ask that the review of Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children which has taken place and which was published at the beginning of August, be seriously examined. We are duty bound to deliver what is in it and so should everybody else. That report, which was published by the Office of the Minister for Children, should be taken seriously and we welcome its publication.
On the issue of Garda vetting, the youth sector, as we are referred to, engaged in Garda vetting in September 2006 with the great co-operation of the Garda vetting office led by inspector Pat Burke in Thurles. In their first year of engaging in Garda vetting, youth organisations vetted 10,000 new people. These were people who volunteered or who were part-time or full-time personnel working with children, that is, people under the age of 18.
Our sector has raised the bar somewhat in terms of engaging in vetting and we have done so without legislation or without having to do so. However, we believe good, proper recruitment and selection procedures require that one should engage, in so far as possible, in the vetting of people. Unfortunately, the vetting service we have is somewhat restricted and that is no fault of the personnel in Thurles who do an excellent job. We can exchange information with the authorities in Northern Ireland through the PSNI. We have limited exchange of information with England, Scotland and Wales. Beyond that, we probably have no other means to check a person's background. Many people come here from European countries and further afield to work and, hopefully, to engage fully in our communities through youth work and youth clubs but we cannot check the background of these people.
First and foremost, we believe legislation is required in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that all organisations which work with young people must vet all their personnel, whether volunteers or paid or non-paid personnel. Our counterparts in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain ensure all their personnel are vetted. We do not have the required legislation. It is probably indicative of the manner in which we have handled vetting that the only realistic legislation regarding vetting in Ireland relates to bouncers and nightclubs. That is the first legislation in which a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform insisted those personnel be vetted prior to employment. Youth workers are vetted but it is a voluntary action by us and not a mandatory action required by legislation.
The second issue is soft information and I realise it has been discussed at committee and elsewhere. There is a body of opinion that believes we do not require a constitutional amendment to allow us to seek the soft information, that is, the non-conviction type information, regarding a person who seeks to work with children. We request that issue, along with the legislative issue regarding Garda vetting, be addressed as a matter of urgency and that if needs be, the test case be taken regarding the acquisition of soft information on personnel.
On the issue of age of consent and strict liability, unfortunately we do not have the access to the information the committee may have through the advice of the Attorney General or previous Attorneys General. In regard to the age of consent, we firmly believe that if the 2006 Act states "17" years, that is what it is and that is how we will work it. If it changes, we will acknowledge that. However, in our education of young people and the training we provide through youth organisations and through our leaders, we firmly point out that in the case of sexual activity, the onus — not only morally but legally — is on the adult to ensure the person with whom he or she may be engaging in a sexual act is of the legal age and the maturity to engage in that same act, regardless of the legislation about which we may be talking. In our training and discussion with young people we also promote a delay in sexual activity. For many reasons, whether education, maturity or health reasons, it is better for young people to delay their sexual activity until they are of an age and maturity to understand the activity in which they engage.
We need to return to the 2006 Act. The National Youth Council of Ireland believes young men are discriminated against in that Act in so far as it states that the male involved in under age, albeit consensual, sexual activity shall be open to prosecution and the female shall not. Neither should be prosecuted. We should engage with young people in a mature way and, perhaps, if they are engaging in sexual activity, warn them about the difficulties this could create at a later age. We oppose the criminalisation of young people who consensually or sometimes to experiment, engage in sexual activity. We ask that the Act be readdressed in that regard at some stage.
The deputation is now open to questions by members of the committee.
I welcome the deputation. Its submission is very valuable and much appreciated. It is important that we address the issue of children's rights and that children are given explicit recognition in the Constitution. I hope this committee will work towards that and we have a referendum on the issue. One thing we are agreed about is that the phraseology is difficult. From the Fine Gael perspective, the original wording proposed, however well intended, does not adequately address the issue of children's rights. I hope we will work through this and have a referendum.
I welcome the comments about the Children First guidelines. The report published at the end of July, if we cut through it in direct terms, indicates that only 16% of people believe the guidelines are being complied with. A higher percentage thinks they are complied with on some occasions. One of our difficulties is that we frequently put in place legislation or guidelines and assume a problem is solved, but do not ensure the services work in a manner that ensures the guidelines are applied. No matter what this committee achieves, that problem will not be solved by a constitutional amendment. It is crucial that steps are taken urgently by Government to ensure a uniform application of the Children First guidelines right across the country. Until that happens, children reported to be at risk will remain at risk and children who should be protected will not receive the protection to which they are entitled. I am sure the guidelines will be discussed again in the Dáil and in committees.
On the other issues raised, there is an urgent need to enact legislation in the area of vetting. The Government has the resources to produce the legislation and I hope it will do so. Vetting is hugely important. If we have learned nothing else in recent years, we have learned of the risks posed to children by people with paedophile tendencies who involve themselves in youth work, be it as coaches in the swimming or other areas.
It is important to acknowledge what is being done in the area of vetting. This committee visited the Garda vetting unit, which deserves praise for the significant work it has managed to do within the legislative limitations within which it operates. There is clearly a need for a European-wide co-ordinated vetting system to be put in place. That would need to be organised at a European Union level and countries outside the European Union would also need to be brought into the process. That aspect will not be solved by this committee but the Government has an opportunity to address that matter. Nothing that this committee is doing today could put in place that co-operative mechanism. However, we learned from the Garda vetting unit that it has good co-operation with some police forces outside these islands of Ireland and the United Kingdom, but does not have good co-operation from others, which needs to be addressed urgently.
Regarding the issue of absolute or strict liability offences, my concern and that of Fine Gael is to protect children from adults who sexually exploit them, prey upon them, groom them, and engage them in sexual conduct to which they lack the age to give a fully informed consent. In so far as the law plays a role, none of us is sufficiently naive to believe that children do not experiment sexually. They did when I was a teenager as they did when every member of this committee were teenagers. The object of the law is to protect children against adults. It is also to protect children from themselves, from making decisions they will regret in later life. Fine Gael does not believe we should criminalise young people of proximate age who perceive themselves to be engaging in consensual interaction with each other, even if it is interaction with which their parents would disagree or that society would morally censure. There is no reason that cannot be built into any new law that is enacted, which we would be very much in favour of.
Having said that, I wish to ask the representatives of the National Youth Council of Ireland a question about their submission. Would the council accept that, subject to provisos, there is a need for legislation to reintroduce the concept of statutory rape? While there may be disagreements about age, in the interests of protecting children and young people there is a need to recreate a criminal offence of engaging in sexual acts with someone below a specific age who, it is widely recognised, could not give informed consent. Would it regard the existing law, which allows simply the defence of "honest belief", as being acceptable? A 35 year old man, who currently has sexual intercourse with a 14 year old, can claim he honestly believed that she was 17 and, as a consequence, will not be convicted. As recently as 20 June the Director of Public Prosecutions said that there are now major difficulties in prosecuting anyone for engaging in sexual relations with a person under age. Does the council believe there is a need to change the Constitution in that area as well as in the area of children's rights to allow us to reintroduce a law relating to statutory rape?
As we are keen to get the views of everyone around the table, I ask the witnesses to take note of the questions and we can then get back to them. I will call Senator Alex White, followed by Deputy Howlin and Senator Corrigan, who was keen to speak earlier.
Regarding the strict liability question, while I am sure Deputy Shatter did not intend to convey the impression, there is no proposal that somebody simply by asserting that he or she believed somebody was a particular age could not then be convicted. Nobody is proposing that. The simple assertion without further scrutiny or otherwise that a person thought something would not mean he or she could not or would not be convicted.
I wish to raise two issues. Mr. Ó Maoilmhichil made a compelling case — as have others — that legislation regarding soft information ought to be produced urgently. I take it that the council agrees with those of us who have cited this issue as an example of something that is being considered by this committee in the context of constitutional change. As far as I am aware, nobody is arguing that constitutional change is required at this stage. I have not heard representatives of the Government or the Opposition, or the Attorney General, suggesting that constitutional change is required. In such circumstances, there is no excuse for further delay in introducing legislation to deal with this urgent and serious question.
I would like to ask Ms Cunningham about the proposed amendment to the Constitution relating to children's rights. She helpfully referred to the strength of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and cited the interesting example of the South African constitution. We often have to deal with the meanings of words. I am sure Ms Cunningham will accept that the final proposal must have real meaning and teeth. I will put the question to her in a rhetorical fashion to emphasise my point. Regardless of whether the final proposal involves importing the convention into our Constitution, following the South African example or adopting the provision that is currently before the committee, does she agree that there must be certainty — or at least a real likelihood — that it will improve the position of children? Our proclamation refers to "cherishing all the children of the nation equally", which is a famous and almost hackneyed phrase. It is a pity to describe it as such, because it is a wonderful phrase in many ways. That aspect of the Constitution is not being implemented — those words are not a reality. We can put as many words as we want into the Constitution, thereby persuading ourselves that we are standing up for children and enhancing their rights, but it will be a futile exercise if those words are not capable of enhancing the lives and the rights of children. I do not suggest that it is futile at the moment, but words alone will not change things.
I would like to ask some questions and make some brief comments. I thank the National Youth Council of Ireland for its presentation. I welcome the council's presentation and the submission it made at an earlier stage. I appreciate that today's presentation represented a further development of that submission, in line with the evolution of the work of this committee. I would like to respond to the comments made by the delegation and Senator Alex White about the issue of "soft" information. At our last meeting——
The Senator suggested that we should——
Yes. Not only do we now seem to have consensus, but we have also developed a desire for a certain degree of urgency. We have become aware of gaps and deficits. We know we can take action.
Perhaps we can take such matters out of our discussions and send them to the Government as a matter of urgency.
I agree that we need to move on. It would be useful if the committee were to reach agreement on that.
I would like to make a further point, without wishing to reignite the debate we had earlier. Deputy Howlin pointed out that political tension is to be expected on a committee of this nature. I empathise with Deputy Shatter, to some degree, when he explains the frustration he is experiencing. It is worth mentioning, to keep it in perspective, that this committee has undertaken some valuable work. The Minister of State has made it clear that the work of the committee will inform the position of the Government. To outline our position on soft information would be a concrete expression of the work of the committee to date. That would be important for all members.
In its presentation, the council made the point that children's rights and child protection issues should be seen as two separate matters. I can see a certain logic in that. However, we need to bear in mind that a child's right to safety is an ultimate right and the child protection work being done by this committee is important in ensuring this right is realised. While children's rights and child protection issues can be treated as separate, it is important to see the links between them and how they feed off each other.
I am interested in the part of the submission concerning the balance between the rights of the child and the rights of the parents. There is a concern in some quarters that enhancing someone's rights has a cost in terms of the rights of someone else. This is an interesting point. I ask the delegation to elaborate on it in the context of the earlier comment that it is important that a child's voice be heard with due regard to his or her age and level of maturity. Does the National Youth Council of Ireland have in mind a particular framework or mechanism for recognising a child's age or level of maturity? I ask the delegation to comment in the context of the need to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the family.
I will pose a couple of questions rather than make a statement. I warmly welcome the helpful submission made to the previous committee by the National Youth Council of Ireland and acknowledge that the council, like the committee, is internalising the debate and nuancing its position.
Generally, if one asks people whether they are in favour of strengthening the rights of the child in the Constitution, they will answer "Yes". The proposed wording is a little tokenistic in that it states that we are in favour of children having rights without stating that they have such rights. I am interested in the delegation's view on this matter because the National Youth Council of Ireland has raised a number of key points, including the facts that children are in large class sizes and are on waiting lists for health care and housing. Does the council envisage making a constitutional provision which would allow parents or others acting on behalf of children to argue that a class is too large and must be reduced? This could result in a judge of the High Court as opposed to the Oireachtas determining what is an appropriate class size. From experience in the Legislature and Executive, I know that people who determine the expenditure of money without a requirement to raise it are in a fortunate position. I say this because this issue will be a real concern for those who will give teeth to this provision.
We must have a debate on whether we want legislation or a constitutional position that has real meaning. With all due respect to the South African perspective, those of us who have visited South Africa will have seen near Cape Town the largest slum in Africa outside of Nairobi. When one reads the constitutional provision in South Africa on the right to shelter, one should be somewhat sceptical about the effectiveness of this right. One needs only consider health provision in Khayelitsha, the slum in question with a population of 1 million people. Nevertheless, the introduction of a similar constitutional provision in such strict terms might have a different impact here. We must think through this issue and decide what we want to do. I am interested in hearing the view of the delegation.
On the issue of legislating for vetting, the committee should formulate a proposal. Perhaps the Chair will make note of this and ask the Minister of State to advance the matter and ensure we have legislation before the end of the coming Dáil term to enact what is a real requirement in child protection, one which is not dependent on the report this committee will ultimately produce. I strongly endorse the need for legislation but I do not wish the point on the discrimination in the 2006 Act to get lost. I argued that on the floor of the Dáil during its enactment. Unfortunately, it was a deliberate choice of Government to discriminate against young men. The legislation would not hold up if it was tested, certainly not in a European context. It is a bad policy. Although it was well meant to protect girls, one cannot do that by discriminating against young men.
At that time Deputy Howlin was his party's justice spokesperson.
I was.
I welcome the National Youth Council of Ireland, which has helped to inform our views both in terms of what it said before the committee and in the public forum especially on areas such as the age of consent. Its contribution has been helpful and instructive.
I support what has been said on vetting legislation. Senator Corrigan referred to Deputy Shatter's frustration. I share his frustration in that we had a Private Members' Bill on the issue of vetting in 2003 that was defeated at the time on the basis that legal advice suggested a referendum was required. I welcome the fact that we are getting to this issue five years later but I wonder how many children may have suffered in the five intervening years. The frustration is genuine. It is not intended to make a political football of the issue.
Deputy Howlin referred to rights-based legislation. The discussion is similar to the one we had on the Disability Act in the sense of what it means to give certain rights. Ultimately, the disability legislation did not contain the word "rights" but the groups concerned were happy because they felt to a degree they were getting some of what they needed to improve the situation for the people they represented. That is something we will have to tease out. Many of us probably agree with what is in the list of issues to be addressed in the appendix to the submission. However, I can state categorically that there will not be a referendum to address those issues. We need to tease out what we see as rights. We have discussed the matter at length and we must come to conclusions on it.
On the need for legislation, there was reference to the fact that some organisations, agencies and individuals currently exercise discretion. What are the reasons for that? Is it just for an easy life? If a person is urgently required an organisation may not be keen to go through the procedures, or is it the case that organisations are knowingly letting matters slide — they know it should be done but they are not prepared to do it? That brings me to the point of obstacles and the discussion of children's rights versus parent's rights. Yesterday, I was at the launch of a group called Parents First, which is a good group but in the current context I thought the name was interesting. The reality is that even if every political party is agreed on the matter, there will be a very strong voice in the other direction. Can the witnesses indicate how they think the two viewpoints can be accommodated?
We will now ask Ms Cunningham and her colleagues to reply and following that I will ask our legal adviser, Mr. Shane Murphy, for his advice on the format of the recommendation we will send to Government on the vetting matter.
Ms Mary Cunningham
I hope I remember all the questions. Regarding Deputy Shatter's question on statutory rape, the view of the National Youth Council of Ireland is that it is always the responsibility of the adult to be satisfied that he or she is not breaking the law when engaging in a sexual act with someone. Explanations such as "I met her in a night club"; "She was drinking alcohol" or "I thought she was 18 or 19" should not hold water. It is reported in the newspapers every day that young people use fake identification to gain access to places to which they should not go, such as pubs and nightclubs. We do know we have a problem in this country with under-age drinking. We cannot ignore the reality of that and plead complete innocence that we thought they were over 18 years. Our view is that if one is not sure of a young person's age, then one should not be engaging in sexual acts with him or her. We support the re-introduction of the constitutional amendment on statutory rape.
We welcome what committee members have said on soft information. It has been our view for some time. As Mr. Gearóid Ó Maoilmhichil said, we have had a high level of voluntary compliance. The youth council has played a major leadership role in convincing and supporting our member organisations in introducing vetting. We have provided training, built a close working relationship with the Garda vetting unit and have information seminars where people can safely come together to share their concerns.
It is a challenge and there were concerns when it was introduced that people would not volunteer. None of that has proven to be the case. It has now been integrated in a much more holistic way into the recruitment and selection processes for volunteers, as well as staff. If there are organisations or individuals not engaging in vetting, they are an absolute minority. The challenge comes from what one does with the information. While we facilitate a significant number of organisations, the actual administration of that process falls to the organisations.
Given the nature of youth work and our belief in people getting a second chance, there should be no complete ban. If a person has a conviction of some kind, the message we are giving out is that it should not prevent the individual from working in youth work. We have been asked to give direction to what particular offences would make people ineligible but have given it reluctantly. It should be taken on a case-by-case basis, excluding offences of a sexual or violent nature. We welcome moves to put vetting on a statutory footing.
We also welcome the fact that no one is claiming there needs to be a constitutional amendment on soft information. The nature of sexual offences against young people is that the majority who commit them are known to the young people. Very few of them make it to the prosecution stage. There is reliable soft information where a young person has withdrawn a complaint. Moves in that direction would be most welcome.
I agree with Senator Alex White on the real meaning of the term "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". While words such as "cherish" are soft, warm and fuzzy and are welcome to describe how we value children, they have little meaning in a legislative or policy-making environment. The more definite the words, the more important they will be. The Senator is correct in that there is no point in having a long list of rights enumerated which do not have any currency in influencing legislation or policy-making. We have to expect that if a specific children's referendum were passed, other constitutional articles would be tested in the courts. We can already identify several key cases which might well be tested. We have to be careful in this regard.
There is a view that we should take an incremental approach to the various issues. I have serious concerns about such an approach given that the Constitution itself has been in place for 71 years and that these particular proposals have been spoken about for some ten years. We have one bite of the cherry in our lifetime and we should strive to make as good a job as possible. Above all, we must ensure that whatever is put on paper has genuine meaning.
I acknowledge the concerns expressed regarding the balancing of children's rights against those of parents. Unfortunately, there are elements willing to pit one against the other in their own interests rather than on the basis of a particular concern for either. It is our experience that in almost all cases, the greatest advocates for children are their parents. Children's rights and parents' rights should not be mutually exclusive. When it gets to the stage where a child's rights must take precedence over those of his or her parents, it is generally because the latter have failed in their parental responsibilities. There is a need for education and an increase in public awareness. Deputy Enright referred to the concern surrounding a discussion of children's rights. That is a reality we must grasp. There is a role for organisations such as ours and others to do what we can to inform our constituencies of what we mean by children's rights. We must allay people's fears that children will be able to divorce their parents and other bizarre suggestions that sometimes enter into these discussions.
Mr. James Doorley
Deputies Howlin and Enright spoke about the potential issues arising from the inclusion of explicit rights in the Constitution. Given the history of events in the State and so on, we and other organisations working in the sector have always advocated the inclusion of such explicit constitutional rights. However, it will be difficult to persuade voters of the merits of any proposal which is a children's rights referendum in name only and does little or nothing for the vast majority of children. Some 3,000 children are currently awaiting assessment for treatment in the mental health service. It will be difficult to encourage the parents of these children, who have not even got past the first post, to vote for something that will make no difference to their children's lives.
The former Taoiseach said at the time he announced the Government's plan for a referendum that the objective was to bring forward provisions as strong and as effective as those in any country in the world, not just for now but well into the future. Enshrining rights in the Constitution does not mean people are immediately entitled to those rights, but there must be something there for parents. As Ms Cunningham observed, in most cases it is parents who are trying to secure rights for their children. Inserting explicit rights in the Constitution will enhance the protections available to children and young people. It is a question of whether the State accepts that children should have rights.
For our organisation, there will be a great difficulty if we are presented with a proposal that is a children's rights referendum in name only. We do not want to be in a position where we are unable to support such a proposal on the basis that it will make little difference to the vast majority of young people. We acknowledge and welcome other measures to enhance child protection, but a children's rights referendum not worthy of its title would mislead the public and could potentially go down in flames. As Ms Cunningham said, we must get it right. We must devise a wording that the vast majority of people can support and which will make a genuine difference in law to young people.
Mr. Gearóid Ó Maoilmhichil
I will make a few final comments, if I may. I welcome the emphasis Deputy Shatter placed on the Children First compliance report. Having read it, we were anxious about the lack of compliance throughout the country. In the absence of serious legislation, Children First is the backdrop against which we must all work so we must all take the report very seriously.
Deputy Enright raised a point on the discretionary way in which vetting is addressed. We firmly believe that the 50 plus organisations that are members of the NYCI now vet their staff and volunteers. That is our sector but many others that work with young people, with which we engage on a daily basis, do not vet staff and volunteers. The reason they do not vet is there is no requirement to do so. Only 100 miles up the road, in a different jurisdiction, everyone is vetted and there is no second question involved as it is part of an application process. I welcome what the Deputies and Senators have said about moving towards legislation on vetting and we hope this proceeds.
On behalf of the committee I thank——
Excuse me, but my question was not answered. It related to the fear that exists in balancing the rights of the child and those of the family. The presentation made reference to having due regard to the age and level of maturity of children and I asked whether the witnesses had a particular framework or mechanism in mind.
Ms Mary Cunningham
We do not have a particular framework or mechanism in mind but a common sense approach may be taken. For example, young people should have the opportunity to have a say with regard to medical treatment, schooling and things like that. This is about the voices of young people being given due regard, along with other voices, in deciding what is in their best interests. This would give them the opportunity to have their opinions heard. In many cases children are talked about and decisions are made about them without consulting them. This other approach does not mean that children will always get what they want but it means their voices are heard and weighed up with other opinions.
I thank the three witnesses for attending today and for their fine submission as we have all gained from the experience.
When the witnesses withdraw we will ask Mr. Shane Murphy in private session for his views on how we should put forward our consensus view on vetting.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.25 p.m. and adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 September 2008.