Protection of children a priority, even in difficult times

Speaking at launch of Labour’s Manifesto for Children

If this election is about anything, it is about families, about protecting children, and about securing a better future for our young people.

Ireland has the highest proportion of children in the EU, with almost one-quarter of our population below the age of 18. Yet, for too long, Ireland has fallen short of the aspiration that an independent Ireland would be a country that treated all the children of the nation equally.

We in Labour believe that children should have the best possible start in a world that has become vastly more uncertain and precarious. But this belief is not just a pious aspiration. We are today backing it up with a specific set of proposals in a children’s manifesto that we believe will deliver genuine change for children and for families.

First and foremost, we believe that our children should not be made to pay for the current economic crisis and for this reason, Labour will not cut child benefit, particularly in the wake of recent budgets in which family incomes have already taken a substantial hit.

Labour also believes that the delay in proceeding with the referendum on children’s rights has been unacceptable. Labour will ensure that a children’s rights referendum is urgently progressed.

It is our view that Ireland’s child protection code and system should be more robust. Labour is committed to putting in place the strongest, child-centred legal framework to protect children from sexual, physical, and mental abuse.

We have led the charge in proposing measures to develop, as an urgent priority, a national strategy plan to improve youth literacy levels, and will continue to prioritise literacy as an issue.

We are also putting forward proposals to ensure that every child should be guaranteed a high-quality preschool place with clear curriculum requirements, appropriate staffing professionals, conducted in an appropriate setting.

For Labour, the protection of families, children and childhood will continue to be a priority, even in these difficult times.

To read or download the Manifesto for Children, click here.

More questions for HSE on care of children

The conclusions of the HIQA report that some children are unsafe in Special Care Units makes for very sobering reading.

It seems that hardly a month goes by without some revelation or other relating to HSE care of children.

Just last week it was confirmed that some 200 children have died in the last decade while in state care.

In October we got the grim details of the Roscommon child care case and we also discovered that almost 800 children ended up homeless and in need of emergency accommodation last year

The system is badly flawed in a number of significant respects. For instance, while HIQA is responsible for inspecting the various centres, including High Support Units and Special Care Units, the number of inspectors is clearly inadequate. The work that HIQA does is very valuable, but their resources are stretched too thinly.

The failure of the HSE to ensure that all staff are properly qualified is a problem in special care units, just as it is in other areas. In Coovagh House for example, it was found that 20 of 109 staff were unqualified. In addition, thanks largely to the recruitment moratorium, these facilities are also forced to rely on agency staff, rather than recruit badly-needed care workers.

While I welcome the appointment this week of a national director for childen’s services, the outstanding HIQA recommendations such as the publication of a national strategy for special care; the appointment of a monitoring office for special care units; and a review of national governance of special care services, need immediate attention

The Child Care Amendment Bill which is making its way through the Oireachtas will provide for some protection to children in care. The Bill should be prioritised ahead of some of the more frivolous pieces of vanity project legislation that are in danger of clogging up the system in the lead up to the dissolution of the Dail.

Roscommon report highlights urgency of children’s referendum

I welcome the publication today of the report into the Roscommon child care case.

I also welcome the unreserved and unequivocal apology issued by the HSE today, and hope that it may mark a new dawn in an organisation where heretofore the default response when it came to a crisis like this was to pull up the shutters, and distance themselves from any sense of responsibility.

The report is far-reaching and comprehensive, and Norah Gibbons and the team she led deserve full credit for the work they have done in this respect.

While the authors of the report did not regard recommendations on legislative change as within their remit, they do note that failure to consult with, and to hear the voice of the six children was an important factor in this case.

They also say that the proposed referendum on children’s rights, and the related legislation, would make provision for the voice of the child to be heard, and while they stop short of calling for the referendum to be brought forward, that is certainly the underlying sentiment.

The need for progress on this is one that I would regard as extremely urgent. I would call on the Minister for Children, Barry Andrews, to publish wording for the constitutional amendment and to announce a timetable for the referendum. If he is not in a position to do this now he should indicate clearly what the obstacles are.

The all-party Oireachtas committee agreed a wording earlier this year. No-one will disagree with the need to get the wording right, but it’s a pity that the Minister and the government only identified certain ‘unintended consequences’ in recent weeks, and not during the committee deliberations.

The Labour Party will of course co-operate, as we have throughout, with all reasonable efforts to put in place a Constitutional amendment to enhance the rights of children. We will not, however, tolerate any move designed to delay or further postpone this urgent and essential measure.

Labour will not tolerate delay in holding of children’s referendum

Responding to the announcement by Barry Andrews, Minister for Children, concerning the wording of the Constitutional referendum on children’s rights, Senator Alex White said:

“The Minister for Children was an active member of the Committee that agreed a wording for the Constitutional amendment. The Minister for Justice was also involved.

“No-one will disagree with the need to get the wording right, but it’s a pity that the Minister and the government couldn’t have identified the so-called ‘unintended consequences’ during the course of the complex, and relatively lengthy deliberations of the Committee.

“We will await the government’s approach to the opposition in order to see what precisely they have in mind when they refer to ‘unintended consequences’. This newly arrived-at view, and the reasoning behind it, must be communicated to the other parties forthwith.

“The Labour Party will of course co-operate, as we have throughout, with all reasonable efforts to put in place a Constitutional amendment to enhance the rights of children.

“We will not, however, tolerate any move designed to delay or long-finger this urgent and essential measure.”

“Gagging the Ombudsman” report reflects poorly on HSE

The Report issued by Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly this week raises extremely serious issues, including a threat by the HSE to go to Court to seek to prevent the Ombudsman from communicating with the Oireachtas.

It is really regrettable that it is not possible to address these matters now, given that both Houses are in recess and won’t return until late September.

The matters raised reflect extremely poorly on the HSE and must be considered in detail by the Oireachtas. Certainly as far as the Senate is concerned I will be seeking an urgent debate on the Report when the House sits again in late September.

Meanwhile, the HSE should issue a full and detailed response to the Report, in order to explain its extraordinary behaviour throughout this entire episode.

Referendum on Children’s Rights must come in advance of new legislation

There needs to be clarification on a development in regard to legislation referred to in the newspapers today, which I have not heard previously mentioned in these Houses that, apparently, the Government intends to introduce legislation to alter the legal environment for the placing for adoption of the children of married parents.  We know the children of married parents can only be adopted in very restricted circumstances because of our laws and the interpretation of them.  It is one of the issues that is at the heart of children’s rights, the proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution, the so-called children’s rights referendum. 

One of the things that will have to be done to facilitate the introduction of the legislation, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, referred in the newspapers today, and which I would welcome, would be that the children’s rights referendum would have to be brought forward, put to the people and passed.  That is important.  Can we take this indication by the Minister of State in this morning’s newspapers of an intention to bring forward this legislation, as an indication that the Government now clearly intends to hold a children’s rights referendum this autumn since the holding of such a referendum would be a necessary precursor to the introduction of legislation of this kind?

Why must Ministers seek legal advice to deal with the HSE?

It is true that the accountability issue has been raised again in sharp relief in the investigations into the deaths of children in care. Given how often we are told that there is such a large amount of public resources devoted to the health services administered by the HSE, the blockage between those of us elected to these Houses and the people providing the services, which means it is not possible to establish precisely what is occurring, is incredible. Not even the Minister of State appears to be in a position to establish what is occurring.

The matter of different bodies arranging legal advice between themselves to establish their positions and whether they can move an issue forward is an extraordinary spectacle. Is it €16 billion per annum for the health Vote?

Members and, judging by what he has stated, the Minister of State cannot establish basic information without there being a competition between us and the HSE about legal advice. It is incredible that any democratic country is unable to have a proper debate or to establish information directly in the Houses. The HSE might have the best will in the world, but the manner in which it is configured and organised means it operates as a block to true democratic accountability in respect of child care and health services.

This matter is raised repeatedly in the House. How many more times will it be raised by practising, concerned politicians without anything seeming to happen? That people need to seek legal advice to establish whether they can do the jobs they are there to do is a spectacle.

HSE may not be fit-for-purpose to provide care to children

The inability of the HSE to clarify just how many children have died in their care in the last ten years is profoundly worrying.

The HSE was asked some months ago to compile figures on how many children in their care had passed away, but have STILL not been able to come up with a definitive number. This defies belief.

I appreciate that a portion of the period involved predates the establishment of the HSE. However, in a matter of such seriousness it is simply incredible that detailed records of the deaths of these children are not available, or that at the very least, that the number of such children is not known by senior HSE officials.

According to the CSO, excluding neo-natal deaths a total of about 300 children die each year, and the notion that as many as 20 of them are under HSE care hardly bears thinking about.

The further revelation today that the independent panel set up to look into the deaths of children in HSE care has still not received a single file on the individuals involved only adds to the picture of dysfunctionality and incompetence in the HSE.

Last week, the remains of Daniel McAnaspie were discovered in a field in Co Meath. The shocking murder of Daniel at a time when he was living in the care of the HSE is but the latest in a litany of scandals to beset the the organisation.

We now must ask the question as to whether the HSE is indeed fit-for-purpose when it comes to providing and managing child-care services.

Time to admit ‘implementation difficulties’ in children’s services are actually failings

Politics enters the equation when we come to discuss the requirement to allocate resources, expand provision and fund changes and improvements to children’s services. At its heart, politics relates to the allocation of public resources and the setting of priorities. As stated on previous occasions, I have never perceived debates of this nature as occasions on which to engage in party political contests. I certainly did not perceive the two to two and a half years the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children spent discussing this matter as an opportunity to engage in such a contest. However, that is not to state that politics does not enter the equation. As already indicated, it enters the equation in the most general sense when we discuss the level of priority we ascribe to this subject and the level of priority we are prepared to attach in respect of the requirement relating to the provision of additional resources.

We have debated matters of this nature with the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, on several occasions. I have no doubt that he is obliged to watch his p’s and q’s. I am not stating that he might misrepresent the position but he is obliged to defend the Government. He is not going to inform us that he is pressing for additional resources but that his requests have so far been refused. Nor is he going to state that attempts to employ the additional 265 social workers that are required will be accelerated or that these people should be recruited forthwith. I would be surprised if I was wrong in thinking that if it were left to the Minister of State, the recruitment of these social workers would be completed very quickly. However, action in this regard has been no more forthcoming than that required, in the context of additional funding and resources, in the area of child protection. Politics, therefore, enters the equation in that sense.

Opposition politicians are not only entitled to criticise the Government but are under a duty to do so, particularly where it makes commitments on which it fails to deliver. We would not be doing our job if we failed to engage in such a critique of the Government. However, I am not, as already stated, seeking to obtain a party political advantage in respect of this issue. I disagree with those who attempted to take such an approach to this matter in the past.

The debate on the report of the Ombudsman for Children provides us with a good opportunity to reflect on what we are doing. I accept we would not have time to do so but I believe we would be better served if we were to examine the report on a line-by-line basis.

Pessimism increasing on prospect of Seanad Reform

While I am an optimist by nature, for the past two or two and a half years many Senators have called for change in the way we conduct debates in the House but no steps have been taken in that direction. I am afraid I am rapidly becoming a pessimist in relation to the attitude taken towards this Chamber by the Government. This is unfortunate because I would much prefer to remain an optimist. We should make suggestions and by all means subject the views of the Government parties and of the Opposition parties to real scrutiny, analysis and cross-examination. Let us have this type of exchange and debate, including engagement with outside groups and individuals in so far as that can be arranged under Standing Orders.

It appears, having viewed the approach taken by the Government parties that a decision has been made not to introduce any kind of radical change to the manner in which this House does its business.

In respect of something the House can do, I listened yesterday to many colleagues commenting on the statement made by the Archbishop of Dublin. While people have every right to comment on the issue, as to what the archbishop meant and so forth, I did not choose to engage on the matter because it is one for the archbishop and the church. I am interested, however, in what we, as parliamentarians, can do in a practical sense to change the system of child care, especially child protection.

The House should definitely debate two recently published reports, namely, the report of the Ombudsman for Children published yesterday which makes real and practical suggestions as to how change could be brought about in child protection as opposed to merely talking about it, and a report issued two weeks ago by the Government’s special rapporteur on child protection, Mr. Geoffrey Shannon.

To give an example of what I meant with regard to the relevance of the Seanad and the attitude taken towards it, on a recent radio programme my fellow contributors asked me if Mr. Shannon’s report had been debated in either House of the Oireachtas. I was informed it had not been debated. It is extraordinary that individuals who have been appointed by the Government to important positions in the area of child protection have produced reports which the House does not even discuss. Let us make a start in rendering this House relevant by discussing the two reports in question. If necessary, let us have the authors before the House to take questions and debate with Senators who may be able to assist in bringing about real change on these issues.