Category: Children and Youth

Posted on

Order of Business, 19 September 2013

Thursday, 19th September 2013

I support Senator O’Brien in his call for No. 2 to be discussed. It is something we should do to ensure any inquiry is as we intend it and as we would expect. Perhaps it cannot be facilitated today but if there were a commitment, I would be supportive of it.

I commend the French Senate, which yesterday banned beauty pageants for children under 16 years. In fact, it will impose prison sentences. This is about protecting childhood. Beauty pageants prematurely force children into roles of seduction that seriously harm their development. I am most disappointed to note that this weekend for the first time in Ireland there will be such a beauty pageant. It is not a welcome development. I wish to send a clear message that it should be cancelled and that we should not be having these types of beauty pageants in our country. We should be protecting childhood.

I thank the Leader for putting on the agenda for discussion today the EU directive on combatting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography. As colleagues are aware, in February 2012 the Independent group put forward a comprehensive motion that dealt with the directive, but nothing has happened since. I welcome that it is on the agenda today. I have published in advance a report on effective strategies to tackle online child abuse material. We should remember that a child abuse image is a crime scene. It is a digital record of some of the most heinous crimes against children. This is about protecting real children from real abuse in the real world. I have copies of the report if colleagues would like to see it in advance of our discussion at 11.45 a.m. We should send a clear message to the Government that we need to ensure we have filtering in place to block online child abuse material. I thank the Leader for placing this matter on the agenda. However, we must do more than just discuss it.

Posted on

Email Newsletter – July 2013

I am delighted that my recent work on the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 has secured three important wins towards increased protection for child witnesses in criminal proceedings. 

The text of the relevant sections of the Seanad debate can be found both at Committee Stage and Report Stage.

– Disclosure requests of children’s private and confidential therapy notes

– The therapeutic process

– Substantive Amendment

– Government responses

– Acknowledgements

I look forward to bringing you my next update soon.  Feel free to contact me if there are any issues you would like to discuss.

Best wishes,

Jillian.

Disclosure requests of children’s private and confidential therapy notes:

Disclosure of complainants’ confidential records in criminal proceedings, be they medical, psychiatric, or therapeutic, and indeed be the complainant an adult or a child, in the absence of any legislative guidelines is an issue of considerable and pressing concern to me.

The genesis of the Amendment I submitted to the Courts Bill was my heightened concern by reports from practitioners treating sexually abused children of increasing requests from the DPP’s office for access to therapy notes from children’s private and confidential therapy and counselling sessions over the last 6-12 months.

The therapeutic process:

To understand the difficulty thrown up by these blanket requests for disclosure, it is important to understand that the therapeutic process happens in two distinct phases. The first phase is the compilation of an Assessment Report, which records the baseline account, the who, what, where and when of the abuse the child is alleging. It is clearly material evidence relevant to a criminal investigation and trial and is rightly subject to disclosure. The second phase, the therapy and in turn the therapy notes, is concerned with documenting the child’s feelings, thoughts, hopes, fears, dreams and the like. If any information arises in the course of the therapy phase that substantively alters the account given in the Assessment Report, the practitioner will update the Assessment Report accordingly and make it available to the relevant parties. In effect, any information or material evidence relevant to a criminal investigation or trial for child sexual abuse is already disclosed as a matter of course. The information left, contained in counselling records and therapeutic notes has no material relevance but is the heart and soul of a damaged child and should not be subject to blanket disclosure.

Substantive Amendment:

I saw this Bill as an opportunity to introduce much needed legislative provision and clear practice for the disclosure of sexual assault counselling communications of children who are witnesses in a criminal trial whereby such disclosure would only be granted by the trial court if: the evidence sought has substantive probative value; there is no other evidence which could prove the disputed facts; and the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm to the child.

In tabling my substantive Amendment I was acutely aware of the need to strike the proper and appropriate balance between the right of child witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to privacy as well as their right not to be re-victimised or unduly traumatised by the criminal justice system, the right of the accused to procedural fairness, and the public interest.

Following extensive research and legislative analysis around disclosure practices in other jurisdictions, I believe the legislative solution I proposed was wholly compatible with Irish Constitutional law, Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, and in the best interests of the child.

Government responses

While the Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan Shatter TD, was not in a position to accept my Amendment at either Committee or Report Stages, I was extremely heartened by his support for my efforts and the extent to which he positively engaged with resolving what he accepts is a lacuna in the law.

As a result of my Amendment, Minister Shatter has decided that instead of awaiting the examination of the issue by the Law Reform Commission as part of its fourth programme, which would have seriously delayed legislative action, the issue will now be addressed in the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill, to be published at the end of October at the latest.

In addition, and in direct response to a separate issue I raised at Report Stage about the traumatic and detrimental impact of repeated interviewing of child victims by separate agencies (most commonly in the context of a parallel Garda investigation alongside a child protection investigation), Minister Shatter agreed that repetitive interviews should be avoided and committed to raising the matter with the Minister for Children, Frances Fitzgerald TD, with respect to the approach taken by the HSE and new Child and family Agency, and the Garda Commissioner.

Finally, you will recall in my last newsletter that I raised my concern over reports of routine breaches of the Children Act in Children Courts during Second Stage of this Bill and secured a commitment from Minister Shatter to have his officials write to the Courts Service to raise the matters and to ensure any breaches are remedied.

All in all this Bill, originally introduced to amend the in-camera rules for representatives of the press in family law and child care proceedings, and to raise the monetary amounts that the District and Circuit Court can award, evolved into quite the vehicle through which to increase the protection of children in the criminal justice system.

It is at times like these that I fully appreciate the privilege of my Senatorial role, which allows me to directly input and effect positive change in the legislation we are developing.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to commend the stellar work that has been done on this issue over the past number of years. Particularly, the concerns raised by Dr Geoffrey Shannon, Government appointed Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, in a number of his annual reports, most recently his 4th Annual Report published in 2010.

I also note the calls for action by many children’s and human rights NGOs, civil society organisations and practitioners in the field of specialised assessment and therapeutic services for children that have been sexually abused. I am grateful in particular to the support and advice I received from the Rape Crisis Centre Ireland and Children at Risk Ireland in understanding the current lacuna in the protection of confidential therapy notes and records and developing the legislative solution I proposed.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my Seanad colleagues: Ivana Bacik (Labour); Averil Power (FF); Martin Conway (FG) and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (SF) for the cross party support my Amendment received at both stages of this important debate.

Posted on

Van Turnhout Calls for Increased Protection for Child Witnesses

Today, Wednesday 26 June 2013, Independent Senator and children’s rights activist, Jillian van Turnhout, has tabled a substantive amendment to the Courts Bill 2013 to introduce legal standards governing the disclosure of counselling communications and therapy notes of children in sexual abuse criminal proceedings.

“I am acutely aware of the need to strike the proper and appropriate balance between the right of child witnesses in child sexual abuse cases to privacy as well as their right not to be re-victimised or unduly traumatised by the criminal justice system, the right of the accused to procedural fairness, and the public interest. I believe my amendment has found this balance.”

The increasing commonality with which orders for disclosure, including counselling and therapeutic records, are made with respect to child witnesses, coupled with an absence of legislative guidelines and clear practice on the issue has lead Senator van Turnhout to seek this legislative solution:

“I believe with the legislative solution I am proposing, it is wholly compatible with Irish Constitutional law, Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, and the best interests of the child to provide in law that the disclosure of sexual assault counselling communications will only granted by the trial court where: the evidence sought has substantive probative value; there is no other evidence which could prove the disputed facts; and the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm to the child.”

The issue has never been subject to sustained analysis and consideration by the Superior Courts in Ireland or the Legislator. As such, today’s debate marks a significant juncture in the future alignment of these competing rights.

 

 

Posted on

Youth Unemployment: Motion

Thursday, 12th June 2013

The Minister is welcome to the House. I very much welcome that Senator Reilly and her colleagues tabled this motion.

It is an important issue for us to debate, and considering the motion and amendment, one could see the glass as being half full or half empty. Nevertheless, it is really important that we are discussing youth unemployment. Unemployment, and specifically youth unemployment, is something that concerns us all across the House. Nevertheless, focus should not be solely on employment as for the age group in question, this is the period in which they are most likely to be in education and training. Unfortunately, the picture remains seriously bleak when we take employment, education and training into consideration.

Some people have already cited the Indecon assessment of the economic value of youth work report of 2012, which was commissioned by the National Youth Council of Ireland. We know Ireland has the fourth highest number of young people not in education, employment or training at 18.4%, compared to the average at 12.9% for the EU in 2011. In April 2013, the figure for young people who are long-term unemployed for more than 12 months was 27,857. I realise that is a reduction on previous months but it is still a considerable number of long-term unemployed young people. Ireland also has the highest number of children and young people under 18 at risk of poverty or social exclusion, with the figure at 37.6%, as compared to the 27% EU average.

We are all aware of the devastating impact that unemployment has, particularly on the social and health aspects of young people’s lives, as well as morale and self-esteem. It is generally accepted that increased social pressures such as financial and employment worries can trigger mental health problems or exacerbate existing issues. Unless concerted action is taken, the mental health of young people in Ireland and Europe will decline in coming years. We know that in 2009, Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, which is based in Dublin, conducted research indicating that across 21 EU member states, the cost of exclusion of young people from employment amounted to more than €100 billion. The study considered the cost of social welfare payments and contributions to GNP and it put a preliminary figure for the cost to society at €14,000 per young person who is not in education, employment or training. Some €11,000 would be from unpaid contributions like PRSI and PAYE and €3,000 is representative of benefit payments.

The cost to the Exchequer of youth unemployment is estimated to be €3.16 billion annually. Last December, the Independent group put forward a motion in this House on the importance of the value of youth work. We had good support across the House in our belief that the State must recognise the value of the youth work sector and its potential for a cohesive approach in tackling youth unemployment and exclusion. We know just under 400,000 young people benefit from youth work in Ireland and 53.3% of these are from socially or economically disadvantaged areas. Over 40,000 volunteers are involved in youth work, with almost 1,400 whole-time staff equivalents. Some 26% of young people in Ireland participate in a youth club or youth organisation, and that is the highest level in the EU. The Indecon report proved that for every €1 invested by the State in youth work, we save €2.22 as a State in the long run. This can be contrasted with the fact that youth organisations have received cumulative cuts during the recession, with the cuts running at approximately 30%. Youth organisations could be used as a vehicle in tackling youth unemployment but we are cutting their funding.

The youth guarantee is very important to me and everybody in this House because it will give young people an offer of a job, work experience, apprenticeship, training or combined work and training. It is hoped this will be found within four months of the young person finishing education or becoming unemployed. We should hope it will achieve the target of having 2 million young people out of unemployment by 2014.

I agree with the contention in the motion that the youth guarantee scheme must play a central role in the Government’s strategy to address our young person not in education, employment or training, or NEETs, crisis in Europe. I commend the Government for signalling its support for the youth guarantee from the outset and making it a priority. Given what I have stated on the importance of the youth work sector, I also welcome the determination of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, in securing EU agreement on a greater role for youth work in supporting EU policy proposals for youth employment and social inclusion. I welcome the pilot scheme planned for Ballymun. It is good that we will have a pilot but we must consider local circumstances. I am a bit concerned about the length of time it may take to mainstream the process.

I am conscious of the time but I will comment on those who are most disadvantaged. These are the 9,000 young people who have been on the live register for three years or more. They have literacy issues and they are early school leavers. The have a poor relationship with State agencies. We must do much more to tackle the problems of this cohort of young people within the youth guarantee. The youth sector is well placed to work with this cohort, who are the hardest to reach. There should be a joint initiative between the Departments of Education and Skills, Social Protection, Children and Youth Affairs and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
Has the Minister identified additional measures to support young people who are long-term unemployed in avoiding the weaknesses identified in the scheme already in operation in Finland and Sweden?

Posted on

Order of Business, 23 April 2013

Tuesday, 23rd April 2013

At the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Scouting Ireland delegate conference, which brought together 800 delegates representing 40,000 members. Two motions which were voted on will be of interest to the House. One was on Scouting Ireland’s fears the proposed sale of Coillte will threaten its open access policy. Unbeknownst to me until I arrived, another motion had been tabled calling on the Minister for Justice and Equality to enact legislation requiring ISPs operating in Ireland to block access to all child abuse material, as has been done in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Italy and Britain. I have raised this issue in the House and we have had a good discussion on it. Scouting Ireland voted unanimously on the motion. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has committed that blocking will be fully considered in the context of the development of the planned sexual offences Bill. I am very concerned this Bill is scheduled for 2014. This is an urgent matter. It is about protecting real children from real abuse in the real world. I call on the Leader to convey to the Minister a request to bring forward a separate Bill to deal with this distinctly.

Today is the national day of action and raising public awareness on direct provision. I am disappointed and confused the Adjournment matter I addressed to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has been ruled out of order. Since the introduction of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2009, asylum seekers cannot ever be considered habitually resident in the State. Since access to most welfare payments, including supplementary welfare allowance, is now restricted to those habitually resident in the State, and since asylum seekers cannot be considered habitually resident, I asked what is the legislative basis for the continued accommodation and payments made to asylum seekers.

This is a question for the Minister for Social Protection. For example, the payment slips to asylum seekers refer to the Department of Social Protection. However, I take the Leader on his word that the Minister has no responsibility for this matter, even though the payment slips clearly state “Department of Social Protection”. I am now being directed back to the Department of Justice and Equality where I did not get an answer to this question last week, so I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate on direct provision. I have been moved from one Department to another on this issue, yet nobody is willing to take responsibility for it. I believe that we are operating outside a legislative basis with the payments. We need an answer to this question, rather than being shuttled between Departments.

Posted on

Discussion with Minister for Children and Youth Affairs

Friday, 19th April 2013

As I did not have the opportunity that Deputy Ó Caoláin had earlier this week, I will try to ask all of my questions. I welcome this opportunity to engage with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I agree with many of her comments. We saw the heads of the adoption legislation prior to the referendum, but it would be good if we could start teasing out some of the issues. We need a focused discussion. I have received a number of representations on several issues, for example, the right to identity, information and tracing. Perhaps this committee can play a role in teasing out those issues.

I will keep tripping over the term “child and family agency”, as we had grown used to the term “family support”. I wish to know more. It is not just about the word “support”, but about the term “family support”. I wish to understand what is behind the Government’s decision to remove the word “support”.

While I welcome the appointment of Ms Gibbons, who is of an outstanding calibre, as chair, why was the position not advertised? All appointments should be publicly advertised. I do not question Ms Gibbons’s calibre. I will be facilitative of the process.

I am still struggling with trying to understand what will comprise the child and family agency. We are awaiting the Bill, to which I look forward. In recent weeks, I have met public health nurses. There is a debate on whether they should be a part of the agency, both sides of which they have discussed with me. They believe that they have a role outside of the agency, but how can we develop that in parallel to the agency’s development? I have many ideas in that regard.

Regarding the three sites in terms of child poverty, I welcome the helpful information the Minister has provided the committee, but I am uncomfortable with a tendering process. Is there not a better way? Perhaps a decision could be based on deprivation levels. A rural area’s selection could also be ensured, as urban areas are not the only ones in which solutions must be found and mainstreamed. However, the idea of asking communities to tender while they are in poverty does not sit well with me in terms of clarity around how that process will work.

The Minister pointed me towards the “Minister for Justice and Law Reform” on the topic of direct provision. I will continue to pursue the matter. I am happy with her answer, but he is actually the Minister for Justice and Equality. Perhaps this is an old answer or he has been mistitled.

I am concerned about children in direct provision. I have visited two centres. That environment is damaging to children. In Dr. Geoffrey Shannon’s report last year, he asked for a report to be conducted into this situation. The committee hopes to hold a hearing on direct provision.

I wish to focus on youth work and its funding. Last December, I initiated a good debate in the Seanad on the value of youth work. The Minister is aware that information recently became known to the youth sector in response to a freedom of information request. That information outlined approved significant changes in the youth sector. The document could be described as a game changer. These decisions were made in the autumn, prior to our debate in the Seanad. Will the Minister confirm whether she has approved the City of Dublin Youth Services Board, CDYSB, a sub-committee of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, CDVEC, becoming the key agency to assume full national responsibility for administration, distribution and monitoring of youth work’s main funding schemes, thereby removing responsibility for administrating funds locally from a number of national voluntary youth organisations and individual VECs in every county? Are there plans to replace the existing funding schemes with two new schemes unilaterally and without awaiting the development of the strategic youth policy framework or the outcome of the value for money review, which the Minister recently commissioned, or without consulting stakeholders? I have read the documents carefully – they assert these positions. I want clarity on these issues. Assuming these positions are being taken, it is disappointing that the document was not put into the public domain during the Seanad debate.

I wish to address the issue of aftercare. The early child care sector has seen significant developments. It would be useful if regulations and eligibility criteria could be developed. Aftercare services are springing up on an ad hoc basis. We need to be clear on what the funding will be used for. It should not be allocated locally.

Posted on

Early Intervention and Economic Benefits: Statements

Wednesday, 6th March 2013

As always the Minister is more than welcome to the House and we are delighted that she is here. Her statement and speech to us today are seminal. It should be circulated generally. She was very fair in trying to give us a summary of what she has said to us today and it lays a strong foundation for a new home for children. I cannot commend enough what the Minister has said. More people should read her statement. We often focus on only one part of a child’s life but it is important to consider the child’s journey. I thank the Minister for providing that vision and starting this discussion with a very strong foundation. Everybody supports prevention and early intervention but it is music to our ears to hear a Minister promoting these strategies and putting them first and foremost. All too often people only talk about these theories in seminars and symposia while in the House we talk about firefighting and dealing with crises and do not give prevention and early intervention the thought and deliberation that they need.

I welcome the area-based approach to the child poverty initiative but have a difficulty with the selection criteria for the three new sites and the additional four that will come on stream. How do we ensure that the selection process is transparent, that the programmes are rooted in evidence and best practice? Programmes may look good but how do we ensure that they provide the outcomes for children and the delivery that we all want ? I want to see more details.

Often when we talk about early intervention we refer only to early years. That is why I welcome the Minister’s speech because she has looked at the child’s journey, the key transition points, the flash points in a child’s life that are all too often missed. This is true of disability services, where life chances are affected at an early age if we do not intervene when the child is very young. Mental health problems tend to become more apparent in early adolescence. The Minister mentioned the Heckmann curve. In 2010 Cunha and Heckmann wrote a working paper on investment in our young people. Their research showed that the effect of early intervention in the lives of disadvantaged children is reduced if it is not followed up by investment at later stages. We all talk about the importance of investment and what we reap from investing in early years but if we do not provide that continuum of support the investment is lost.

I welcome the Minister’s focus on how to provide services and the suggestion that we might take a step back and ask what is the purpose of child benefit and how do we ensure that it delivers the outcomes it should and that people want. The Minister mentioned the advisory report on which we had a good brief debate in the House with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, which we will continue. We were glad that she came in so soon after the report was published. There are different ways in which we can provide services and support to children. Should we consider the affordable, accessible and quality child care, or extending the scheme to a second year, or after-school care which is ad hoc and does not have a defined structure. Should we consider universal primary health care for all children or school book schemes?

The Minister mentioned the development in data which is very welcome. I welcome her approach to ensuring that we have an evidence base for moving forward and that we understand why we are doing something. Very often when I hear economists talk about demographics I shout at the radio “That is birth rate”. We have an increasing birth rate but economists do not want to talk about that. Too often children are forgotten in these issues.

The Minister mentioned Eurofound, the foundation based in Loughlinstown for the improvement of living and working conditions. I recently visited the foundation. It is doing some really interesting research on how parenting supports can best be delivered to children. Ireland has the fourth highest rate in the EU of young people who are not in education, employment or training, the NEET category. We do not want to be so high up on that list. Schoolteachers and youth workers can point to those young people much earlier in the cycle. That is where we should intervene. Eurofound did research on the loss to the economy that jobseekers represent. It calculated that they cost Ireland in the region of 2% of GDP which indicates that the cost of youth unemployment is €3.16 billion. Those are the figures but it has been proved that if a young person lives in poverty he or she is likely to continue to be unemployed. The pathway is laid. It is important to intervene early and help to change those young people’s lives. I welcome the fact that the Minister has asked the youth work sector to investigate how we could intervene and best ensure that we do so. We need to find the tipping point at which the young person ends up unemployed rather than going into education, training or employment and see how we can support those young people.

I know that next week the Minister is hosting the EU Youth Conference on social inclusion. It is significant that Ireland has chosen to host that conference under its Presidency and I was delighted to see that the Minister is doing so in co-operation with the European Commission, the European Youth Forum and the National Youth Council of Ireland. The European Youth Forum was born during the fifth Irish Presidency. It held its inaugural meeting in Cork on 6 July 1996. I was there. I am a co-founder of the forum. I was a secretary general of one the three youth platforms. We came together to merge into one. Two of the three secretaries general were Irish. That is why I am so delighted to see them coming back to Dublin.

I welcome the development of the child and family support agency and look forward to seeing the Bill. I have made public my opinion of it to ensure that we debate this. The new agency will have a budget of approximately €545 million for 2013 and at hearings held by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children last week we heard that approximately €100 million will go to NGOs and services. When my opinion of the new agency was published in The Irish Times I was surprised by the number of organisations which contacted me because they are afraid to speak publicly about this fearing that their funding will be cut. There is a chilling effect. We need to create an environment in which people can make constructive proposals to ensure that the agency works. I know that the Minister does not intend this chilling effect but I was surprised by the number and types of organisations that came to me about this matter.

I thank the Minister. The statement she made to us today should be circulated to all Deputies and Senators.

Posted on

Government responds favourably to Senator van Turnhout’s proposal to grant property tax exemption to youth organisations

Press Release, 6 March 13

 

*** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ***

 

Government responds favourably to Senator van Turnhout’s proposal to grant property tax exemption to youth organisations

 

In a Seanad debate in December 2012 attended by Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan TD, Independent Senator Jillian van Turnhout made the case that charities that hold properties used for hosting and accommodating activities for children and young people should be exempted from the Government’s proposed property tax.

 

Senator van Turnhout, who is the Leader of the Independent Group in the Seanad and a campaigner on children’s issues, argued that the imposition of a property tax on properties owned by the Girl Guides and similar youth organisations would place many of these organisations in a precarious financial position.

 

Minister Nooan expressed his appreciation of the fact that groups like the Girl Guides and Scouts provide facilities and work with young people and with other sectors for social and personal development purposes. He said in the debate that just as he had granted such organisations an exemption from the household charge for the buildings in question, he would ensure that the exemption would also apply to the property tax.

Today in the Seanad, Minister Brian Hayes, TD, announced that on foot of Minister Noonan’s commitment in December to respond favourably to Senator van Turnhout’s proposal to grant an exemption, the properties used for accommodation purposes by groups such as the Girl Guides or Scouts will indeed be exempted from the property tax.

Section 7 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2013 now states that “Properties used by a charity for recreational activities” shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as a relevant residential property.

 

Senator van Turnhout:

 

“Naturally, I am delighted that the Government has recognised the merits of my proposed amendment. The Irish Girl Guides Trust, of which I am a director, holds a number of properties around the country that are used for children’s and youth activities. These are held on a non-residential and non-commercial basis, with the guides spending weekends away in these properties. The guides pay a very low fee for their stay, because no profits are made on the properties, most of which are in need of serious investment and repair. At a time when families are being squeezed, today’s decision by Minister Noonan to exempt these properties from the property tax is very welcome.”

ENDS

For further information, contact Amy McArdle at 01 6183375, or email jillian.vanturnhout@oireachtas.ie.

 

 

Posted on

Report on Child and Family Income Support: Statements

Tuesday, 26th February 2013

I welcome the Minister and thank her for keeping her promise to bring the report before the House. This is a welcome report as it provides us with a strong evidence base, thus allowing us to move from an anecdotal discussion to one based on evidence. I understand this debate will be the first in a series of discussions in the Seanad on this report. I note also that other Senators in my group, including Senator Zappone, would like to speak on the report.

We are all too aware of the serious impact that six successive budgets have had in reducing social welfare payments. These cuts have created a greater risk of poverty and deprivation and increased consistent poverty rates, especially child poverty. Time does not allow me to address in detail the issue of child poverty. My colleague, Senator Mooney, spoke about the European Union statistics on income and living conditions, the SILC figures, which show that between 2009 and 2011, consistent child poverty rates in Ireland increased from 8.7% to 9.3%, while child deprivation rates rose from 25% to 32%. The recent Children Rights Alliance report card gave the Government an “F” grade for child poverty, stating there had been “retrograde steps in targeting children and families.” For the second time in a row, the budget cut the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and four consecutive budgets have reduced child benefit.

All Members are concerned about child poverty and I do not claim any of us has ownership of the issue. However, when we speak of child benefit the focus is often on children’s early years, an area of which I am strongly supportive, whereas we also have figures to indicate what is known as inter-generational transmission. This means that when a child experiences poverty in the teenage years, the problem tends to persist into adulthood. We need to be cognisant, in addressing the issue of child and family income support, of the need to take account of the entire age spectrum of children.

The Mangan report examined six options, generally involving either taxation of child benefit or a two tier system. I welcome the Minister’s statement that she will examine outcomes for children and the use of tax credits, which is an issue the Seanad can debate at a later date.

We need to address the stigma associated with the family income supplement. We have all agreed that employment is good but we need to ensure we have a system that encourages people to enter the workplace, as appropriate.

I very much welcome the unanimous agreement on universality. There should be some form of universality in our approach.

I was very surprised to see Appendix 3, the pre-budget progress report that warned against making across the board cuts in November 2011. By way of clear warning, the group said that if the Government is to decide to reduce child benefit rates, any such reduction should ensure that there are sufficient resources available within the child income support budget for the future implementation of an integrated universal supplementary payment. It also states the consequences of an uncompensated reduction in the child benefit rate would be significant in terms of child poverty. We have seen that in the EU-SILC figures. We have not seen how the changes could have influenced child poverty in the past year and a half.

I really welcome what the Minister said today and I listened very carefully. I noted her focus on outcomes for children and her questioning of what we are about. While we can examine the original intention of the child benefit payment, the fundamental question we need to ask, before asking whether there should be taxation or means testing, concerns the function of child and family income supports. What does our policy require them to deliver? Is it to invest in and contribute towards healthy, well-educated and secure children, which in turn is an investment in healthy, well-educated and secure adults who are less likely to be dependent on social welfare? We have some really tough decisions to make but I believe child poverty can best be tackled by investment in services, not just investment in payments.

We need to ensure there are wrap-around services to ensure healthy and secure childhoods. There is no shortage of services requiring investment. Many colleagues will mention affordable and accessible quality childhood services. I refer to the second year of the early childhood education programme, after-school services, universal health care and schoolbooks campaigns, such as those advocated by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the youth work sector.

The Minister mentioned taking some of the savings and putting them into the Children Plus initiative. Only 11% of the savings from the budget went into the initiative, from which children benefited. Some 89% went to the general Exchequer, with no benefit for children. The European Commission’s recommendation of last week on child poverty and well-being, “Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage”, states the required strategy should be an integrated one based on a three pillar approach. The first is access to adequate resources, the second is access to affordable quality services, and the third is a child’s right to participate. These are the pillars we should be discussing when examining child and family income supports. We need to ensure we have the three pillar approach.

I acknowledge there are tough decisions to be made. Having listened to the Minister’s speech, my question is on the scope of our discussions. Are we looking purely within the remit of the Department of Social Protection? If so, we must get into means testing, taxing and examining tax credits. Can we really look at the outcomes for children, the delivery of services and redirecting, as the Minister stated? We need to ensure we do not take away the safety net. We need to ensure the required services are in place before any further reductions are made.