Objections raised over proposed council for children

Labour MP John Attard Montalto argued in parliament yesterday that the setting up of a Council for Children, whose members would be mostly appointed by ministers, would impinge on the freedom of action of the Commissioner for Children.

Dr Attard Montalto was speaking during the debate on a bill for the appointment of the commissioner and the council. The debate started last week.

Dr Attard Montalto suggested that the commissioner, rather than being appointed by the prime minister, should be appointed by agreement within the House of Representatives and he would nominate experts to assist him in his duties.

It was positive that the commissioner was to have an independent office but it was wrong to draw an analogy with an ombudsman for children, as some speakers had already done.

While the ombudsman got involved once a problem arose, the main task of the commissioner would be to avoid problems in the first place.

The bill, Dr Attard Montalto said, included guiding principles. However, he felt it should have avoided specifics such as children's dignity. For was this not part of the interests of children? By specifying principles, one was calling for different interpretations.

The bill did not establish how children were to be told of their rights. Some countries had developed the idea of independent evaluation by independent experts. In Scandinavian countries, 70 per cent of children were found to know they had certain rights including the right to call the commissioner on a hotline.

Parliamentary Secretary Francis Agius said that the Commissioner for Children would safeguard the rights of children who had no voice in society.

The government was not appointing the commissioner because other countries were doing so; Malta had special reasons. There were problems which were not being addressed by any government department, agency or the church. The commissioner would have to work with all these entities.

Dr Agius said that while the bill provided for the commissioner's appointment for three years, he felt that this might not give enough time for the commissioner to implement his programme, and he was therefore of the view that the term should be extended by one year to four.

Dr Agius said everything should be done to ease stress in children.

There was still room for improvement in the assessment of children with physical and mental problems and the commissioner would have to gauge the agencies' services with regards to children's development.

Dr Agius expressed concern that children were not finding the ideal setting which promoted the unity of the family.

Children also had obligations to fulfill and the commissioner should make these known.

Near the end of his speech Dr Agius suggested that the commissioner study the causes of truancy within the framework and support services that could provide a solution.

There was also the need for educating parents.

Education Minister Louis Galea said this was not a bill about the rights of the child but about the appointment of the commissioner for children, who would champion their rights. A distinction should be made.

Previous speakers on the bill had not made a fair evaluation of the services being provided for children. It was the duty of the parents to rear children and not the state but a stage had been reached where the onus of education of children was increasingly falling more on the government than on the parents.

Parents should not, however, abdicate their responsibility.

Dr Galea said that if one wanted to promote the greatest well-being of children, one should not only speak of the rights of children but also of their duties and responsibilities. One of the main rights of the child was that they exercised their duties towards the other members of society.

Malta had made great strides to ensure that education reached every child. This, apart from a network of other services that enhanced living conditions.

Inclusive education for children with disability had given positive results. The national curriculum had created a vision which fitted the convention on the rights of the child.

Dr Galea said that educational programmes in force had to be thoroughly assessed. The Education Ministry had started a dialogue to see the reality of the situation.

Children were suffering from lack of continuity in their education, from kindergarten to primary to secondary to university. The process was fragmented and there was no ownership of the children. This was having negative effects.

Bureaucracy was working against the effective administration of the schools. Therefore, schools had to be autonomous. There were also a number of issues regarding examinations.

Concluding, Dr Galea referred to comments that sexual abuse of children had "exploded" since 1993. Dr Galea said that before 1993, no service to help such children was provided and therefore statistics were not kept. Child abuse existed in the past but today, with the introduction of child safety services, more safeguards were in place.

Labour MP Josè Herrera observed that the bill did not specify the qualifications which the commissioner for children should have.

He said the appointment of the commissioner further underlined the need for a law on the rights of the child. Without it, the commissioner could not carry out his duties effectively.

He said the functions of the Council for Children could overlap those of the commissioner.

The commissioner should be free to seek advice from wherever he wished, and the appointment of the council could therefore be superflous.

The commissioner was to have a number of powers in terms of the bill but, Dr Herrera said, he should have more, such as the authority to request the police to carry out searches.

Dr Herrera pointed out that, up to now, children had no legal standing. The commissioner should be allowed to intervene in the interest of children in court as he had as much interest in the children as the parents, even more so in certain cases, such as when children were beaten up by their parents.

Abused children, for example, should have the right to have the commissioner acting on their behalf.