The analysis of the situation of children and adolescents in Malta is prompted by the question: are we dealing with a minor issue or with the Minor Issue?

We are well aware of the profound transformations occurring in Malta. The demographic changes of the last couple of years, resulting in smaller families, more single-parent households and in women returning to the workplace, as well as changes in the way children socialise and play, are all having a considerable impact on children's quality of life.

Gone are the days when children met on the streets and played together. Today play is much more structured and children have to plan when and where to meet, and the games they play are often technology-based, encouraging interaction with machines rather than with their mates. Access to information has placed a major challenge on parents who find it hard to keep up with the information and knowledge their children are acquiring.

Globalised markets mean that we have to prepare children to adopt a world view, to be able to compete, and therefore the emphasis is on competence and training. Niche markets entail high levels of specialisation and children today need to be geared for ever-increasing levels of education and skills.

It sounds challenging for your 'normal' kid but what about those who for some reason are unable to keep up? The concept of inclusion is doing a lot to change mentalities, with the exception of some adults who tend to hold to rigid mentalities.

Disability is no longer a taboo and children with special needs are increasingly mainstreamed in our educational system. However what about difficulties of the mental health type, those who have behavioural problems, juvenile delinquency, children needing support because of parental health problems, those needing alternative families because their parents are unable to offer them the basic care and protection, and children who are abused whether sexually, physically or emotionally within their own family environment?

So in spite of the more lucrative world that most of them are exposed to nowadays, 21% of children in Malta aged up to 15 years are classified as among the groups that risk poverty. The single parent with at least one dependent child has the highest risk of falling below the poverty threshold; 55.1% of this group is below this threshold in Malta as compared to 35% in the EU. This is worrying, considering that the number of children born out of wedlock rose from 2% in 1991 to 12.9% in 2001.

Unfortunately, although there is a growing awareness of children and adolescent issues, it is questionable how much policymakers and institutions responsible for the welfare of minors, including the courts as well as the parents themselves, have grasped the consequences that these changes have brought on children and adolescents.

Therefore, I agree with Marion Muscat Azzopardi (The Sunday Times, June 8) that this is a complex issue that cuts across diverse contexts and cannot be viewed too narrowly, and hence the need to broaden the location of the debate on children.

Some major issues raised so far in the debate:

Impact assessment. I fully concur with the Bill where it states that the Commissioner should ensure, whenever necessary, that a child impact assessment be carried out before announcing or introducing major policies and programmes. What comes to mind is to what extent our town planning authorities take into account the open spaces for children and the safety of children on our streets when giving building permits for new housing estates. A typical example is parents in Sliema who are lobbying for some space where their children can play.

Standards. Ms Muscat Azzopardi expressed concern on how the Commissioner will ensure that his or her standards are met. The Bill states in article 9 that the Commissoner should promote the highest standards of health, education and social services and article 11 (d) states that the Commissioner should set those standards which are to be applied by ministries, departments or agencies of the Government, intended to ensure that internal procedures are responsive whenever decisions related to child- ren's services are concerned.

Apart from the fact that there is a difference between promoting standards and setting standards, I think that quality assurance should be the responsibility of the regulator of social welfare services or any other regulator being; education, health, among others, and not the Commissioner. The regulator in the social welfare sector still needs to be established.

For the same reason I think that in promoting the welfare of children the Commissioner need not monitor as indicated in article 11 (i) but assess, draw conclusions and make recommendations. The monitoring function is a regulatory one and should not be assigned to the Commissioner.

Article 11 (d), which states that the Commissioner shall set standards, applies only to government entities and does not cover non-Government Organisations. The very first function of the Commissioner is to promote and advocate for the rights and interests of children. If standards are in the best interests of children in Government establishments they are equally so in NGOs.

Comprehensive legislation. MPs Helen D'Amato and Marie-Louise Coleiro called for comprehensive legislation for children and the family. They are right of course; although my colleague and friend, the Attorney General, might feel that most of what goes into a piece of legislation like this can readily be found in the criminal code and other laws. This may be partially true; however the Minor Issue is not a minor issue and deserves to be dealt with in the same manner as other major issues. Definitely this is no less important than, for example, Financial Legislation and for this we already have specific and separate legislation. Moreover there are new family related concepts which ought to be given their due importance, such as fostering, and which have not found their way into legislation so far.

Responsibilities. I was taken aback by the editorial of The Times (June 2). It stated that there is some sense in having a minister for children provided that the same minister is responsible for children's wrongs. I think that having a minister for children makes a lot of sense and not just some sense. However I fail to understand why one is conditioned by the other. It is as if the editor is saying that the Ministry for Social Policy makes sense only if it includes the Ministry for Home Affairs. He states that those with liberal opinions advocate children's rights but tend to look askance whenever children's wrongs are mentioned.

I am not sure where the editor would classify me however I am a strong believer and promoter of children's rights and I equally hold a strong view on parental responsibility. The two are not mutually exclusive. In this respect Article 10 (d) should place the families first, followed by the communities, and finally the Government as the parties who share the responsibility for the promotion of the development and well being of children.

The parents should be the prime movers for the promotion of children's rights however the Minor Issue is a community issue and therefore the community and its local structures have to be proactive in this respect as well. Government should come in as a last resort.

If we take a rights approach to children's issues the decisions that will follow would not only create a safer environment for children but one that will empower the parents. Rights entail accountability and commitment from whoever is responsible to carry out a given task. This includes children.

Conflict of interest. Minor Issues cut across different ministries, and for this reason I understand why the composition of the Children's Council is made up of representatives of various ministries; however, I question the effectiveness of such composition. What level of influence will these representatives have in their own ministries and departments to effect change in favour of children? Only time will tell.

The Commissioner may be a public officer. I have some reservations on this point because it makes me wonder how free he or she will be to take positions that may not please the government of the day. I appreciate the difficulty to find the right people in a small country but this officer needs to be seen to be fair and the litmus test will come when he or she will speak on an issue that may not go down all that well with the government of the day.

There are many positive points to raise about this Bill, particularly 11 (g), which for me presents a Copernican revolution in current social welfare thinking in Malta. It speaks about ensuring that services are accessible, community based, co-ordinated and integrated, inclusive of gender, culture and language, and responsive to individual needs.

Yes this is it. However, while this bill is certainly a welcome development in the legal framework for children, those operating in this sector have greater ambitions.

Legal framework. The legal framework within which the new legislation will operate is still underdeveloped. Comprehensive children's legislation is well overdue. We need it to bring together the various pieces of legislation already in existence into one law. The concept of parental responsibility, together with and not separate from, parental authority needs to feature prominently in new legislation. There can be no authority without responsibility.

Moreover, we hope to see a rights approach to children's issues, that is, the law needs to recognise and comprise children's rights as listed in the UN Convention and clearly state how and who is responsible to guarantee the rights of children and what remedies are available if and when a right is breached.

The natural family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents.

Families who find themselves in difficulties should have a right for social support and the specific needs for support by disadvantaged families with disabled members is to be recognised at law. In fact the concept of families at risk needs to be developed and should occupy a high position on the national agenda.

On the other hand, the serious issue of parental responsibility being shifted to children's homes simply by a parent placing a child in a home needs looking into. So while some of these parents retain full authority of care and custody, the actual responsibilities of daily living and upbringing is shifted to the nuns in children's homes.

While all social work support should be geared to reunite the family as fast as possible, in the meantime parents should not be exempt from carrying out their obligations vis-à-vis their children as established in the Civil Code. On the contrary, they need to prove that they are actively engaged in overcoming the obstacles that are holding them back from taking full responsibility for their children.

We have situations where both parents are not only unable to offer basic care and protection but their mere presence places their children at risk. For example, drug addicts who are not receiving any treatment or care. There are individuals who bring children into the world and then carry no responsibility for their welfare. Often such individuals have children with different partners and the children keep going in and out of institutions. This is not right, as children need stability, consistency, love and nurturing.

In the meantime, certified fostering should be an alternative as the child's interests are best served in a family like environment. Natural parents should be expected to collaborate and participate in such placements. The responsibility for child maintenance should also remain in the hands of the natural parent and they should be obliged to contribute for their child's upbringing, whether he or she is in foster care or a Children's Home.

Children, especially those living in children's homes, but also those in foster care, should not be allowed to live in a state of flux throughout their childhood. They have a right to a permanent family and, if the natural family, given the necessary support and time, remains unable to take the responsibility for the child, then the child should have the right to be adopted.

Apart from foster care, adoptions of Maltese children should be made easier. It is a pity that so many Maltese parents look for adoption from overseas countries when there are Maltese children who could benefit so much from local adoptions.

Apart from the Children's Act, one also expects to see a Social Work Act that recognises social work as a profession and lists its responsibilities. I should mention also the Domestic Violence Act that we were promised some time ago. Finally, there is the need to set up the Family Division within the Civil Court.

Institutional and service development

There is also the need to guarantee certain services. This effectively means more investment in children and family services. This investment will go to both public agencies and NGOs. This is investment in social inclusion and in social cohesion. In other words, it is an investment that prevents poverty; its absence would mean poverty, especially to children.

In this respect we need to have other pieces of legislation that bring into being the statutory structures that deliver the services. The ETC Act is a good example of such legislation. Such structures also call for the creation of a regulator who will have the responsibility to oversee the sector, set standards, monitor the services and issue licenses. Licences are needed not only for child care centres but also for every single residential facility and service delivery agency.

Considerable investment has already gone into children's services in past years. However a lot still needs to be done, particularly in providing support for children needing alternative families, children's therapeutic services, mental health services and children needing control, particularly those involved in juvenile delinquency.

Moroever, we hope to see the development of community social work with the direct involvement and investment by local authorities. Local councils have social responsibilities and it is hoped that in the years to come we will see them involved in local social services as much as they are currently involved in keeping towns and villages tidy.

Mental health needs a special mention as this problem is widespread and effects many families who, due to lack of community support, when the family stops functioning, are considerably effected, on all the members especially children. Investment in community mental health services should also rank high on the national agenda.

So the Bill about the Commissioner for Children is only the beginning of a process of truly placing children and their family at the Centre of National Policy, and one hopes that from now on every policy of whatever nature, places the interest of children and their family at the core. Only then can we say that the Minor Issue is no longer a minor issue.