I welcome other planning decisions, such as the provision of a dedicated bus service to the prison.  I also welcome the provision of work training facilities, a library, health care facilities, a gym and a playing field.  All of these definitely should form part of any modern, state-of-the-art prison. 

I am glad to hear that Ireland remains one the EU member states with the lowest rates of imprisonment.  I hope that situation is maintained and that the emphasis in our criminal justice system will be to look for alternatives to incarceration.  We are all very aware of the problems that arise regarding incarceration and recidivism.  We should always be looking constructively at policies that avoid these problems. 

The Minister of State spoke about the detention of non-nationals, which is a very important issue.  He said that the facilities at Thornton Hall will be such that people detained for immigration control reasons would be accommodated separately from remand or sentenced prisoners, in line with best international practice.  I must say that best international practice would dictate that it is not a good idea to locate asylum seekers in the same location as those who are incarcerated for serious crimes.  The Green Party is very concerned about the proposed location of the reception centre for people seeking asylum status at the Thornton Hall site. 

Ireland has a long history of emigration.  If Ellis Island had been a detention centre in its day, we would be very disturbed that some of our ancestors were held in close proximity to criminals.  They were only trying to escape very difficult circumstances in this country and looking for opportunities elsewhere, just like the immigrants who come to Ireland today.  I have no difficulty with the idea of detention centres and of processing the claims of these people, but locating them on the same campus as a major new prison is something we should reconsider. 

Like many other Senators, I have been lobbied about local issues at Thornton Hall.  Local residents need roads and footpaths in the area upgraded.  They also want to ensure the visual impact of the prison perimeter would be minimised, that construction activity would only occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and would not occur on Sundays.  They are concerned about the existing proposals for the emergency exit, which is located in a densely populated area.  The name of the prison is also an issue, as residents would rather a more neutral name than that of the local area. 

A local liaison group will be established immediately prior to the commencement of construction.  It will involve residents, the Irish Prison Service, building contractors and Fingal County Council and will hold monthly meetings.  It is good practice that the State is involved in any new development so I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

In 2002 the proportion of Ireland’s population aged 65 years and over was 11.1% but, according to population projections prepared for the National Council on Aging and Older People, this proportion will rise to between 14.8% and 15.3% by 2021. The number of Irish people aged 80 and over is projected to increase quite steeply, from 100,583 in 2002 to 137,305 in 2021. 

I was in discussions with the Age Action Ireland group before this debate just to get their views on what they felt were the priorities in terms of the delivery of services for older persons. They emphasised the area of community care and the fact that, from their point of view, the Government has every reason to support and develop community care services for older people. They pointed out that for every €1 spent on community care, €2 is spent on residential care, and also that many older persons who have been surveyed want to remain and be cared for at home. Unfortunately, access to community care at present is a little like a lottery, they argue, depending on what part of the country an older person is living in. In certain parts of the country the services are quite satisfactory but in other parts they leave much to be desired. 

The issue of rising fuel price was also highlighted by Age Action Ireland as an area of major concern. As the House will be aware, ESB and Bord Gáis have made an application to the energy regulator to increase both fuel and oil prices in this country. Age Action Ireland pointed out that it is far more expensive to live alone than to cohabit and many older persons live on their own, and that the inability to afford adequate home heating can result in premature mortality among older persons. They also pointed out that Ireland has the highest levels of fuel poverty in northern Europe for the category of lone pensioner households. The Irish National Survey of Housing Quality found that older households are more likely to be characterised by having an open fire, with 25% of older households having no central heating. 

An Leas-Chathaoirleach Senator De Búrca has one minute remaining. 

Senator Déirdre de Búrca Age Action Ireland asked that the Government would ensure proper measures are put in place in anticipation of these price rises, and that the next budget might look at the issue of fuel allowance for older persons to match the increases in energy bills.  Age Action Ireland proposed that energy providers could play their part in easing hardship for pensioners by deferring any increased charges until after the budget to complement what the Government can do, and also that energy providers should work to promote weekly payment schemes for low-income customers to help them to budget for the increased cost of fuel during the winter. 

Age Action Ireland also expressed some concern about the fair deal legislation. It pointed out that although the legislation is being prepared for the past 18 months, it as an organisation has not been consulted and has looked for this to occur. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, to indicate whether that might occur or not.

Members had a good debate in recent months on the Civil Partnership Bill and there seemed to be consensus around the House on the importance of introducing this legislation, which forms part of the programme for Government. I ask the Leader of the House to provide an update to Members on the status of the legislation’s preparation and when they can expect to see it brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. 

The other issue I wish to mention is the World Trade Organisation negotiations, which are continuing, and the issue of agriculture.  While there was much discussion on this issue during the run-up to the recent referendum, the World Trade Organisation negotiations continue. This morning I noted reports in the national media that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, has made it clear that neither he nor the Irish Government is happy with the implications for agriculture of some of the recent positions taken in those negotiations. I wish to emphasise that as a country that had and still has a strong agricultural base, we must be proactive at a European level in highlighting the vulnerability of the agricultural sector as the issue of food production and food security move to the top of the agenda. 

Together with the looming energy crisis, the issue of food security will be immediate and the European Union must ensure it retains its capacity to produce its own food. One must examine the world trade system and must take issue that food is treated within it in the same manner as a manufactured product, that is, simply as another commodity for trading. I ask the Leader of the House, to whom the same request has been made in recent weeks, to invite the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the House to address the issue of the ongoing negotiations, their future impact on the agricultural sector and the position Ireland is taking at an EU level to try to protect our capacity for food production in future.

I hope the Minister will take on board my view on the danger that in looking to respond to the Irish “No” vote on last Thursday the problem will be defined as how we salvage the Lisbon treaty and that the issue of the democratic deficit and the disengagement of citizens will be overlooked.  There is a certain level of fear among the political class in the European Union in terms of trying to engage with people and bring them along because there is a sense that they are unpredictable and appear to be very hesitant about the whole European project. However, as politicians we cannot continue to get treaties ratified without the support of the public because there will be increasing resistance on their part. In time, when the European Union tries to implement directives and other legislation without public support there could be a fundamental crisis in the Union. 

Popular support and consent is very important and the last thing we need is European institutions having authority without popular consent. As a polity that is putting itself forward as a beacon of democracy and a political entity that is trying to promote democracy internationally it is not desirable to have that kind of fundamental flaw in its own democratic system. I hope that at tomorrow’s European summit and in the coming weeks and months when this issue is discussed, the Ministers and heads of State will look at the whole issue of how we address the democratic deficit and the disengagement of many citizens of the European Union from the project, which has delivered so many benefits to them. 

I support the interesting proposal made by my Green Party colleagues in the European Parliament on the possibility of a democracy Bill whereby an EU-wide referendum would be held and which would contain the Charter for Fundamental Rights, an expanded and improved role for the European Parliament and the national parliaments, and innovative ways for citizens to participate in the politics and the governance of the European Union through mechanisms like the citizens’ initiative. We have to start thinking in terms of EU-wide referenda. We cannot run away from our electorates or try to proceed on a state-by-state basis. What has happened in the case of Ireland is that we are seen as holding up the progress that all of the other member states wish to make. 

I support the notion of EU-wide referenda that put issues to the citizens. What the Green Party had proposed in regard to the original constitutional treaty was a double-majority referendum where we would look for a majority of states and a majority of the citizens of the European Union to support it. We have to start looking at such mechanisms. Perhaps that is the kind of thinking that the heads of state and the various Ministers should adopt in approaching this issue and that it is not just seen as a question of how we salvage the Lisbon treaty but that there is focus on the much broader issue of how we address the disengagement of our citizens. We can possibly use the mechanism of an EU-wide referendum to tackle some of the issues relating to the democratic deficit. That is the way forward. I hope the Minister of State will bring some of that thinking to the meetings he will attend on behalf of this country.

In today’s Seanad debate on the Lisbon Treaty, Green Party Spokesperson for European Affairs, Senator Déirdre de Búrca called for urgent action by the European Union to address the issue of the democratic deficit and the levels of disengagement by citizens from EU institutions which she claims has been evident during referendums that occurred prior to the Lisbon treaty referendum.

‘Much of the commentary that has followed the recent No vote of the Irish people to the Lisbon Treaty has concentrated on the challenge that confronts the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, as he faces into a European Council meeting on Thursday,” she said. “It is to be hoped that a sense of European solidarity, so frequently referred to during the recent referendum campaign, will be in evidence when he meets his EU colleagues this week to discuss the way forward. The European Union’s ‘legitimacy’ problems did not begin with the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, which is symptomatic of a wider and more enduring problem within the EU.’

Senator De Búrca said that as the areas of competence of the EU institutions expand, it is essential that EU institutions are not seen to have “authority without popular consent”. She argued that if this issue is not addressed by its Member States, it will undoubtedly prove a fatal flaw in what is otherwise a very successful, ambitious and innovative trans-national political project, designed to respond to the challenges of the 21st century.

‘The urgent political need to generate much greater levels of popular support for the process of European integration clearly requires an EU-wide response. No individual Member State should be held responsible for ‘failing to deliver’ the support of its electorate. The tendency of the political classes to rely almost exclusively on processes of parliamentary ratification to facilitate further EU integration needs to be re-evaluated, as- over time- it can only serve to deepen a sense of public alienation from the project.’

The Green Party Senator referred to a proposal put forward by her colleagues in the European Green Party who have called for a short, clear and focussed  ’European Act for Democracy’ which would deal with the issue of the democratic deficit as perceived by European citizens at this stage in the process of European integration.

‘The Act would include the Charter of Fundamental Rights, more democratic and representative decision-making processes including a stronger role for the European Parliament and national parliaments, and innovative ways of involving citizens in EU politics and governance, including measures like the Citizens Initiative” said Senator de Burca. “My colleagues have suggested that this ‘European Act for Democracy’ should be put to all EU citizens in an EU-wide referendum, held on the same day as the European Parliament elections next year.  They see this Act as the best way of regaining the trust of the people of the EU, and enabling the Union to really make a positive difference to citizen’s lives.’

Senator De Búrca said that she hopes this is the kind of creative solution to the current political impasse that EU leaders will be discussing with Taoiseach Brian Cowen when they meet him later this week.

Information: Senator Déirdre de Búrca • (086) 806 14 50

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad of this opportunity to debate the charter of fundamental rights that is attached to the Lisbon treaty by means of a protocol. The treaty sets out to bring the EU and its institutions closer to citizens, as well as making itself more relevant to the citizenry of the Union. The charter helps to do just that. The treaty itself clarifies and explains what EU citizenship means, it does not replace national citizenship but complements it. Therefore it is additional to, rather than replacing, an individual’s national citizenship. People may ask what EU citizenship means, why it is so important and what added value it bestows. The treaty clearly outlines that the EU is a community of values. Even though it comprises 27 member states with diverse cultures, traditions and backgrounds, they have common values, including human dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy and the rule of law. More specifically, the charter sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms to which not just EU citizens but also all those legally resident in the EU are entitled. The Green Party believes this is an very significant and positive element of the overall treaty. Effectively, this is a progressive bill of rights, which reflects best practice in the many areas it touches upon, including civil, political, social and economic rights.

Those working in the human rights field know there is quite a battle to get states to recognise not just traditional civil and political rights but also to extend that recognition to social and economic rights. This is what the charter does by enshrining social and economic rights in addition to civil and political ones. Therefore, the EU will have its own bill of rights. Although some have said there is nothing new in it — in a strict sense that is true — the charter pulls together rights from various international treaties. The charter has existed since 2000, although it has not had legal status until it was proposed as part of the Lisbon treaty. In addition, it includes constitutional traditions and provisions of individual member states, some of which are reflected in rights contained in the charter. Even though they are not new rights, by attaching them to the treaty via a protocol they become more visible, thus providing a focus point around which citizens and others legally resident in the EU can mobilise. They will be very important in future given the inevitable struggles we witness within states and polities such as the EU, where citizens seek to have their rights vindicated. Those rights are clearly and visibly outlined in this charter.

It is important the European Union has taken this step because it has in many ways presented itself to citizens as an alternative to unfettered, free market economic globalisation. In a sense the EU is a project which sets out to democratise globalisation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights strengthens the Union’s social and environmental dimension, a development citizens should recognise as positive.

The Green Party welcomes the rights and freedoms set out in the charter. Chapter 1, on dignity, contains important provisions and rights for citizens and legal residents of the European Union in the area of the right to integrity of the person. It is made clear, for instance, that in the fields of medicine and biology the free and informed consent of persons is required according to procedures laid down by the law. The section also includes a prohibition on making the human body and its parts a source of financial gain and prohibits the reproductive cloning of human beings. Ten or 15 years ago, we would have considered it fanciful and far-fetched to set out such prohibitions in a legally binding charter. However, owing to recent developments in the area of reproductive cloning and so forth, we now know the importance of establishing them in law.

Article 4 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For those of us who have observed with concern some of the practices accepted in Guantanamo Bay, it is reassuring to note the European Union is firmly and clearly committing itself to such a prohibition. The prohibition on trafficking of human beings is also important given that human trafficking has became an unfortunate part of the globalised world to which we belong.

Article 8 setting out the right to have one’s personal data protected is also very important. The House regularly debates the abuses and infringements of the right to privacy in relation to personal data. This is a strong article which reassures individual citizens that they have a fundamental right to have their personal data protected, access data being collected and have such data corrected in the event that it is inaccurate.

The Green Party welcomes the rights to education and asylum enshrined in the charter. It is reassuring to note that no citizen or legal resident of the European Union may be removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That is a standard to which this State must sometimes be pushed to observe. The charter also enshrines the rights of the child and the elderly and refers to the key issue of equality between men and women.

My sole reservation about the Charter of Fundamental Rights relates to the reference in the chapter setting out general provisions which, in referring to the scope of guaranteed rights states that limitations may be made “only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others”. Certain European Court of Justice rulings, specifically in the Laval, Rüffert and Viking cases, have been raised repeatedly in the debate on the Lisbon treaty. It appears from these judgments that the court might be interpreting the interests of business, such as the rights of establishment and to provide services in other parts of the EU, as objectives of general interest recognised by the Union. Given the tendency of courts to reflect the political consensus of the day, member state governments must make clear that where a conflict arises between the fundamental human rights of citizens and the rights of businesses, the latter must not be seen to win out.
Otherwise, citizens will lose confidence in the European Union, view it as aneoliberal project and withhold support from it in future.

This debate is taking place because it is necessary under the Act for both Houses of the Oireachtas to approve the order to extend the commission’s term. While the Green Party is happy to do so, the order provides Members with another welcome opportunity to discuss child protection. A debate was held in the House recently, which was attended by the new Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, in respect of serious concerns regarding child protection that arose from a recent “Prime Time Investigates” programme. It is fitting that Members should have another opportunity to discuss the issue today. 

In this debate I wish to touch on the lessons that have accrued from the experience of setting up the commission, allowing it to carry out its work and, as it enters its final phase, allowing it to complete its report and make the necessary preparations for its publication. First, I refer to 1042 Commission to Inquire into Child 28 May 2008. Abuse Act 2000: Statements the expenditure on the commission. No one questions whether the commission provided a highly valuable function in investigating the abuses that occurred in institutions in Ireland between the 1940s and the present day. Moreover, it listened to the victims of childhood abuse who wished to recount their experiences, both for the therapeutic purposes of so doing and because it had the function of investigating fully all allegations made to it, except when a victim did not wish for an investigation. 

The final stage of the commission’s work will be to publish a report on its findings. The business of compiling such a report, to reflect accurately all the testimonies, documentation and so on that were made available to the commission during its existence, will constitute a significant body of work. The report should make clear and adequate recommendations in respect of such institutional abuse and deficits in the State’s child protection system that will enable safeguards to be put in place to ensure that such situations never recur within the State’s institutions or within State bodies. 

As a result of the commission’s findings, it is expected to make a number of recommendations on the issue of child protection. One such recommendation should make clear the system that is required in respect of reporting allegations. It has emerged from the commission’s inquiries that there is an absolute need for a clear and statutory basis on which to report allegations of abuse. This does not simply refer to the residential institutions at which, in the main, the commission directed its attention. The issue must be broadened and, as other Members have mentioned, schools, for example, must be examined. I refer in particular toprimary schools for which clear and official guidelines are required on reporting abuse. Moreover, sufficient training must be provided for staff members in such schools for so doing. One should not simply consider that the appointment of a single individual within a school with responsibility for this area means the issue has been catered for. Adequate training for staff is highly important in primary schools in particular, as well as in secondary schools. 

Another issue that has arisen regarding schools concerns the vetting of teachers. This matter has been raised in the Dáil with particular emphasis on substitute teachers. While I understand that at present, more than 1,000 substitute teachers work in primary schools, the system to vet such teachers is non-existent. Such issues must be examined because the work of the commission and the highlighting of other issues by the media have led to the realisation that there is an absolute need for a strict vetting system for those who work in close proximity to children in a number of different sectors. 

The Green Party hopes the commission’s recommendations will help to put in place such a system and the Minister should act quickly on the basis of its recommendations. It is expected that the recommendations, or at least the commission’s report, will be available in early 2009. The Minister should publish the report because of the work and expense that has gone into it. Moreover, its contents and the commission’s recommendations should be made publicly available because they will contain many lessons for everyone. 

I also wish to comment on the model of the commission because it carried out highly important work and was structured in a manner that probably ensured that the functions and remit given to it were fulfilled properly. One of the ways in which this was achieved should be replicated in other such commissions set up by the Oireachtas in future. As the Minister of State noted, before the commission’s formal establishment the Government set it up on an administrative basis in May 1999. Its first objective was to consider the broad terms of reference provided to it to ascertain whether they required refinement. Thereafter, the commission recommended to the Government the powers and protections it would require to do its work effectively. This is a very good model for the establishment of any commission. Moreover, the powers it was given enabled it to do its work. It had the protection that a court would enjoy, including privilege for witnesses and their compellability, discovery of documents, taking evidence on oath and offences for failure to co-operate or for obstruction. 

While it is estimated that the expenditure on the commission up to the end of 2007 was €43.7 million, it also is estimated that an additional provision of approximately €45 million may be required to meet its remaining costs. Although the commission’s work is extremely important, this is a substantial amount of money to spend. Therefore, I repeat it is important to get value for money. Whatever recommendations may be produced in the commission’s report should be published and the Minister should act speedily on them. Lessons have been learned regarding the arrangement that was made with the religious institutions involved. Were the Oireachtas to set up a similar body, it is unlikely that the circumstances in which it would be set up would be similar in future. However, there have been learning opportunities for the State in this regard and in future, one should seek to make satisfactory arrangements to ensure the State is not writing a blank cheque when it establishes a body such as this. On behalf of the Green Party, I support the extension of the commission’s term.

Rather than focus on some of the claims made in the programme, I would prefer to look at the broader policy framework in which child protection occurs in this State. I will start with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Ireland signed up without reservation in 1992. The convention places a positive duty on the State to protect and support children and their families. Article 19 of that convention states:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

I refer to an official assessment of the State’s performance carried out by the Children’s Rights Alliance which produced a report entitled, From Rhetoric to Rights, Second Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. This report reflected its views on the progress made by the State and it was published in March 2006. While approximately two years have elapsed, the findings of the report pretty much echo some of the findings of the “Prime Time Investigates” programme on this issue.

In regard to services for those most at risk, the shadow report stated:

Significant numbers of children in Ireland experience disadvantage, including those living in poverty, early school-leavers, homeless young people, those living with addiction or mental illness (either their own or that of a parent) or those who are part of a disadvantaged ethnic minority. Much more needs to be done to support these children and their families through comprehensive preventive and early intervention services (rather than crisis intervention only), to coordinate the services targeted at these children, and to ensure that allocated funding produces positive outcomes.

These themes are consistent throughout the report. There is a big emphasis on preventive and early intervention services. There is a critique of the fact that much of the funding and official services tend to be focused on crisis intervention and there is repeated reference to the fact that services are not as well co-ordinated as they should be. Evaluation is also highlighted as is the importance of ensuring the funding allocated to these services produces positive outcomes.

Another important issue highlighted in the report is inappropriate services and placements. The report points out that inappropriate services are often used to treat troubled children – those with mental health or behavioural difficulty, those who are in contact with the criminal justice system and those for whom there are abuse concerns. The report states that because of a lack of adequate planning, investment and co-ordination in regard to both crisis and preventive services, the line is often blurred between welfare, criminal and health interventions.

It further states:

In this context, the response to the needs of children with complex problems is too often determined by whatever service is available, even if the placement is inappropriate or potentially damaging. For example, children have been inappropriately placed in youth detention centres (when they have not committed a crime) and in adult psychiatric hospitals.

The report calls on the Government to actively commit itself to fulfil its obligations to children under the convention by creating sufficient and appropriate welfare, preventive and rehabilitative services that take into account children’s best interests.

As far as family support services are concerned, the report welcomes the establishment of the Family Support Agency in 1998 but points out that family support services lack an integrated structure, that the availability of services varies greatly across the country and that responsibility for the services is split between two agencies, the Health Service Executive, which is responsible for individual families at risk, and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which is responsible for general community-based family support services. It also points out that seven other Departments have responsibility for certain programmes for families and children and that there is a reliance by the Government on community groups to provide many family services. However, it points out that the sector is under-resourced and under-supported to deal with the range of issues it confronts.

The report usefully suggests that a comprehensive audit of all support services for families and children provided by the Health Service Executive and the Department of Social and Family Affairs is needed to identify where services are being provided, where there are gaps and to assess the quality of services. It recommends that this audit would be the basis for the development of a comprehensive support services strategy to meet the needs of vulnerable children and families and those with special needs.

The report also suggests that the support services strategy drawn up should provide for the evaluation of outcomes of family support services and for the mainstreaming of examples of best practice. It adds that parents and children, who are the beneficiaries of these services, should be involved in the implementation and evaluation processes.

As I mentioned, the report emphasises prevention over crisis intervention and states that a key issue which a support services strategy must address is the fact that at present, the capacity and focus of social services is limited to crisis intervention and child protection and the result is that preventive and support services are seriously under-developed. It calls for the provision of multidisciplinary professional teams to provide preventive and therapeutic services to move the emphasis away from crisis intervention.

However, it also points out that there are ongoing difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified and experienced staff and that this must be addressed. It suggests that one of the ways this could be done is through providing workers with adequate inservice support, supervision and training. Lack of the above is thought to be the reason for much of the problem in holding on to experienced staff.

The report refers to the need for a 24-hour social work service. It points out that HSE social work services are not available outside office hours with the exception of a service for homeless children in Dublin on weekdays and that the absence of a general out of hours social work service is delaying the implementation of the youth justice diversionary provisions in the Children Act 2001.

The report calls for the publication of two Government reviews of compliance with the Children First guidelines, the non-statutory guidelines on procedures for preventing child abuse and responding to allegations and suspicions of abuse.

The recommendations of the report, which are very comprehensive, apply today even though the report was drawn up two years ago. They include placing the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing; developing a national child abuse prevention strategy; establishing a 24-hour seven-day-week social work service; ensuring adequate levels of support for staff, including social workers and better supports; conducting an audit of all support services for families and children provided by both the HSE and the Department of Social and Family Affairs and to use this as the basis for a comprehensive support services strategy to meet the needs of all families; implementing a plan of action to provide training in the Children First guidelines to all professionals and volunteers working with children; systematically involving children and parents in designing support services and policies; implementing on a national level the recommendations made in Listen to Me! Children’s Experience of Domestic Violence; and, revising the Children First guidelines to take specific account of the needs of migrant children.