Part I — Situation overview

On 14 September 2026 at 13:38, shortly after the start of the plenary sitting, Deputy Prime Minister Bálint Ruff submitted bill T/680 to the National Assembly on behalf of the government. The title of the bill: on the amendment of certain acts with the aim of strengthening the rights and safety of children. The rapporteur of the bill is Vilmos Kátai-Németh, Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The 12-page text amends six acts: the Child Protection Act (Gyvt.), the Advertising Act, the act on the criminal records system, the Media Act, the Public Education Act and the Act on Electoral Procedure. Most of the amendments concern content that reaches children. A new right of the child is not to be exposed in public spaces to visual or audio communication that seriously harms their development; this rule also extends to advertisements and campaign posters. Section 6/A of the Gyvt., inserted in 2021, receives new content: according to the explanatory memorandum, in the age rating of media services the earlier criteria based on identities and sexual orientation are replaced by an objective child protection yardstick. From the point of view of specialised care, the most important new element is the concept of the child stuck in hospital. If a child no longer needs to remain in hospital for health reasons but cannot be discharged home, the guardianship authority must carry out a preliminary child protection situation assessment within eight days at the latest. On that basis it must draw up an action plan with responsible persons and deadlines. The law would enter into force on the third day after its promulgation. Its adoption is decided by the National Assembly; the government is the submitter.

The submission came two days after the 220-page government report on the child protection system and the announcement of the 9.5 billion forint crisis programme. MIAK published an analysis of the report on 13 September, and of the family allowance and the child protection pay rise on 14 September; at that time MIAK asked that the package to be submitted should lay down indicators. In the same week the prime minister announced a 20–25 per cent pay rise in the child protection and social sector, with the first instalment in the November salary, and stated that the rules of adoption would also change. Neither appears in T/680: the pay rise is a budgetary decision, and the adoption amendment will be a separate step.

MIAK’s reading: the general explanatory memorandum of the bill itself states the yardstick. According to it, the effectiveness of child protection regulation can be measured “above all” by whether the legal and institutional instruments are able to respond in time to the actual risks children face. And the text does contain one real, measurable obligation: the eight-day deadline. But there is no measuring instrument alongside it: no data-recording requirement, no reporting obligation, no target. And the two main findings of the report, the shortage of professionals and the fate of young people who have left care, do not appear in the package. The problem, then, is not that the bill goes in the wrong direction. The trouble is that it gives a rule but no feedback, and assigns no instrument to the yardstick it states itself.

Part II — Foundations in the literature

Three works help decide what a child protection law must contain about measurement. Friedrich August von Hayek (Austrian-British economist and social philosopher, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), in the part of his book The Road to Serfdom (1944) on delegated legislation, distinguishes between two kinds of delegation. In one case parliament lays down the aim and hands over only the working-out of the details. In the other there is no agreement even on the aim, and from then on the executive decides on the basis of discretion. It follows that the target belongs in the law, and the measurement methodology in the decree. Reinhard Busse (German health economist, professor at the Technical University of Berlin) and his co-authors examine the effect of public performance reporting in the volume Improving Healthcare Quality in Europe, published by the WHO and the OECD in 2019. They show that it works primarily not because service users choose, but because providers respond to it. In the same place they also warn about the manipulability of indicators. According to the European Commission’s 2021 action plan The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, numerical targets turn policy towards results. The document therefore calls on member states to set their own national targets. The detailed treatment of the literature — by author, with quotations — is in section 6.4 Literature in detail.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures. The first can still be built into the submitted text during the parliamentary debate, the second can start simultaneously with entry into force, and the third sets a second legislative stage. None of them slows down the adoption of the bill, and none of them requires a new institution.

3.1 Targets and an annual reporting obligation in the Child Protection Act (by amending proposal, before the final vote)

MIAK proposes that in the detailed debate on T/680 an amending proposal by MPs or by a committee should supplement the Gyvt. with a reporting section. Under it, the minister responsible for child protection would submit a report to the National Assembly on the state of the child protection system by 31 May each year. The mandatory content of the report would be listed by the law: the number of children at risk and of children living in state care, the number on the run long-term, the number of children stuck in hospital and the length of their stay beyond care, the vacancy rate of professional posts and professional turnover, and the situation of young people who have left care. For three of these indicators the law should also set a 2029 target, taking the figures of the 2026 report as the baseline. MIAK’s proposal: the number of some 800 children on the run long-term should be halved, in the cases of children stuck in hospital the eight-day deadline should be met in at least 90 per cent of cases, and the vacancy rate of professional posts should fall below 10 per cent. The exact definition of the indicators and the method of data collection would be determined by ministerial decree. Hayek’s distinction (see 6.4.1) provides the principled basis for exactly this division of labour: the aim and the deadline are political decisions and therefore belong to the National Assembly; the technique of measurement is a professional detail and therefore belongs at decree level. The proposal applies the annual, indicator-based reporting cycle of the SZ12 programme point to child protection. The earlier MIAK proposal asked for a diagnosis repeated every year; this proposal gives it its legal form: who reports, to whom, when and against what.

3.2 Quarterly publication of fulfilment of the eight-day deadline (from entry into force, first publication by 31 January 2027)

The bill’s new sections 126/A and 126/B impose three kinds of obligation on the guardianship authority: a situation assessment within eight days, an action plan with responsible persons and deadlines, and priority procedure on the part of the bodies contacted. All of these are measurable, but the text does not require anyone to measure them. MIAK proposes that the guardianship register should record the dates of the notification by the healthcare institution, of the closing of the situation assessment and of the child’s placement out of hospital. From this four data points can be published quarterly, broken down by county: the number of notifications, the share of situation assessments closed within eight days, the median number of days between the end of healthcare treatment and placement, and the average duration of the priority procedures of the bodies contacted. Guardianship tasks are performed by the district offices of the government offices, that is, by the state administration, not by local governments. Data collection can therefore be ordered uniformly. Since the law would enter into force on the third day after promulgation, baseline data on the staffing and caseload of the guardianship offices are also needed, otherwise in the first months the deadline will be met only on paper. The proposal is the child protection counterpart of the case-handling-time goal of the SZ7 dignity-based social policy and of the access-time indicator of the KB8 victim-protection minimum. According to the proposition of Busse and his co-authors (see 6.4.2), such publication improves performance even if those concerned cannot choose a provider. A baby stuck in hospital certainly cannot choose.

3.3 Second stage: an aftercare minimum and independent review (bill by 31 March 2027)

T/680 does not touch aftercare, that is, the support of young people leaving care as adults. The Gyvt. in force does recognise aftercare and aftercare provision, but does not tie their content to an enforceable minimum. MIAK proposes that the government submit a separate bill by 31 March 2027 supplementing the aftercare minimum with four elements. These are: transitional housing or housing support, help with learning or employment, priority access to psychological and addiction care, and a designated helper available up to the age of 25. The second stage should also lay down independent review. The opinion of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights must be attached to the minister’s annual report. The Commissioner is elected by the National Assembly, and has the statutory task of giving special protection to the rights of children. Civil children’s rights organisations can also be involved in the review in the framework of a public consultation. Finally, the law should contain a review clause: two years after entry into force a mandatory, public ex-post impact assessment should be prepared on whether the targets have been met. This is an application of the review element of the I3 legislative impact assessment programme point. The logic of the aftercare minimum is related to the transitional housing and mentoring element of the KB4 reintegration programme point: both handle the moment when one must step from state care into independent life. The EU action plan (see 6.4.3) names precisely the breaking of the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage as the aim of investing in children.

The three proposals are bound together by one principle: a law becomes a reform when it states against what and by when the system must improve. The submitted text states the yardstick, a response that arrives in time, and at one point also gives a deadline. MIAK’s proposals assign a target, data and a route of accountability to this yardstick. According to Hayek’s principle, the National Assembly can check implementation if it has first laid down the aim itself. And according to Busse and his co-authors, public data have their strongest effect where the service user has no choice.

Part IV — Expected effects and risks

Dimension Expected effect Risk
Child protection care Targets and the annual report make the effect of the crisis programme and the pay rise verifiable from year to year Indicators can be manipulated: narrowing the definition of running away, or quick but unsuitable placement, improves the number but not the child’s situation
Public administration (guardianship authorities) Quarterly publication of the eight-day deadline shows where capacity is lacking, and this makes targeted staff increases possible The deadline’s entry into force on the third day after promulgation may overload the district guardianship offices; data recording is a further administrative burden
Legislation and public law The target is placed at statutory level and the methodology at decree level, so only the National Assembly can change the target A statutory target may become rigid; if the baseline data are wrong, changing the target requires a further amendment of the law
Budget The report provides a measurable basis for the 2027 and later budget debates Meeting the targets may require additional funding, which is constrained by the budget deficit

The main trade-off lies between accountability and manipulability. Every indicator to which a statutory target and public reporting are attached creates an incentive for the number to improve, even if reality does not. For children stuck in hospital this is a concrete danger: the eight-day deadline can also be met by placing the child quickly but in an unsuitable place. MIAK therefore proposes paired indicators. Alongside the speed indicator (decision within the deadline) there should always be an outcome indicator too, for example the share of placements breaking down within six months. The report should be obliged to flag changes in definitions. The proposal tips to the risk side if the indicators begin to be used for the individual evaluation of heads of institutions or guardianship case officers. Publication should therefore take place at county and maintainer level, not broken down by person.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth following? (suggested KPIs)

MIAK proposes the following key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring. These are proposals, not government decisions:

  • Whether the text adopted by the National Assembly contains the annual ministerial reporting obligation and at least three statutory targets (yes/no, at the final vote).
  • The share of preliminary situation assessments closed within eight days: first publication by 31 January 2027; according to MIAK’s proposal at least 90 per cent by the end of 2027.
  • The median number of days between the end of healthcare treatment and placement out of hospital, broken down by county: a path declining from quarter to quarter is worth expecting.
  • Whether the government submits, by 31 March 2027, the bill laying down the aftercare minimum and independent review (yes/no).

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s request: during the parliamentary debate on the child protection bill, an annual reporting obligation and a few statutory targets should be written into the text, fulfilment of the eight-day deadline should be public every quarter, and there should be a second legislative stage, tied to a timetable, for supporting young people leaving care. The submitted bill is a substantive step in regulating the content that reaches children and in the cases of children stuck in hospital. But the system failure revealed by the report, the shortage of professionals and the fate of young people leaving care will only receive an answer if the law states against what things must improve.

Two of MIAK’s foundational values are at stake in this topic. Accountability, because the child protection report showed precisely that the system’s problems had been known for years, yet without a route of accountability nothing changed. The annual report creates this route towards the National Assembly, without intervening in the details of implementation. And data-drivenness, because the bill’s explanatory memorandum itself speaks of measurability. If measurement does not happen, the next report will again be a one-off exploration, and not a data series comparable from year to year.

Part VI — Reasoning and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

In the left-liberal band, among the articles processed, HVG set out the content of the bill item by item on the day of submission: the ban on advertising in public spaces, the rule on campaign posters and the eight-day deadline for children stuck in hospital. The paper also quoted from the explanatory memorandum, then indicated afterwards that it had originally mistakenly published the explanatory memorandum of another bill, and corrected this. 444.hu put the pre-agenda parliamentary debate at the centre: the prime minister held the opposition to account for the gravest details of the report, and Fidesz replied that fuel prices should be discussed instead. In a related piece the paper also reported on a demonstration by social sector workers demanding an immediate 25 per cent pay rise. Telex highlighted the deflecting character of the debate. In its article on the prime minister’s interview on Kossuth Radio it also reported that, according to the prime minister, the package may also be suitable for avoiding an EU fine over the 2021 child protection law. This band thus carried the political weight of the report and the pay-rise promise, not the measuring instruments of the statutory text.

In the mainstream public-affairs band, 24.hu carried mainly the part of the interview about the near-collapse state of the child protection system. The introduction to ATV’s morning programme linked opening adoption to single people and same-sex couples to the new legislative package. The submitted T/680, however, contains no adoption provision; the government announced this as a separate step. In the economic band Portfolio detailed the funding structure of the crisis programme: 6 billion forints for direct professional programmes, 3.5 billion forints for development. It wrote about the adoption changes on the basis of a Reuters report. This band did not analyse the bill.

In the conservative band, Magyar Nemzet framed the adoption announcement as preparation for adoption by same-sex couples. The paper stressed that instead of the immediate 25 per cent pay rise promised in the campaign, after four months the sector received a report and another promise. The same piece also contains the figure given by the State Secretary for Children’s Rights and Child Protection: the shortage of professionals is around 20 per cent on average, and 60–65 per cent in some places. Mandiner focused on the role of Zoltán Balog and the committee investigating the pardon case, not on the bill. Not a single band of the spectrum raised whether the submitted text contains targets or a reporting obligation. MIAK’s proposal asks this missing question, and it is a question that can be decided regardless of political affiliation.

6.2 Facts and data

The submitted text and the drafting questions

Question What does T/680 contain?
Does it contain a measurable target and an annual reporting obligation? No. The general explanatory memorandum speaks of measurability, but the statutory text prescribes neither a target nor a report
What pay and retention instrument does it contain? None; the announced 20–25 per cent pay rise is not part of the bill
How does it regulate aftercare? It does not touch it
Which independent oversight actor is given a role? It names none
What is at statutory and what at decree level? Every provision is an amendment of an act; the subheadings affecting the Media Act and the Act on Electoral Procedure are cardinal. The text contains no authorisation for implementing decrees
Does it contain a deadline? Yes: 8 days for the situation assessment of a child stuck in hospital, and 8 days for deciding on a request to inspect the criminal records system

Supplementary facts and figures

Data Value Source
Number and submission of the bill T/680, 14 September 2026, 13:38 National Assembly, bill data sheet
Submitter / rapporteur Deputy Prime Minister Bálint Ruff on behalf of the government / Vilmos Kátai-Németh, Minister for Social and Family Affairs T/680
Length, acts amended 12 pages, 6 acts T/680; HVG, 14 September 2026
Planned entry into force the third day after promulgation T/680, section 15
Length of the government report 220 pages 444.hu, 13 September 2026
Children registered as at risk almost 130,000 (out of 1.6 million children) Portfolio, 13 September 2026
Living in state care 23,000 Portfolio and 444.hu, 13 September 2026
Crisis programme 9.5 billion forints (6 billion professional programme + 3.5 billion development), 184 new or repurposed places Portfolio, 13 September 2026
Shortage of professionals according to the state secretary around 20 per cent on average, 60–65 per cent in some places Magyar Nemzet
Announced pay rise 20–25 per cent in total, first instalment in the November salary Telex, 14 September 2026

The first part of the table shows that the structure of the bill does not follow the report’s diagnosis. Most of it is about content regulation; it connects to specialised care through a single, but real, element: the procedure for children stuck in hospital. This in itself is not a fault: a bill does not have to solve everything. But precisely for this reason a timetable is needed for when and in what form the missing elements will arrive.

6.3 Policy dimensions

  • Social policy (programme points) — the annual indicator-based cycle of the SZ12 national action plan provides the model for the reporting clause, the SZ7 dignity-based social policy the measurement of case-handling time, and the SZ1 targeted support the targeting principle of the aftercare minimum;
  • Demography (programme points) — the annual reporting logic of the DM2 family-support impact assessment can be extended to the child protection report, and the DM1 demographic data platform is the technical framework for data linkage;
  • Public security and law enforcement (programme points) — KB4 reintegration is the transitional housing and mentoring model for leaving state care, the KB8 victim-protection minimum is the model for measuring access time, and KB3 represents the prevention logic whose most direct field is tracking young people who have left care;
  • Justice (programme points) — the I3 legislative impact assessment provides the framework for the review clause and the ex-post impact assessment, and the I9 popular-sovereignty audit the structured form of civil review.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom

In his chapter on the relationship between planning and democracy, Hayek does not object to delegated legislation as such. In his view it may also be justified for general rules to be made by a lower-level or local body. The critical point, according to him, is what parliament hands over:

“Parliament can, of course, control the execution of tasks where it can give definite directions, where it has first agreed on the aim and merely delegates the working-out of the detail.”

If, however, the reason for delegation is that there is no agreement even on the aim, then the executive body chooses between aims of whose conflict parliament is not even aware. In such a case the decision becomes a matter of individual discretion instead of a general rule. Applied to the child protection legislative package, this means: if the law does not say how much long-term running away, how many vacant posts and how long a hospital stay is acceptable, then this question is decided by the executive, year after year, without a public yardstick. MIAK therefore proposes that the aim and the deadline should be in the law, and the measurement methodology in the decree. This is not a constraint on implementation, but the condition under which the National Assembly is able to check it at all.

📖 Source: F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom

6.4.2 Reinhard Busse and co-authors (eds.): Improving Healthcare Quality in Europe

The volume’s chapter on public performance reporting distinguishes two mechanisms of effect. One is the selection pathway: service users choose a better provider on the basis of the published data. The other is the change pathway: providers improve their own practice themselves because of the reputational risk. According to the research summarised by the authors, the first pathway is weak; patients hardly use the published data. The second, however, works, because publicity provides a stronger incentive than internal feedback. At the same time the last point of the seven principles on the use of indicators warns:

“Overall reporting of information on quality of care can lead to performance improvement. Nevertheless, reporting on certain aspects of care can lead to adverse effects such as gaming or outright cheating.”

Applied to child protection, the lesson is twofold. On the one hand, the selection pathway does not exist here at all: a baby stuck in hospital or a teenager living in a children’s home cannot choose a guardianship authority or an institution. The only working mechanism is therefore the change pathway, and this requires public, comparable data. This is the rationale for proposal 3.2. On the other hand, because of the authors’ warning, MIAK proposes that every speed indicator should be accompanied by an outcome indicator, and that publication should be broken down not by person but by county and maintainer.

📖 Source: Reinhard Busse, Niek Klazinga, Dimitra Panteli, Wilm Quentin (eds.): Improving Healthcare Quality in Europe — Characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies (WHO/OECD, 2019)

6.4.3 European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

The action plan sets three EU headline targets for 2030 in the fields of employment, skills and poverty reduction. It justifies the role of the targets as follows:

“Social targets will help focus policy efforts on reaching results and constitute an important incentive for reform and investment in the Member States.”

The document then asks member states to set their own national targets and to report regularly on progress through the revised Social Scoreboard. In the part on children it names the breaking of the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage as the aim, and links the European Child Guarantee to it. For the Hungarian child protection legislative package this provides a ready model: a numerical target is not a restriction of professional autonomy, but the framework to which reform and funding are aligned. Proposal 3.1 transposes this logic to the domestic statutory level: child protection targets on the model of the national targets, and an annual report on the model of the social scoreboard.

📖 Source: European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, COM(2021) 102 final

6.5 International comparison

There are several European models for regulating aftercare by statute. In England the 2017 Children and Social Work Act made a designated personal adviser available up to the age of 25 for young people who have left care. In Scotland the 2014 Children and Young People Act extended the possibility of remaining in care up to the age of 21, and aftercare support up to the age of 26. In Finland the 2020 amendment of the Child Welfare Act raised the upper age limit of aftercare from 21 to 25. On the measurement side, the English Department for Education publishes annually the data on children in care and on young people who have left care, including how many of those who have left are in education or work and what kind of housing they live in. This is exactly the kind of annual, comparable data series that proposals 3.1 and 3.3 would create in the Hungarian system as well. The common lesson: raising the age limit is worth little in itself if there is no designated responsible helper and no annual outcome data alongside it.

Social policy

  • SZ12 — National action plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights
  • SZ7 — “Dignity-based” social policy
  • SZ1 — Targeted support

Demography

  • DM2 — Impact assessment of family support
  • DM1 — Demographic data platform

Public security and law enforcement

  • KB4 — Reintegration
  • KB8 — Victim-protection service minimum
  • KB3 — Crime prevention vs. punishment impact assessment

Justice

  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment
  • I9 — Popular-sovereignty audit — legislation with citizen feedback

Proposed new programme point: Child protection targets and reporting act, with an aftercare minimum — for the Social policy area, as the child protection application of the SZ12 action-plan cycle.

6.7 List of sources

Primary source:

  • [National Assembly] T/680. Egyes törvényeknek a gyermekek jogainak és biztonságának megerősítését célzó módosításáról (bill, with explanatory memorandum) — https://www.parlament.hu/irom43/00680/00680.pdf

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 14 September 2026 — topic 3; 16 September 2026 — topic 6):

  • [HVG] Itt a Tisza gyermekvédelmi jogszabálycsomagja — https://hvg.hu/itthon/20260914_tisza-gyermekvedelmi-jogszabalycsomag
  • [HVG] Magyar Péter: Vállalhatatlan, és nem maradhat úgy, hogy egy politikus dönt arról, egy gyerek kikhez kerüljön és hol van megfelelő helyen — https://hvg.hu/itthon/20260914_magyar-peter-kozmedia-interju-kossuth-radio-elo
  • [Telex] Magyar Péter: Azt tudom garantálni, hogy nagy arányú családi pótlék emelés lesz — https://telex.hu/belfold/2026/09/14/magyar-peter-kossuth-radio
  • [Telex] Totális hárítás és Magyar Péter ígéretei – napirend előtt rajzolgatással, gyermekvédelemmel és benzinárral — https://telex.hu/video/2026/09/15/parlament-napirend-elott-osszefoglalo-magyar-peter-gyermekvedelem-retvari-bence-boka-janos-benzinar
  • [444.hu] „Szégyen, szégyen, szégyen!" – kőkemény vita a parlamentben a gyermekvédelmi jelentés után — https://444.hu/2026/09/14/szegyen-szegyen-szegyen-kokemeny-vita-a-parlamentben-a-gyermekvedelmi-jelentes-utan
  • [444.hu] Kármán András: Egyetlen gyermek sorsa sem lehet pénzkérdés — https://444.hu/2026/09/13/karman-andras-egyetlen-gyermek-sorsa-sem-lehet-penzkerdes
  • [24.hu] Magyar Péter a Kossuth Rádióban: nagymértékű családi pótlék emelés lesz — https://24.hu/belfold/2026/09/14/magyar-peter-kossuth-radio-elo/
  • [ATV] A kormány bejelentette: meg fogják változtatni a jelenlegi örökbefogadási rendszert — https://www.atv.hu/videok/a-kormany-bejelentette-meg-fogjak-valtoztatni-a-jelenlegi-orokbefogadasi-rendszert/
  • [Portfolio] Az összeomlás határára került a gyermekvédelem, milliárdokat mozgósít a kormány — https://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/20260913/az-osszeomlas-hatarara-kerult-a-gyermekvedelem-milliardokat-mozgosit-a-kormany-862298
  • [Portfolio] Magyar Péter bejelentette: változnak az örökbefogadás szabályai Magyarországon — https://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/20260912/magyar-peter-bejelentette-valtoznak-az-orokbefogadas-szabalyai-magyarorszagon-862254
  • [Magyar Nemzet] Magyar Péter enged az LMBTQ-lobbinak: a kormány már dolgozik azon, hogy homoszexuális párok is örökbe fogadhassanak — https://magyarnemzet.hu/belfold/2026/09/magyar-peter-orokbefogadas-homoszexualis-par
  • [Mandiner] Balog Zoltán odaállna a kegyelmi ügyet vizsgáló bizottság elé — https://mandiner.hu/belfold/2026/09/balog-zoltan-odaallna-a-kegyelmi-ugyet-vizsgalo-bizottsag-ele

Knowledge-base references (books):

  • 📖 F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
  • 📖 Reinhard Busse, Niek Klazinga, Dimitra Panteli, Wilm Quentin (eds.): Improving Healthcare Quality in Europe
  • 📖 European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Social policy (background material; programme points; programme point ID: SZ1, SZ7, SZ12)
  • MIAK policy area: Demography (background material; programme points; programme point ID: DM1, DM2)
  • MIAK policy area: Public security and law enforcement (programme points; programme point ID: KB3, KB4, KB8)
  • MIAK policy area: Justice (programme points; programme point ID: I3, I9)
  • MIAK legal foundations (background material) — the role of the government and the National Assembly in legislation, the relationship between acts and decrees
  • MIAK topic monitor, 20 September 2026 — topic 2, score: 95/100

Supplementary public data sources:

  • Government: Szigorúbb szabályokkal védi a gyerekek jogait és biztonságát a kormány (the government’s presentation of the bill) — https://kormany.hu/hirek/szigorubb-szabalyokkal-vedi-a-gyerekek-jogait-es-biztonsagat-a-kormany
  • The government report on the child protection system (12 September 2026)
  • KSH (Hungarian Central Statistical Office) — statistics on specialised child protection care
  • Children’s rights reports of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights
  • United Kingdom, Department for Education — Children looked after in England including adoptions (annual statistical publication)

Generation metadata