Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

It is my view in terms of my experience and all I can do is offer a view on that basis. There continue to be difficulties in terms of the professions working together, which is lamentable.

We talk about the number of reports. We have had in excess of 20 reports in this jurisdiction on the failings of the agencies to work together. This justifies the Minister's decision to introduce the Children First legislation, mandating professions to work together. The stronger that legislation, the greater the change. One of the key recommendations in the Ryan report was around inter-agency co-operation.

What I have seen is an abject failure on the part of agencies to work together in a consistent way. That failure must be tackled. I commend the Minister on the introduction of the legislation. The task is to ensure it is implemented at the earliest possible date. The problem is that this is still not happening, which is a source of much regret.

Deputy Troy asked whether I had been consulted by the Department on the particular case to which he referred. I received a letter from the Ombudsman for Children seeking my views on the operation of the Child Care Act in contextualising that case. The ombudsman is very clear in her letter that she is not asking me to discuss the individual case but rather the general issue around sections 12 and 13 of the Act, which I am very happy to do.

Public health nursing and child and adolescent mental health services are two key aspects of child protection. Protecting the welfare of children is not just about the activities of social workers; it is about the endeavours of all relevant professionals. Again, the success of the legislation will depend on all the agencies working together, which calls to mind Deputy Conway's reference to alcohol abuse. What I have found in my work is that mental health issues feature prominently in the majority of child protection cases. As such, there needs to be a clear bridge between the new agency and mental health services. Without such a linkage, there is a real danger of our failing children into the future. It is a significant challenge. I have highlighted on several occasions the need for mental health issues to be mainstreamed within the new structure. How that is achieved is a matter for the Minister, but the evidence is quite compelling in terms of the requirement for child and adolescent mental health services to be part of the main child protection systems. It is vital for the success of our child protection efforts.

The same is true of the contribution made by public health nurses. I do not know why the latter have not been included; I am not privy to that information. Once again, it comes back to the imperative of ensuring all the various agencies work together. Whether that co-operation will take place within the remit of the new agency or outside of it is not something I will dwell on at this stage. The point to emphasise is that such co-operation must happen and is particularly vital in the case of public health nurses and child and adolescent mental health services.

Deputy Troy raised the issue of cyberbullying. I am aware he has published a Bill on this issue and I am on record as welcoming that initiative. My view is that where there is any doubt under the law in this area, we should clear it up by bringing forward legislation. I also accept Deputy Conway's point on this issue. It is a cause for concern that there have been so few prosecutions in regard to this issue. I am also concerned about the number of cases that have entered the public domain. The bottom line is that a clear legislative framework acts as a strong deterrent.

I referred to the work being done by BeLonG To in regard to homophobic bullying. I have had the pleasure of meeting Michael Barron, BeLonG To's director, to discuss this issue. Many of my recommendations are informed by that type of engagement. Before compiling a report I meet all the stakeholders and community representatives locally. For example, I travelled recently to Moyross to meet the local school principal and parish priest as part of my research on the area of disadvantage, in respect of which I intend to issue recommendations next year. We have made significant strides on that issue. My recommendations in general are, in many respects, reflective of meetings with key stakeholders and with communities locally.

Deputy Troy referred to the role of guardians ad litem. I have expressed concerns on several occasions in recent years regarding the lack of regulation in this area. Section 26 of the Child Care Act provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litemin public law proceedings, but the legislation does not provide details as to the role and function of such persons or the manner in which they are to perform their duties. The uncertainty continues when considering who should be appointed as a guardian ad litem. Again, the Act fails to give any details.

I share the Deputy's concern regarding the significant expenditure in this area. I wonder whether it is necessary. In the case of any child care service, our main concern must be to ensure the beneficiary of that service is the child. What has happened, however, is that in the absence of regulation, an entire industry has grown up. Several providers have done a great job, with Barnardos being an example of an organisation offering and giving a world-class service. Regrettably, however, we simply do not know who the guardians should be, and there are huge variations as to the persons appointed by the courts. My view is that it is inappropriate for a lawyer to be appointed to that role because he or she does not have the skill set necessary to advise a court on the welfare of a child, yet that is exactly what is happening in a number of cases before the courts. The Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, has undertaken to deal with this issue as part of the family relationships and children Bill, which is welcome. I hope he and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, will provide a definition of the role of guardian ad litem.

This issue relates to the question raised by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin about how we represent the voice of the child. My view is that we should hear the voice of the child directly where that is possible. As a society, we have created a range of intermediaries to the child, whether that is by way of video links, social worker intervention or obtaining an independent report. The evidence suggests, however, that in the majority of cases children are in a position to be heard directly in a court type setting. That should be accommodated whenever possible, with support provided to the child where it is necessary. Where direct representation cannot occur, we need a clear legislative framework to define what should happen. As it stands, in most private family law cases, there will be a social worker report. The problem with such reports is that they concentrate on the adults in terms of how they relate to the children rather than focusing on the children's interests per se. We need to step back and consider how best we can hear the voice of the child. Where we have a child with a disability, there will be a necessity to provide support, and the shape of that support can be easily framed. Outside of that, the approach should be to hear the voice of the child directly.

The Deputy also raised the issue of the in camerarule, which is addressed by section 5 of the Courts Act. The in camerarule represents a sensitive balancing act between the right to privacy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right to a fair, transparent and accountable system of justice. I acknowledge the Deputy's point that it is sometimes used to cloak bad practice. However, it also shields the public from good practice. We need a system that conveys to the public what is happening within the courts system. We will have to see how section 5 operates in that regard. Where there is secrecy there is also suspicion. The most important consideration is that the public has confidence in our child protection and family justice systems. That is what we should be striving for in terms of the in camerarule.

Deputy Ó Caoláin asked why I recommended that we reimagine our engagement in the area of foster care. I speak on that issue from a wealth of experience over the two decades in which I have been involved with the Irish Foster Care Association. Many foster parents have very little contact generally with their social worker. If a named social worker is allocated to foster parents, particularly where the child is in long-term foster care, I wonder whether that is money well spent or whether the allocation of a link social worker would be more useful. It is not about removing that support. To the question of whether I would make the same recommendation were we not in such difficult economic times, the answer would probably be "yes". The allocation of a named social worker can be intrusive in situations where the foster parent is the only parent the child has ever known. We need to support foster parents and change the way we do things. Just because something was done in a certain way in the past should not mean we have to carry on that practice into the future.

I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement on aftercare. It is a huge step forward. Like Deputy Ó Caoláin, Focus Ireland, Senator van Turnhout and other Deputies and Senators, I have long agitated on this issue, so it is a great day in terms of child protection. I can reassure Deputy Ó Caoláin that I believe what the Minister is proposing meets our international obligations. Last week, I was asked to speak at the European conference on homelessness. The conference discussed young homeless people being the lost generation and I was struck by some of the stories I heard. News of the Minister's announcement had certainly reached Prague, which was the venue for the conference. It was heralded as the way forward to the newer member states, which shows that Ireland can play a strong role in child protection. In that regard, this is something we should warmly welcome. It will be really important for those marginalised young people.

With regard to the children who died in aftercare, when I am writing on this issue I think of them. I do not wish to detain the members for long but given that the question was raised and I have the child death report with me, I will share with them why I think this is really important for those children. It is certainly the bleak stories that Norah Gibbons and I heard about those children and the shattered lives of their families. In some cases a social worker had not been appointed until five years after the child had been received, and when the child reached 18 years of age nothing happened. Again, we recorded in the report that it is worrying that a young person was offered care for only a few days after his 18th birthday. This type of practice really concerns me.

I will refer to one thing which has stayed with me since we wrote the report. It relates to one of the children who died in care. Just prior to his death he had asked his social worker to get him a pair of black pants. They agreed to organise the purchase but the hostel telephoned her to tell her that he had been found dead shortly after his 18th birthday. These are very vulnerable children. I can give the committee several examples. This report documents the lives of children who died. I am not saying they would not have died but the circumstances in which they died without any support left me with the sense that we were hugely failing these children. I believe this announcement is significant and is clearly welcome.

On Deputy Ó Caoláin's point on cyber-bullying, I share his view. My sense has been the same, that when one talks to schools there is a standing back. This requires a whole-school approach and I recommend that in the report I have given the committee today. It not just about having policies in place. It is about saying to schools that they must engage parents and children. To refer back to the homophobic bullying I mentioned earlier, BeLonGTo and other such organisations will tell one about the isolation felt by children who are subjected to homophobic bullying. We owe it to them to have much stronger policies. I believe this should be put on a legislative footing. We must mandate it and tell schools they must do this, because there is a reluctance. The reason I suggested amending section 37 of the Employment Equality Act is that sometimes we use religious ethos to conceal a very ugly side of prejudice.