Mr. Gordon Jeyes:

We are now applying a consistent threshold to children in care. We need to work further and continue to be seen as more reliable, because Ireland still does not do permanency planning as well as it could. A well-known children's rights advocate who is sometimes very critical of Tusla has described some of the courts as parents' rights courts. There is a balance to this. Now that the referendum is being homologated, I hope we are also taking account of the need for children to have their attachment areas and the need to give parents who are recovering from difficulties with alcohol or drugs, etc., time to recover. We should not play "in and out" with children. I think I have covered the points on Children First.

It is important that we focus on solving the initial issue affecting homeless children and children who are recently arrived migrants. Children are best with their families, and whether it is a case of emergency accommodation or providing enough homes, the focus must be on this. We are aware of the need to ensure that children in families dealt with by the Reception and Integration Agency are protected and in the right circumstances. It is not right to put children in situations which make child protection difficult and then push another demand onto another Government agency.

The problem is section 3 and not our guidance. We need a fundamental review of the 1991 Act to ensure the responsibilities of social workers entail social work and that investigatory responsibilities are Garda responsibilities. We will take this forward in partnership. I know of the concerns that many of my social work colleagues have about this, but the guidance is there to ensure fair process is followed and we do not get into expensive difficulties with the courts at a later stage. We stand by this policy and guidance, while we are happy to contribute, as we do in a working group with the Department, to a full review of the 1991 legislation.

With regard to guardians ad litem, we report mediation. As I have illustrated, we are seeking to put our own house in order and use legal action as last resort and judiciously. The business plan report is the progress we have made in the first two quarters set in the corporate plan, and copies are available.

I take the points made by Deputy Mitchell O'Connor about extra resources. The leader I worked with in Cambridgeshire used to tell us not to come in waving shrouds. We are not shroud waving. We are happy to be objectively examined by whomsoever. We have a duty to provide the service the Dáil expects and value for the Irish taxpayer. We provide a statutory service, and we need resources to meet expectations. Of course there should be validation that what we say is accurate. Dáil Members, Departments and Ministers must make decisions based on knowledge.

It is very difficult to make the case for Ireland's most vulnerable children. When something goes wrong we wring our hands, so I must make the case for those who are sometimes voiceless. Issues in hospitals, schools and elsewhere are important, but from our history we know that so are the most vulnerable. We have made progress, but unless there is investment we will slip down a snake, having climbed a small ladder.

The work of aligning education and welfare is important, because it is the same children who are affected. We are making progress on this, not least in aligning under the Government's injunction school completion programmes, education welfare and home-school liaison. We wish to put these together in a unified approach. That is a start.

We do not have responsibility for children affected by disability, and this includes autism. We need to be clear and effective in what we do so as not become a secondary service.