John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The proposed Bill is important legislation and represents a significant attempt to upgrade the existing Child Care Act 1991. I acknowledge that and welcome many aspects of it.

I will pick up on a point made by Dr. McAuley in her opening statement. She stated: “Overall, however, the general scheme appears to us to be lacking in sufficient vision and ambition.” I ask her to elaborate on that important point. Although the proposed Bill is a significant attempt to upgrade the legislation, the ombudsman is stating that it lacks ambition and sufficient vision.

The office of the ombudsman noted significant concerns in respect of several of the heads of Bill. The first such concern is in respect of head 7, which relates to voluntary care. I note that although the ombudsman has serious or significant concerns in that regard, Ms Connolly of Barnardos welcomed it in her statement. Why is Barnardos welcoming that head? Why does Dr. McAuley believe there are significant concerns in respect of it? Similarly, I ask her to elaborate on her concerns in respect of head 8, relating to children who are temporarily out of the home. She expressed significant concerns in respect of head 10, which relates to the duty of relevant bodies to co-operate. I ask her to touch on that. These are important points on which to get clarity from the ombudsman.

In relation to head 44, as regards Tusla's duty to receive and assess reports concerning alleged harm or risk of harm to a child, I wish to get some feedback on those concerns.

There is also a concern here in relation to proposals set out in the Department's 2020 consultation paper that have not been carried over into the general scheme. The ombudsman states that of particular concern in this regard is that the Department has not followed through on its proposal that the revised 1991 Act would strengthen the visibility of, and provision for, unaccompanied children seeking asylum and taken into care. That is noted as a serious concern by the ombudsman. I ask Ms Hynes why that was omitted from the general scheme because it is highlighted as an important issue that has been omitted.

The ombudsman last week produced a significant report. They gave us the results of a survey of more than 2,000 children aged between 12 and 17. The content of it is stark and harrowing. However, I commend what is an excellent piece of work.

One of the figures is staggering, which is that 78% of children rate their mental health as not good or sometimes low, stressed and anxious. The reason I raise that is the ombudsman states there are other areas that should be looked at given mobilisations within the scheme. One is to expressly require Tusla to have a system in place to identify and support teenagers at risk of being sexually or criminally exploited. Given what we now have in terms of the evidence that 78% of young people rate their mental health as not good, we know that opens them up to vulnerability and the potential to be exploited, either sexually or criminally. I ask Tusla whether a system such as that is required. Would the Department be willing to consider an amendment to include something around what has been identified as an issue within the general scheme?