Ms Nuala Ward:

With regard to voluntary care, while we welcome this provision, we do not feel it goes far enough. As the committee will be aware, we presume this provision was brought in because a lot of the research shows that children in voluntary care drift.

We welcome the idea that parents must be fully informed. There is no question there is a power imbalance in that relationship and it is of the utmost importance that parents are fully informed of what they are signing up to. However, it is not time limited in this current proposal. On the proposal for it to be reviewed, Tusla is being asked to review itself whereas an independent person should examine these voluntary care agreements because at every stage, it must be asked: can this child return home? It is not strong enough at present.

We have the Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations for the placement of children in relative care, foster care and residential care and these set out care planning. This primary legislation is slightly weaker because a child's placement should be reviewed as soon as possible once he or she is taken into care, and then six months later. Six months is too long. Going back to the ambition of this legislation, we feel it is such a serious and important area that more attention should be given to it.

Children who are temporarily out of home is an important area. These are not always very vulnerable children. Sometimes it is that there can be a row in the family home and Tusla is coming in as a mediator to help these children return home. However, we also know from our own investigations that sometimes these children are in State care and who, unfortunately, as the committee will see in the national review panel, are the ones who drop through the system, drop through multiple placements and end up in this light-touch accommodation. This has to be much better and much stronger for these vulnerable children.

On head 44 and the risk of harm, Professor Conor O'Mahony, the special rapporteur, he did an excellent job in his 2022 report of setting out the technical and legal requirements that Tusla needs to do this complex and difficult area of work. As we understand it, the judicial reviews that have been taken against Tusla in this area are by the person about whom the allegation has been made.

Our understanding is that very few have been taken by people who have made allegations. Therefore, we have a skewed system of case law that does not fully represent victims' experience. A lot more needs to be done in this area. We urge the committee to look at the report. For once, the homework has been done for us. It is very clear what is required in legislation and that the process should not be dictated by case law. I have no doubt the representatives from Tusla also have strong opinions on this issue.

Going back to the question of ambition, it is really important that we are reviewing this legislation. The system we have is built on a history of institutional abuse in Ireland. We must remember that. It is one of the reasons there must be an emphasis on the importance of placing children near their homes, schools and with their siblings. We all saw what happened when children were moved apart from their brothers and sisters and grew up never knowing who they were. When it comes to ambition, we need a statutory requirement to do better for the children taken into care in this country today.