Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies about the mic. I am on two committees meetings at once. I was trying to sit in on the proceedings of the Select Committee on Justice as well as listen this committee's proceedings. Dr. McAuley spoke of how there should be a responsibility on Tusla to ensure adequate placements. Ms Connolly said something similar. This speaks to the need for better demand anticipation work. I saw this happen in local authorities in the UK. It is really important because not only does it help in planning for adequate recruitment and placement, it can also help with workforce planning. I do not see that happening here. Maybe it is but it does not seem to be done to the same level and at the same granular level as happens with the local authorities in the UK.

I have a comment on the guiding principles. It is welcome to have them here and we can expand on it, to be honest. Things like trying to improve consistency across the country in order that every child gets the same service and has the same threshold of risk applied to them, and that some children are not left at risk whereas other children might be or some child is taken into care whereas another child might not be. It would be useful and in line with social work values in terms of the guiding principles to put in something about contact and access with family members. While it talks about relationships, the contact and naming it explicitly is really important. It is also important that we name independent advocacy for both young people and parents. Again, a key social work value that is talked about a lot is empowerment and developing agency, and it can be very difficult to do that also when one has a role as the State's enforcer. The committee has talked a great deal over the years about the need for independent advocacy. It is very important to put that in and it should be reflected in head 16 in terms of the information that will be provided in order that parents and young people will know who their independent advocate is if they need help.

On voluntary care, I am conscious that we are not talking about private family arrangements at all. This is a very grey area. In some ways, perhaps, it is very deliberately outside of the law. These are not care orders or voluntary care agreements, but we look the other way to a certain degree. How we can capture them? How we can ensure that they are minimised or that the carer is given supports and the young person is allocated a social worker? I would also like to hear from the Department about the 12-month limit. If we look at section 16 of the existing Act in the context of some of these private family arrangements, we can see that there is a moment where it is necessary to make a decision. We need to put that clearly in this proposed legislation. There is a question regarding the 12-month time limit.

There is no proposed reform of aftercare. Ms Duggan spoke about expanding aftercare and increasing the age ranges. I ask the Department why we are not trying to expand aftercare, particularly when many witnesses who have come before this committee have talked about expanding it. Equally, there are no reforms relating to special care. Special care orders were inserted into the Child Care Act by a previous amendment. We spoke about the continuum of risk, teenagers at risk and extreme cases. Special care is the most extreme case. Admittedly, it relates to very small numbers, but we are doing nothing to reform it. I ask the experts here, namely, the representatives from Barnardos and the OCO, if special care is working. Are we right to say we should not reform it, or is there a huge lacuna that we should address in the same way as aftercare?

I have a question for the Department on interagency working. What is in the general scheme mostly relates to information and information-sharing. That is obviously important in terms of a complete assessment, understanding risk, and Tusla doing its job. Equally, it is important that Tusla can share that information outwards. However, information is only one part of interagency working. I know there are plenty social workers who have been banging their heads against their keyboards, regarding child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, for example. Where is the obligation to not just provide information but to provide services? Where is the obligation to work together or to show up at a case conference or a meitheal meeting, because it is there that interagency working becomes real and concrete. Why is interagency working solely limited to information in the legislation and can we expand that?