Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I was struck by the point Deputy Shatter made about the emphasis there has been in this House on NAMA and on how we could bring forward such complex legislation so quickly. Understandably, there has been a huge concentration in this House in the past year and a half on economic matters. That is the climate we were in. However, we need to spend a lot more time looking not just at how we want the country to run economically but how we want the country to be and how we want society to behave. The biggest measure of any civil society is how we treat our most vulnerable and by any standard our children are the most vulnerable people in society. The Government is failing them by not holding the referendum.

I welcome the motion tabled by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin. It is simply seeking a date for a referendum. That is not a lot to ask. I appreciate that there is a level of complexity involved. I was a member of the committee. With Deputy Howlin, I was also a member of the previous committee that reported in 2007. Sometimes I am amused at how Government operates. The Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, was on the committee. His predecessor, the then Minister of State, Deputy Smith, was on the committee and his predecessor, the then Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was on the previous committee. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, was on the previous committee and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, sometimes attended the most recent committee. They were involved. They knew what was going on. Following meetings where it was decided complex areas would be discussed Fine Gael Party members met as a group, as did members of the Labour Party and Sinn Féin. I am not sure what the Green Party did but Fianna Fáil Party members met as a group. Discussions were held and parties formulated their positions prior to us arriving at our conclusion. The third report had all-party agreement. On several occasions, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, went back to the Attorney General for clarification, which means the latter also knew what was going on. It is not as if a report suddenly landed on a desk in February without anyone's knowledge or that Departments are being asked to deal with a new issue. I am surprised that it was the Minister for Health and Children who presented a copy of the committee's report to the Cabinet in March because I would have assumed the Minister of State has more expertise from being on the committee.

This referendum is part of a process of reforming our law and enforcing the legislation that is already in place to protect children. As a member of the committee, I can understand to an extent the Minister of State's comment that the emphasis of tonight's debate is on child protection when many other issues are set out in the report. However, it is difficult for us to refrain from emphasising child protection when the system is so appalling and lets children down so badly. The other issues are also extremely important but do not call for the same degree of urgency.

The Government's approach, however, reveals a worrying lack of urgency. We respond to tragedies with debates but then there is silence until another tragedy occurs. Today's tragedy, unfortunately, involved Daniel McAnaspie. In three months' time there will be another sad case involving a child or young adult and we will have another discussion. When are we going to see action?

In his third report, the Government's rapporteur, Geoffrey Shannon, identified a number of significant problems. We still do not have independent oversight of child protection services, a system of inquiring into fundamental failings or consistent application of the children first guidelines. Mr. Shannon also recommended a review of our current child protection system. Why is that work not being done?

We have spoken about a system that is bursting at the seams. The system is not working. A child was murdered today and another 20 died in care over the past decade. A HSE representative stated on radio this morning that 5,600 children are in care. Twenty out of 5,600 children is a significant proportion. How many are missing and why is a distinction being drawn between Irish children who go missing in State care and the other children who come into this country to be exploited? Are the latter regarded as less important?

When something happens, we call it a systemic failure as if it was a computer glitch or human error. A systemic failure means the system is broken and needs to be changed. I will outline an example of how parts of the system do not communicate with each other. A family in my area fostered an extremely troubled child and wanted to stick by him even though he became a danger to the family. His social worker did a lot to help, despite the lack of an out-of-hours service, but the child needed a place in a special school. The school would not take the child unless the National Educational Psychological Service would agree to provide the necessary services but the latter would not agree to provide the services unless he was placed in the school. He ended up back in full-time care at enormous cost to the State when he would have been better off in a family environment.

The Minister of State argued that it is unfair to accuse the Government of tardiness on vetting. Fine Gael first raised the issue of vetting in this House in 2003. The Government was toing and froing on whether we needed a referendum until committees were established to investigate the issue. It is far too late to be announcing legislation seven years later. Furthermore, as Deputy Shatter noted, this legislation continues to languish on section C of the legislative programme after being transferred between three Departments since 2003. The church has asked experts from the North, such as Mr. Elliott, to advise it. When will be legislation in this area be published? Every day we wait, we put more children at risk.

See this speech in context