Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I am glad to be able to respond to the comments made by Members last night and this afternoon. This is important legislation and I genuinely am glad the three Members who spoke welcomed it, albeit obviously and naturally with various caveats. The purpose of the Bill is clear and focused. Given the short available timeframe within which it was drafted, it was drafted with great care and went through a thorough and rigorous process. I reject the assertion by Deputy Shatter that it is woolly, ill thought out or suffering from the problems that normally are associated with legislation that is introduced on an emergency basis. This reflects its great importance. The reason it is being brought forward so quickly is to enable the independent review group to receive important files that had been the subject of legal advice for the HSE and that had not been provided to it.

I should also state that this is an important area in respect of balancing rights. Everyone is aware that one must balance the rights of individuals to their privacy against the important public interest in this area. I acknowledge there always will be a media interest in this kind of area, that is, the often tragic end to an individual who has been in the care system but who has been failed by the care system or by factors external to the HSE. As I stated in a previous debate, as was acknowledged by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, I would prefer a little more focus on the manner in which one can intervene at an earlier stage to avoid such tragedies from transpiring. Unfortunately, this has not been possible in the crisis management scenario that has obtained for some time. Consequently, one must accept there always will be interest in this area and, therefore, one must set up a systematic way of examining cases of serious incidents and deaths in care.

This is the reason I asked HIQA to provide guidance for the HSE in this area last July. It did so by setting up an independent review panel under the chairmanship of Dr. Helen Buckley, which already has begun its work. I also decided it was necessary to conduct a retrospective examination of the manner in which the HSE had both investigated and recorded information in this regard. I was delighted that Mr. Geoffrey Shannon and Ms Norah Gibbons agreed to take part. While it was unfortunate that a legal issue arose and that perhaps it did not arise in a sufficiently timely way, nevertheless this legislation underscores the Government's commitment to ensuring that a report will be produced that will provide an insight into some of the issues that have arisen over the last decade.

I wish to deal with some of the specific issues that were raised by Members. First, I refer to the question of whether the independent review group can get files directly from the HSE, which was raised by all three speakers. I set up the independent review group specifically because I wish to introduce a degree of transparency that has not been in place heretofore and wish to introduce timely reporting. I seek the restoration of public confidence in this area and that is the reason it would be ridiculous for me not to facilitate the independent review group in respect of any files it proposes to seek from the HSE. Moreover, it should be made clear that the independent review group has been able to obtain files from the HSE, other than those that are restricted by the legal principles the HSE has been advised it must accept. Second, the Health Act I propose to amend with this legislation deals with the relationship between the Department of Health and Children and the HSE. It is naturally the case that were one to consider this within a wider sphere, one might look at six months of consultation or at a White Paper or beyond the position on which one has been able to focus so specifically with regard to this legislation.

A question also has been raised in respect of publication and it is clear there has been a problem with regard to publication. Moreover, such problems do not exist within this jurisdiction alone. The publication of any such material always entails trying to strike the correct balance. I make the point that the publication by Fine Gael of the TF case tipped the balance more heavily in favour of the public interest in transparency and tipped it away from the right of individuals to their privacy. It was an act with which I sincerely disagreed, as did others. For example, the Irish Foster Care Association made clear its dissatisfaction, as did the Irish Association of Young People in Care. This simply underlines the difficulty associated with publication in this area and Members must be more mature about their discussions on this issue. They should forget about censorship, secrecy and all narrative that is designed to deliberately undermine public confidence in a child protection service that in general works extremely well. Thousands of children in foster care must listen day in and day out to comments being made, without great consideration, to the effect that our child protection system is chaotic. However, this is not the case.

I acknowledge there are deficits, as does the HSE and no one could argue otherwise. Broadly speaking, however, the vast majority of children who are in our care system receive a good service. One need only look at the HIQA report into, for example, special care, which stated that almost all the children in special care were in receipt of a very good service, were highly conscious of their rights and were satisfied that they were receiving a good service in special care. These are the most troubled children in Ireland and this is to the credit of the HSE. Sometimes, Members do not talk enough about the positives.

I am determined that the Government will publish this report when the independent review group has completed its work. It will be my responsibility to publish it and this will be done in a timely fashion. The in camera rule has been cited by the HSE as one of the reasons it was precluded from handing over the information to the independent review group and there has been some commentary about the need to elicit a lot more information about child care proceedings than has been the case in the past. The Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007 was passed to allow me, as the responsible Minister, to appoint a person or persons to undertake an investigation of and to report on proceedings in the child care courts in order to have a better foundation for policy in the future.

Deputy Ó Caoláin also commented on budgetary measures and how they are having an effect. While he is correct, one also must acknowledge that the budgetary measures taken over the last 18 months have been progressive. The burden has been weighed more heavily on those with higher incomes and protections have been afforded to those who are vulnerable such as pensioners and people with a higher reliance on social welfare. All analysis points to this and even Fr. Seán Healy made comments in that regard about the budget of April 2009. Moreover, one cannot forget that in the most recent budget of December 2009, the Government committed €15 million to provide for the delivery of the implementation plan arising from the Ryan report, including the appointment of 200 additional social workers to provide the kind of care that all Members seek to have in place.

The question of the independence of the review group also has been raised and I repeat that the two individuals concerned, whom everyone wishes well, have reputations that no one can question. Under no circumstances would they accept the task I have given to them, were their independence not absolutely guaranteed. I will have ongoing discussions with them to ensure they are properly resourced and are in a position to provide for the conclusion of their investigations within the timeframe they envisage.

I acknowledge this Bill constitutes emergency legislation.

See this speech in context