Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I am very glad to speak on this Bill, which, as the previous speaker noted, is mainly of a technical nature. I think of the 1901 Child Care Bill and the various amendments since then which show that child care is evolving all the time in keeping with changed circumstances and the complex world in which we live, in particular the difficult and complex world in which young people live. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, for gathering everything together into this Bill.

Child care - its meaning and needs - has been a constant theme running through much of the legislation introduced since this Government came into office. I was glad to note, inter alia, that on the same day the Minister of State spoke on Second Stage of this Bill there were health questions. It was that day or perhaps the following one he brought a question to Cabinet about the commissioning of a single person to take charge of child care and have an overall remit. That was a very good idea and I hope it comes to pass. The "if" factor lies in finding the right person who will be enabled to do that work.

In its nature the whole area of child care is enormous, very difficult and, in many cases, unmanageable, especially because of the numbers involved, what can happen and what has happened. The work involves getting a grip on all of that and trying to put it into shape. I hope the Minister of State and the HSE succeed in what they have set out to do.

It would be remiss of me when dealing with a child care Bill not to speak about the plans for the referendum on children's rights. I know I return to an old song of mine but it is one in which the Leas Cheann Comhairle, too, will be very interested. It is within the ambit, not exactly of this Bill but of child care in general. The Minister of State recently told me that events have moved on to a certain extent. Various Ministers and Departments have come back with informed submissions as to how they view the matter now and what effect, beneficial or otherwise, a referendum outcome would have on the Departments in question. I clearly understand this must be done and I hope all the Departments and Ministers have come forward with that material. The Minister of State may be able to speak on this matter at the conclusion of the Bill. I hope the view of the Attorney General on all the submissions so garnered will be available as soon as possible.

However, it was in February of this year that the committee arrived at and published its conclusion. I know things move slowly. I know about festina lente and all that. However, the way we are proceeding we are carrying on to the last vowel of festina lente. I hope the Minister of State will be able to gather everything together and having so done be able to produce the Cabinet's response to our work. That done, the matter will be open for all of us but we do not want to keep remaking the wheel. That is how I see the difficulty. The Minister of State will come back to the committee with what has been gathered but the committee has been dissolved and is no longer a burden on the State, financial or otherwise. We have freedom on a Wednesday evening - to do other things, not to go out and high-skite it.

Governments sometimes move in such a fashion, hoping things will go off the boil and somehow people will no longer be interested in a topic. Much of what we debate when we debate child care Bills and amendments thereto goes back very far. A child grows up to be a teenager and a young adult and then, for one reason or another - I hesitate to use the term "gets into trouble" - finds life not working out for him or her. How far back in that child's life must one go before the roots of what went wrong can be traced? So often that is the case. One is told to go back to primary schools to take a measure. There was a very good such measure when we started many years ago. I hesitate to say in my time because sometimes I am so caught up in the question it will be very long ago.

Home-school liaison teachers were a great incentive and have proved their worth over the years. They were trained as teachers but do not teach. They occupy a position liaising between the parents or, in many cases, the parent, and the school to ensure the child is secure both in his or her background and in the school environment. Many cases were cut off at the pass that might have left a young person in greater danger, with things not working out in his or her life. That is how it happens. Of course, it is not enough merely to go back to primary school. There is the education of young would-be parents who I presume start off in the main, no matter what their circumstances may be, delighted to have a pregnancy and to bear a child. The child comes into the world then and there are families in danger of being lost along the way. Perhaps it is time for intervention at that point. We may have all the measures and the time and trouble taken into trying to devise structures now to deal with young people who are in need of care, as is being drawn together in this Bill, but how many such exist? There is no way of quantifying or qualifying that number, so one does not know. Some way should be found for governments to put a cost on intervention early care at the time they are drawing up budgets. In the event, such figures might be included in the primary budget or perhaps the early care budget for the Department of Health and Children. However, it is impossible to quantify because one does not know how many young people or families were helped as they went through particular times of difficulty.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly commend the early school year young children now enjoy before they enrol in primary school. It has been a wonderful success. I believe it was born out of financial stringency, but the result has been wonderful for children. It is a delight for their parents as well as themselves that they have the opportunity of professional care in that very precious first year before they enter primary education. My two children went to school when they were just four – one in August and the other in September – and I often wondered whether I was cruel or wrong to send them at such an early age. One went and cried all the time and the other laughed all the time, so it is probably down to the nature of the individual child.

However, I believe four is a very young age for a child to go to school, whereas this preschool initiative is ideal. I commend the Minister of State, his officials and the Department on the work put into that. I see them every day when I am at home, or here in Dublin, trotting along with their parents, carers or guardians as they are being brought to one of these classes. It is professional and wonderful, and gives a measure of social interaction which is a big thing for an only child or for someone from an area that is not particularly child friendly, who lives in an apartment perhaps and does not have ease of access to playgrounds, etc. This is a very good use of money and I urge the Minister of State to endeavour to keep the beady eye of the Department of Finance off that preschool year.

Having bitten the dust and come up with a far more equitable and suitable solution for some of the moneys which were not being used for the purposes people thought they were intended, the Minister of State is to be commended in this regard. I always called that big money that came every three months or so to young parents "fairy money". They had not expected it but suddenly it came, and they just spent it. However, this initiative is money well spent and I hope there are many productive years ahead regarding the preschool year. It is so worthwhile. I believe it will be one of those early interventions that will have results as the child grows up and goes through the primary school process where he or she will be better adjusted. Children will be better able to stand up for themselves because bullying goes on at all ages. They will be better able to learn and absorb and be better adjusted in both school and home life. It is one of those early interventions which is well worth the money and the care that went into devising it.

I have been in touch with the Minister of State, as he knows, to highlight the fact that in some cases there is a need for a child to have a second chance at that one-year intervention. However, that is a separate issue and I do not intend to raise it here, apart from noting that such cases exist and deserve to be examined.

Of all the places around the Cabinet table, the position held by the Minister of State, I believe, is one of great depth, complexity and responsibility. The previous Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, devised the idea that the Minister of State with responsibility for children should attend Cabinet. In an earlier Administration, Deputy Rabbitte was the so-called "high chair" Minister of State. In this case it is a high chair, because it is for children. I believe, however, that of all the Ministers around the table, the burden of hope rests with the Minister of State with responsibility for children and for what he and that section of the Department of Health and Children can do for young people. It is an onerous task, a very heavy responsibility, and I know the Government aims to do the very best it can in that regard.

Regarding the referendum, I strongly believe that in years to come, the year of dalliance that we have now had for the consideration of departmental reports will bear fruit. In the nature of things Departments do not like to take on extra responsibility. In some cases, in terms of the wording we produced, extra responsibilities will be imposed on some Departments. In the event, that will be for the good of children in the future so that the aura of certainty and maturity they need can surround them. I can talk about these matters here because the Bill we are discussing goes into great detail about the method and how interventions can be made for the child's good and his or her health, moral and social development.

I have listened, read and studied many things that have been said since the wording of the amendment was published. However, I do not hold with the view vouchsafed by one particular commentator to the effect that it is an attempt by me or the Government to go into homes, snatch children and bring them away. Who would ever wish to do that? Anyone who comments along those lines has not analysed the meaning behind the wording. We have been quite clear that it relates to that extra attention that can be given to a family before it might come to the pass that intervention is considered the proper and most suitable option. I know people have different viewpoints, and I have no difficulty with that. However, a different point of view should be based on the factual situation, not on incorrect information.

I wish the Minister of State well with this Bill. It is tidying up legislation that seeks to bring things together. Any good housekeeper seeks to do that with his or her affairs, and that is what the Bill is about. I am quite sure that what arises from it will be good and I look forward, quite shortly I hope, to hearing his view on the next step towards making the constitutional amendment for children a reality.

See this speech in context