Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, with the permission of the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. This is very important legislation which puts the granting of special care orders by the High Court on a statutory footing, and that is to be welcomed. I understand that special care orders have been granted in the past by the District Court. However, given the stature of the High Court, placing this procedure on a statutory footing provides a certainty of approach for the professionals who work in the area of child care services.

Child care services, including crisis intervention, is probably one of the most difficult areas to work in and I have the height of regard for the people working in any of the professions that relate to this area given the challenges they have to undertake and the very tough decisions they sometimes have to make. I do not believe any of us would like to find ourselves in that position very often because of the difficult circumstances surrounding many of the cases and the enormous responsibility on the shoulders of the individual who makes a recommendation on child care.

We must recognise that the professionals in those fields work hard and are truly committed. I have met a number of them over the years. They provide care in residential homes, for example, and are faced with a range of challenges as they try to maintain a number of teenagers who are separated from their families and dealing with the emotional effects of their circumstances. It is an extremely difficult job and we must commend them for doing such challenging work.

The issue of child care was brought to the fore last year with the release of the Ryan report. The catalogue of failures by the State detailed in the report left an indelible mark on our collective consciousness. Surely such failure must never be allowed to happen again. One of the most distressing aspects of the report was the fact that children, when their time in an institution was finished, were simply let go to fend for themselves in a world for which they were completely unprepared. It is unconscionable now that a young adult, having just turned 18 and without any support network, would be allowed to find his or her own way in the world. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the Ryan report that children who have been in State care should have access to support services once they leave direct care. In light of past failings by the State, legislation must now be framed to ensure that the best interests of the child are always at the centre of the legislation. The Bill is moving in that direction, which I welcome.

The Seanad debates on this legislation showed widespread agreement on the importance of after-care services. The six Labour Party Senators proposed a comprehensive after-care programme that could be tailored to suit the needs of individuals needing care. It is the type of programme that should be at the heart of any new recommendations, because the needs of each child are different. I acknowledge that this will be time-consuming and possibly costly in the short term, but it is important that the needs of individuals are taken account of. The current legislation, while not explicitly containing a requirement for after-care services, does state that where after-care is required, a plan should be prepared and implemented. Senator Alex White made the point that after-care should be guaranteed on the basis that when a decision is made on the need for provision of such care, it is impossible to foresee what may happen to a person leaving care and, as such, it should be a mandatory process with continuous monitoring of such persons in order to afford them preventative help should they require it.

A child who may not feel he or she wishes to avail of support services at 18, for example, may realise later that he or she is in an entirely new environment and does have a need for support. Depending on the kind of background or institution he or she has come from, the person may have no capacity to survive in the world or deal with any challenges.

The Minister stated in the Seanad debate that once need has been established, the legislation requires the HSE to provide after-care services. He also stated that he would consider moving this out of the realm of interpretation into a more literal expression of the intentions of the Oireachtas in this area. I would like to be assured that further consideration has been given to this idea since the Seanad debate.

We know from research done by Focus Ireland that persons who leave care and are not provided with support services have a higher risk of becoming homeless, becoming involved in criminality or developing addiction problems. There is an obligation on us to provide these children with the necessary after-care supports, whether it is education, housing, guidance, emotional support or even just follow-up visits to see how they are faring after their time in care. I recognise the legislation requires the provision of after-care where there is a need but when the provision of a service such as after-care support is discretionary, there is always the possibility of a child's falling through the cracks.

I ask the Minister whether the financial impact of the provision of guaranteed services is a factor in determining whether the provision of such services should be mandatory. The reason I ask is that in many estimations of the cost of potential public expenditure, there is a failure to appreciate the cost of not spending the money. If after-care support is not provided, the State may end up paying much more in dealing with the effects of homelessness, criminality or other potential consequences of a lack of support, not to mention the cost to the child who has been overlooked and forgotten.

This legislation is a vehicle through which the State may intervene if the welfare of a child is at risk or if a child is a risk to him- or herself. It is important, however, to consider preventative measures. Everybody who has spoken on this will agree that intervention and preventative measures - which can be used to avert the requirement for a child to be taken away from its family - are important. It is also universally agreed that children should be taken into care only as a last resort. This implies that the situation must be unbearable or intolerable for the child and, for one reason or another, the child is at serious risk.

In my constituency area of Ballyfermot there was a recent pilot programme called Strengthening Families, run by the Ballyfermot STAR organisation, which provides guidance and education to drug users, their families and the community. This programme provided substantial social interventions for a pilot group of ten or 11 families. The interventions took the form of ordinary, practical things, but counselling was also provided and families were followed through. When reports were relayed back from those families, the outcome was found to be one of enormous success. Credit is due to Ballyfermot STAR for having organised it.

The project provided professional support to the families of drug users in the form of a skills training programme to improve family relationships, parenting skills and children's social skills and behaviour. Families were encouraged, for example, to sit down for a family meal once or twice a week. Ordinary things that others might take for granted were unfamiliar, unfortunately, to these families. The results for the families were positive and encouraging. By intervening early, the programme reduced the risk of child neglect in high-risk families where drug use was an issue. The evidence from international trials of this method is also positive. I support the idea that initiatives such as this, which provide early intervention and family supports, be considered and supported as a means to prevent the need to adopt many of the measures outlined in the legislation. Such measures may be useful as a means of after-care support if a child, for example, wishes to return to live with his or her biological parents. The project in Ballyfermot was particularly successful from that point of view.

The State must not fail vulnerable children ever again. The spectre of the Ryan report hangs heavily over many people in this country and, unfortunately, will continue to do so for some time. I must say, with some regret, that I am all too familiar with cases of children who are clearly at risk in my own constituency and who are open to exploitation by unscrupulous people who have no regard for the law and, more unfortunately, for the well-being of children. The children do not have caring families, for a variety of reasons, but when it comes to protecting them, the State is going in slow motion.

The issue of before-care must not be neglected either. It is timely to consider the supports and services that are available for such children. I fully agree with Deputy O'Rourke's point about intervention at a very early stage, which I believe is the only way to go. We must establish support structures from the earliest stage. Parents must know how to look after their children. If they are not, for whatever reason, able to do that constructively without intervention, then such intervention must be put in place.

See this speech in context