Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Child and Family Agency Bill 2013. I am pleased to speak to the legislate and welcome its publication, which is long overdue. Having harassed the Minister for the past 12 months, its introduction to the House is welcome. As she is aware, it was due to be published before Christmas 2012 following the publication of the expert group report in July of that year. With Committee, Report and Final Stages to be completed and the Bill still to go before the Seanad, it is likely that it will not be enacted until later this year at the earliest. That said, I welcome its publication.

The Minister regularly refers to the renewed emphasis and focus on children and their welfare and protection. It is true that attitudes to children have changed considerably. There was an old saying that children should be seen and not heard. Thankfully, society has changed in the past decade and members of the public and previous Governments have come to focus on children and child related issues. This change in focus has been incremental and substantial, not only in recent years, as the Minister would have us believe, but also in the past decade.

I will briefly refer to some of the important reforms of the previous decade. In 2000, the Government published the first national children's strategy. In 2004, the Office of Ombudsman for Children was established and the first Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan, appointed. Ms Logan has since been reappointed by the Government. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman for Children is before the Joint Committee on Health and Children as we speak for a discussion on the new juvenile detention centre in Oberstown. I accept this clash of business is not the Minister's fault.

In 2006-07, the Government appointed the first independent Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, Dr. Geoffrey Shannon. This, too, was an important development. I read in newspaper reports over the weekend that Dr. Shannon has been reappointed to the position of rapporteur, which is an acknowledgement by the Minister of the significance of the original appointment by the previous Administration.

The previous Government also established the first Office of the Minister of State for Children and Youth Affairs. While I accept the office was not a full Department, it was none the less a significant improvement at the time and an acknowledgement of the role of children. It was from this office that the Minister's Department was formed, which was a positive development that my party welcomed and supported.

Much of the groundwork for the referendum on children's rights was done by the previous Administration. I compliment the Minister on her drive and determination to ensure this work was not lost by continuing the work done by the former Minister of State, Mr. Barry Andrews. She ensured a referendum was put to the country and the result was a significant achievement which ensures the rights of children are enshrined in our Constitution. I am pleased with the role my party and many others played in this regard. It should also be noted that the CEO designate of the Child and Family Agency, Mr. Gordon Jeyes, was appointed by the previous Administration.

The Minister referred to the neglect and gross abuse perpetrated on children while in the care of the State and in their parental homes. The Ryan and Murphy reports and the report of the review group on child deaths were compiled to shine a light on these grave injustices. Their findings identified the deficiencies in services and enabled corrective action and reform to be undertaken. As the Minister correctly noted, doing things differently requires us to proactively identify failures. One cannot fix what one cannot see.

I have provided some brief background details to demonstrate that reforms and a change in attitude were not confined to the past two years. This incremental and substantial process has been ongoing for the past decade.

I now propose to address the provisions of the Bill.

I wish to speak on two critical sections, section 8 on the functions of the agency and section 9 on the agency having the best interests and views of the child in the performance of its functions. I am surprised that section 8 does not place a greater emphasis on supporting families. During the campaign on the children's rights referendum, the State's default position was that intervention was always the very last measure. During the course of that debate, the Minister, other Ministers and I often spoke of the need for enhanced family supports. Given recent comments on this I would have imagined this Bill would have placed greater emphasis - possibly even a separate section - on detailing how the Government would deal with the effective functioning of families.

Section 8(3) refers to "supporting and encouraging the effective functioning of families". We all agree that the very best place for children to grow up is within a family. Yet, it is not clear how this Bill envisages the effective functioning of families. I am concerned over the absence of reference to parents and the fundamental role they play in children's lives. The Bill seems to predominately focus on State interventions with little practical reference to family support and early intervention, which take second place in the Bill.

The child death report refers to the lack of availability of robust early intervention mechanisms. The Bill has little regard to the early intervention strategies which are critical to ensuring the long-term well-being of the children. I am disappointed with the lack of detailed description of how the new agency will deal with the effective functioning of families. I am disappointed with the scant nature of the reference to families, given the pivotal role they play in the welfare of children.

Given that the lack of a framework of interagency co-operation has featured in so many reports, such as the Ryan report and the Murphy report, I would have thought it would warrant its own section. Section 8(8) of the Bill states: "The Agency shall promote enhanced inter-agency co-operation to ensure that services for children are co-ordinated and provide an integrated response to the needs of children and their families." That is bland waffle. It does not give a detailed framework of how the various agencies will deal with one another. On Monday night while driving home, I heard a repeat of the Newstalk lunchtime show on which the Minister spoke. She reiterated the importance of multidisciplinary teams and the need for a co-ordinated interagency approach. It is extremely disappointing to see the bland, undetailed, non-specific subsection on interagency co-operation. I remind the Minister of some of the horrific reports on the malpractices, deficiencies and the inadequacies of State care over the years, all of which highlighted the consequences of failing to have robust interagency co-operation. This legislation does not alleviate that when it clearly fails to define exactly interagency co-operation and how agencies will share information.

Given the relevance of the Children First legislation to the establishment of this agency, I would have expected the Minister to have fulfilled her promise and published this legislation so that they could be considered in tandem. Even though it is not published, I am surprised that there is no reference in this legislation to interagency co-operation and the implementation of the Children First legislation.

I turn to areas not under the remit of this legislation but which are critical to child welfare and well-being for which a detailed interagency agreement is also important. It is regrettable that the child and adolescent mental health services will not be under the remit of the new agency, despite the fact that the expert task force the Minister established recommended it should be. On publication of this expert report, the Minister acknowledged the need for this area to come under the remit of this legislation. Children end up in care as a result of mental health issues, alcohol abuse or poverty, as the Minister mentioned in her contribution. However, mental health remains outside the scope of the legislation. Why has the Minister departed from the recommendations of the expert group that she established? Failure to address mental health issues at an early stage can have a profound impact on children. The child death report highlighted the devastating consequences for many children who failed to be identified as having mental health issues.

While I accept the Minister's desire to have this critical area brought under the remit of the new agency, is there some sort of turf war going on between her and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch? It should not be Department fighting Department. It is about finding the best solutions for children and families. In her interview on Monday the Minister spoke about the Government needing to lead and it should do so. However, I am concerned that this area has not come under the remit of this new agency and not only because of the lack of detailed framework for interagency co-operation. Yesterday's edition of The Irish Timesreported that €35 million ring-fenced for community mental health services in 2013 might be gobbled up into the overall HSE budget. That comes on top of the failure to spend the entire €35 million allocation for 2012. I would have much more confidence if this area was addressed in this legislation. Why has this not happened despite the fact that there has been a delay in publication of the legislation? Timing should not have been an issue. In her reply I ask the Minister to outline why this did not happen.

I take the opportunity to say that public health nurses are doing outstanding work. They provide a key role in child protection. They are often the first people to pick up on the early indicators of neglect and yet they are not coming under the remit of this agency. While I can accept there is a divergence of opinion on whether they should come under its remit, legislation should contain a detailed definition of the role they will play within this new agency. The important role they play should be recognised in this legislation.

While the Bill focuses on the operational aspects of this new agency, it lacks vision. This is not and nor should it be about simply changing the name and joining together a number of agencies - or rationalisation of services as the Government likes to call it. This should be about changing the culture and formulating a vision. The Bill should clearly state what the new agency stands for. As I mentioned already, there is no reference to parents and there is scant reference to children, despite these two being the pillars of what the legislation is all about. Section 9 refers to the best interests of the child. However, it merely refers to the best interests of the child in child care and adoption proceedings. In last November's constitutional referendum, the people decided children's views should be visible in all matters as per Article 42A.1.

This view is shared by the Children's Rights Alliance. I only received its analysis of the legislation recently but from reading through it quickly this point stuck out. People from the alliance are concerned about the best interests of the child in the context of this legislation.

I wish to raise the issue of governance and governance structures and, in particular, the role of the Minister, the board and the chief executive. Part 3 deals with the functions of the board and Part 4 deals with the functions of the chief executive. I raised this matter during the briefing session but I am none the wiser now and no explanatory note has made its way to my office. It appears that there is no direct line of accountability. What happens when a future crisis arises within the sector? Who will be held accountable? Will it be the board, the Minister or the Executive?

Section 47 gives the Minister of the day the power to issue directions and guidelines to the agency. What happens if the board fails to implement these directions and guidelines? As the democratically elected person, the Minister of the day, regardless of who he or she is, must have a mechanism to ensure implementation but I see nothing of that in the Bill. People wish to see clear lines of accountability and transparency. Such measures can bring about confidence.

I wish to discuss the composition of the board. No one will question the qualification, suitability or expertise of the new chairperson of the board, Norah Gibbons. However, people question why there was no advertisement for the position. If the Government is serious about openness and transparency, there must be advertisements for future positions on the board. The board should have a mixed composition of professional personnel, including psychologists and people with a family support background as well as people with relevant work experience. These positions should be advertised and expressions of interest should be sought from the public. All of this is in the interests of confidence, openness and transparency. Appointments should not be seen purely as rewards for political supporters.

Section 59 deals with assistance for voluntary bodies. I compliment the work voluntary bodies do in the area of child protection and advocating children's rights. The carry out superb work and they played a pivotal role in ensuring the passage of the children's rights referendum last year. Non-governmental organisations, including the Children's Right Alliance, the ISPCC, Barnardos, Focus Ireland, Empowering Young People in Care, EPIC, and others play pivotal roles in the provision of child protection services and in advocating children's rights. While Section 9 envisages the assistance of voluntary bodies in the delivery of child protection services it does not stipulate by what means exactly and how they will assist. There are in excess of 90 agencies working in the area of child protection and welfare. Therefore, we should have an open and transparent mechanism for selecting a particular agency for the delivery of a service. I understand that in Australia one third of child protection work is dealt with by NGOs. Earlier, I referred to the need for a clear framework to deal with the agencies. Equally, there should be a clear framework for dealing with NGOs. Such a framework would instill confidence and remove any suspicion that one NGO could be favoured over another.

Section 64 deals with complaints and review procedures. Now is the time, when we are formulating this new agency, to extend the remit of HIQA. HIQA should be responsible for dealing with all child-related services. There is a need for an independent watchdog and I believe HIQA would instill public confidence in this regard.

Unfortunately, only recently we saw the consequences of poor inspections. This was despite the fact that in 2009 the previous Government amended regulations to include section 5 to ensure the well-being of children. Despite this amendment, several months ago we witnessed horrific scenes of blatant neglect and physical and emotional abuse of children in our crèches. It is horrific to think that one of the crèches identified in the programme had passed an inspection in the previous weeks.

Unfortunately this is not a legacy issue, as the Minister has said previously, but a contemporary issue of here and now. Now, in the aspect of formulating this legislation for the new agency, is an ideal opportunity to ensure that we expand the remit of HIQA and put in place an independent watchdog that will instill and renew public confidence in our crèches and child care facilities. The parents of Ireland deserve that much but so do the many good quality loving and caring people who work in these facilities. They too deserve to have the air of suspicion surrounding their sector removed. The establishment of an independent quality watchdog such as HIQA would ensure that much.

The budget deficit is a matter of concern. Will the Minister confirm whether the new agency will carry over the legacy budget? I acknowledge that the Minister has succeeded in securing a slight reduction in the overall deficit. However, what a statement of seriousness it would represent if the Minister could declare that the agency would start off from a fresh sheet with no overhang or budget deficit. That would send out a magnificent statement of confidence and seriousness in the agency. Unless the agency is adequately resourced then it will not function properly.

The Minister has alluded to the 4,000 staff who are moving across and who will become part of the staff in the agency. I have asked about it before, but is the Minister confident that we will have the required number of competent staff working in front-line services to ensure the provision of critical child welfare, child protection and supports? Is the Minister confident that we will have the full compliment of staff?

At the time of the children's rights referendum I said that the amendment would only be an aspiration if it was not backed up with the necessary reserves. We are keen for the agency to succeed and we are supporting the Minister in its establishment but it will not succeed unless it is backed up with the necessary resources and supports and staffed with the appropriate competent people on the front line. I realise the Minister has secured permission from her colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, to hire the people in the leadership roles. Leadership roles are important but so too are the people who will be on the ground working and serving the people they are meant to serve.

We should reflect on how the National Educational Welfare Board has functioned in the past and its shortcomings before it is assumed into the new agency. We need to ask why truancy is a consistent problem and what initiatives are being taken to promote school attendance. The Bill fails to link education with the outcomes for children. Truancy happens for various reasons and we need to examine these reasons. One reason is a failure to identify special needs within children until it is too late or until children have fallen out or dropped out of school. For example, dyslexia is going undiagnosed and there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that this is not tackled. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure adequate training is provided to the new people who will be responsible for ensuring that our children remain in education. The Bill merely transfers the National Educational Welfare Board without any amendment to reflect deficiencies in the system as it stands.

This is wrong and is a matter Members might consider at a later stage.

In conclusion, I again thank the Minister for bringing this long-overdue legislation before the Dáil. It is complex legislation and while it was only published last Friday, I look forward to studying it over the summer with a view to ascertaining how improvements might be tabled and made on later Stages. This legislation is 76 pages in length and is comprised of 96 sections and considering its length and level of detail, I am disappointed with the lack of emphasis on children and parents and the strong emphasis the Minister has chosen to place on technical issues. This legislation and the establishment of this agency must be about the best possible outcomes for children. This Bill must ensure there are clear and definitive lines of accountability. This legislation provides a unique opportunity to correct and improve those areas and deficiencies that have been identified by various reports in recent years. Moreover, this agency offers a unique opportunity to ensure Ireland has a family support system, a child welfare system and a child protection system that are not merely among the best in the world but are world leaders. I pledge to work constructively with the Minister on this Bill to ensure this objective is realised. In recent months, I have produced three draft legislative items to try to help the Minister to build that world-class service of which we all can be proud. I look forward to coming back to the debate on subsequent Stages to ensure Members capitalise on this unique opportunity and embrace the challenges that lie ahead. As the Minister noted in her contribution on Newstalk on Monday and earlier today, the Government and political representatives must lead from the front to ensure the best interests and welfare of children and families are of paramount concern and that is what this Bill should address.

See this speech in context