Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Child and Family Agency Bill 2013. Having been present for most of the debate so far, I believe we have had a constructive engagement to date. I want to begin by commending and congratulating the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, on getting to this point after undertaking a large body of work. We are finally at the point where we can establish a stand-alone agency that is concerned with the welfare of children and families. As Deputies on all sides of the House have recognised, this is a major step forward. Up to this point, we have had 4,000 staff scattered across the sector, but now we will have an interagency approach. This is the first time, with the exception of section 20 of the Child Care Act 2007, that we are taking an interagency approach and mentioning the word "interagency" in our Statute Book. That is a positive reflection on the work that has been done by the Minister.

Under this Bill, child welfare and child protection will no longer have to play second fiddle to hospital trolley counts. It will be more than a small cog in the large and complex wheel that is the Irish health service. This change is right and proper. It is badly needed. The needs of children are complex, as are the needs of families. In fact, life is complex. Having a stand-alone agency to deal with child-related services recognises these complexities. It will allow for the delivery of effective services, a much more thorough and focused analysis and a more accountable delivery of services. Irish children deserve no less.

As we take this step forward, it is important for us to remember how we arrived at this point. It can be uncomfortable for people in politics, in civic society and in religious institutions to do so, but it is vital that we do not forget what happened in previous years. The Kilkenny incest report was published in 1993. The report of the review panel on the west of Ireland farmer case was published in 1998. The Ferns report was published in 2005. The Monageer inquiry report was published in 2008. The report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was published in 2009. The Roscommon child care inquiry report was published in 2010. Most recently, the report of the Independent Child Death Review Group 2012 was published in 2012. That is where we are coming from. These reports and reviews, independently and collectively, read as a litany of failure, silence and, at times, cover-up. They are a reflection of an Irish society that valued authority and establishment more than children, and preferred living a quiet life to taking action. Until this Ireland is confined to history, as it must be, our Republic will not have come of age. All of us in this House and in civic society - leaders in all walks of life - are responsible for achieving this.

It is worth noting during this debate that many of those who have used their pulpit to condemn and decry elected representatives of this House in recent weeks, in the context of the protection of life legislation, failed to use that same medium to anything like the same degree to condemn and denounce a society that failed to protect children, to speak out and to safeguard the innocence and vulnerability of a child's life. In recent days, we have seen these failures continue, with religious orders playing the poor mouth and refusing to put their hands in the pockets of their institutions in order to support the victims and, in so doing, acknowledge the failings of the past and show dignity to the women who saw their youth curtailed, damaged and effectively ended.

The State, sadly, is also approaching the issue of child welfare with a long and shameful legacy of letting children down. The Government is determined to right that wrong. That is why we have a new Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Huge work has been done. The Minister successfully steered last year's children's rights referendum, which enshrined those rights on our Constitution for the first time. The legislation that is being introduced in this Chamber today will establish a stand-alone agency for children and families. This target-driven and child-focused agency will be built on accountability. The Bill is so significant that stakeholders have correctly described it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally change and improve services for children.

As the Minister pointed out, this is part of a much broader suite of developments relating to child welfare. I note that Deputy Troy is no longer in the House. He is an individual I respect but I find it rather amusing that every time the Minister tries to do something, it is delayed or long overdue in the eyes of Deputy Troy. It has only become long overdue since we came into office and since the previous Government left. These are issues that have been hanging around for years. The only thing the Minister's critics could possibly accuse her of being is overly ambitious. Another point worth making is that as we shine a light on this area, which has been left in darkness and ignored in large part by Government and civic society, it is understandable that we will uncover more things that make us uncomfortable but that is a sign of the Minister's success.

In respect of the points made by Deputy Ó Caoláin, he is very committed to this area but I would hate to see this issue boiled down to resources. We saw how during the Celtic tiger, money was thrown around like snuff at a wake but these issues were still not dealt with. Resources are important but there is a need for structural reform and to ensure that money is allocated within a structure that will deliver.

I wish to add my voice to Deputy Catherine Murphy's question about parliamentary questions. The way the establishment of the HSE removed political accountability and debate from our health service has been an unmitigated disaster. I am not sure whether it is the case but I ask for it to be made clear that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will continue to take parliamentary questions concerning issues under the agency's new remit. If that is not the case, it should be looked at.

The Minister has already outlined the provisions of this Bill and has obviously established how it is a framework for future development. I wish to put on the record of the House that some of the observations of the task force concern areas the Bill does not include. I know these areas go beyond the Minister's brief and must be looked at by all of Government when this agency is established. I am quite worried by the task force report's opinion that the implications of not including the child and adolescent mental health services in the agency is that "mental health services will fail to meet the holistic needs of children and young people". We then look at the situation of public health nursing which we are told will continue to take a back seat to other demands. A failure to include speech and language therapy means that it will remain an issue, particularly for vulnerable children. The task force report states that there is a risk of follow-through work not happening if hospital social workers are not linked to the child and family agency.

The Minister cannot do everything overnight and she is taking the correct approach in establishing this agency. However, what this highlights is the need for Government to look at the configuration of Ministries and departmental responsibilities. For example, it is ridiculous that we have a Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and disability who is not linked to the Departments of Children and Youth Affairs and Education and Skills in a formal way. Ministers and Ministers of State are doing wonderful work but that is not the issue. We need to look at how their Ministries are configured. I know the establishment of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs has really brought this issue to the fore and that it is an issue at which we continue to look but matters like mental health, disability and special needs education are issues of child welfare. They affect children and families, including vulnerable children and families.

I also want to put on the record of the House the comments of the Children's Rights Alliance. It is important to say that in its comments it acknowledges the "sterling work of the Minister" and describes this new agency as a powerful vehicle for delivery for children. That is a very positive response but the alliance has a number of queries which I hope we can address as this Bill progresses through the House. One concerns intra-agency relations. Will different professionals within the agency who are working under separate statutes be mandated to work together on cases and to share information on those cases? Will a social worker be entitled to share details with an educational welfare officer where both are working with the same child? How will the Bill interact with the provisions in the forthcoming Children First legislation? Will there be a mandated duty on professionals to co-operate? In respect of management, while the Bill sets out the lines of governance at the more senior level, it is not clear what arrangements will be at the organisational level given that bodies which previously had their own management and governance arrangements are being subsumed into the agency. Is a new system being created or will the existing systems of management and governance within the child and family agency and the NEWB continue to operate within the agency? These are detailed and, in many cases, technical questions that we can address as the Bill progresses but it is important to flag them at this early stage.

It is very important to welcome the fact that we have reached this point and will have an inter-agency approach to delivering child welfare services. People can debate the semantics and technical detail and we are here to tease out these issues, but the establishment of this agency is a major step forward. It was a step that was not taken in the good times but one that the Minister has managed to do in difficult times. I commend her and the Bill.

See this speech in context