Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is an issue of how, in legislative terms, we approach the welfare and protection of children. The particular issue we are discussing today is school attendance. Two weeks ago, I launched the most up to date school attendance records that are available. The good news is that there have been extraordinary improvements in school attendance in the country. All of the evidence suggests that the way to deal with non-attendance is to take a whole-school approach, where the teachers put huge emphasis on daily attendance and there is follow up on children who do not attend and there is high quality home school liaison. That is where we are seeing results. I have seen the results of the two pilot projects done on this, in Ballymun and the inner city in Dublin, which have resulted in enormous improvements in attendance. I have seen similar improvements in other areas also. This is the way to deal with issues regarding school attendance and we must also work directly with families.

With regard to dealing with the issue in the context of legislation and how best to frame the needs for working with children, let me go back to the Child Care Act 1991. In regard to the functions of the health boards at the time, that Act states that it should be a function of every health board to promote the welfare of children in its area who are not receiving adequate care and protection. Therefore, the need is framed in terms of "adequate care and protection". I emphasise that it is clear in section 72 of this Bill that all of the functions vested in the National Education and Welfare Board or under section 10(1) of the Education Welfare Act 2000, shall on the establishment day stand transferred to the agency. If we consider the legislation that created the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the section on education welfare deals with all of the issues relating to schools and attendance. One of the reasons for that is that attendance is central to children's progress.

I accept the point made by Deputy Naughten regarding fraud in the area of child benefit. In making his point about children disappearing from the system during the transition from primary to secondary level, I am not quite sure what suggestion he was making. These children may be out of the country, there may have been fraud involved or there may be other issues. These issues need to be addressed, but as far as this Bill is concerned, the functions of the National Education Welfare Board are a central part of the work of my Department and are central to the agency. Those functions are captured in the Bill in section 8(1)(b), which speaks of the functions of the agency as being to support and promote the development, welfare and protection of children.

I suggest to the House that combining the functions articulated there and in section 72, which deals with the transfer of the agency, adequately ensures the education welfare issues will get the kind of attention the Deputies suggest they should get. I believe their concerns are well captured in the Bill, particularly by the transfer of functions and by the phrase about "promoting and protecting the development, welfare and protection of children." There are many other aspects of children's lives we are not capturing at the micro level in terms of the functions, but we are using a phrase that states it is the obligation and function of the agency to promote the care and protection of the child, in the same way as the Child Care Act originally did and which has served us well in terms of care and protection. The functions of the agency are outlined and the element where education welfare is most effectively captured is in section 8(1)(b). That is the reason I suggest it remains as it is.

See this speech in context