Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Whips and the spokespersons of the Opposition for allowing this debate to happen as quickly as it has and for their understanding in this matter. I congratulate Ms Norah Gibbons on the first-class report she has produced. She has mapped out a way forward in the very difficult area of reporting on child care tragedies. Thus, we can ensure they are reported in a timely fashion and we can restore some confidence in the child protection system and try to defeat the narrative that there is a culture of covering up. This underlines the great difficulty associated with publications of the kind in question.

I want to underline my regret and apology to the very brave and resilient children concerned, who must understand that all our thoughts are with them on foot of the putting into the public domain of the very horrific details of their cases. I acknowledge their bravery in allowing the report of the inquiry to be published. That publication has come about with the co-operation of Mr. Justice McMenamin.

By opening this debate on the report into the child care inquiry published yesterday, I am mindful of the judgment of Mr. Justice McMenamin in granting the permissive order paving the way for publication. Having consulted all the children, he carefully weighed in the balance the further hurt for them that would accompany publication against the public good and the hope that publication might prevent a recurrence of tragedies of this nature in the future. On balance, he ruled in favour of publication but gave clear guidance on how the matters should be reported. I am in no doubt that Deputies will share my concern for the children and seek to avoid any further hurt arising from this debate. I note, in particular, Mr. Justice McMenamin's comments that the children should not be asked to relive the experience. In his words, "the children want it understood that they are normal young people".

These children were failed in the first instance by their parents, their primary care givers, and were subsequently failed by State services when signs which pointed to the need to remove them from obvious risk were ignored. It is a damning indictment that a proper decision on the appropriate care for the children was not taken until one of them actually asked to be taken into State care. A child knew that the lack of care, or, more correctly, neglect, was abnormal and yet trained professionals did not identify the warning signs. Yesterday, the HSE gave an unreserved apology for its failure to protect these children. I apologise to each of the six children for the fact that the State did not intervene in time to remove them from such horrendous circumstances.

The immediate concern today is the welfare of the children in question. It is imperative that all measures be taken to preserve their anonymity and allow them to get on with their lives. I ask all involved in this matter to accept their responsibilities in this regard and not to add further to these young people's hardship.

The report into this matter up to 2006 highlights the tragic consequences that obtain when children are failed by people in authority. The children's voices were not heard at a time when their needs were immense. It is imperative that the lessons around encompassing children's voices into child protection policy be learned. I took receipt of the report yesterday afternoon and it will be the subject of close study and assessment. However, my initial reaction is that the failures identified cannot be attributed to a lack of resources or legislative or constitutional gaps. The report finds that, notwithstanding the involvement of a range of professionals, important child protection concerns were not identified and acted upon.

The report raises many questions, not least among which is why concerns of ongoing neglect did not lead to decisive action at an earlier stage. The report finds that, with one exception, the children's needs were not subject to a formal assessment, staff were not sufficiently alert to indicators of ongoing neglect and reports of neglect to the HSE did not trigger an appropriate response. The report also finds that the statements of the parents were accepted at face value when evidence to the contrary was obvious. I am particularly concerned that the views of the children were not listened to. In the main, the inquiry found that the deficits were in the area of social work practice. I note also the report's findings on the social work management's failure to manage the legal aspects of this case during a crucial period.

The report indicates that, despite the good intentions of staff, appropriate and necessary actions were not taken at key points. This is a matter of deep concern. At this point, I wish to acknowledge the work done by social workers. As Members are aware, these individuals work in difficult and emotionally challenging circumstances and, unlike other health professionals, their intervention is often resisted by those they strive to serve.

Recent studies in the UK have examined why previous reforms in the context of social services had not delivered expected improvements in the context of social work. These studies found that social workers needed to improve their use of professional judgment, while bearing in mind that there is no guarantee of certainty where parents deliberately mislead professionals involved in assessment. However, it is important that the development of social work skills and capacity through improvements in training is ongoing. I note that the report makes many recommendations around a variety of measures aimed at improving social work capacity and staff retention. These recommendations include several relating to training, management and professional development.

The report published yesterday highlights that changes need to be made in the way we do our business. Reform of our child protection services is necessary to ensure, in so far as is possible, that the likelihood of such events will be reduced in the future. Regarding child protection, a number of specific steps are already being taken in the context of the Ryan implementation plan. Although the recommendations in the current report are more detailed in nature than those contained in the Ryan report, there are a number of shared recommendations which are already being addressed. These include recommendations on the education, training, induction and supervision of social work staff, provision of management and supervision training to managers and the implementation of the Children First guidelines.

The Ryan implementation plan spans a four-year timeframe and is deliberately ambitious in what it sets out to achieve. In establishing clearly identified actions with ambitious timescales, we are challenging ourselves to improve standards and reform services. That we are doing this in a time of extreme economic difficulty only serves to highlight the commitment of the Government to improving services for children in the care of the State. The allocation of an additional €15 million in the current year further reflects the Government's commitment in this regard.

Successive public debates on child protection have indicated that our policy and legislative framework is sound, but that implementation and service delivery must be overhauled. What the Ryan implementation plan sets out to address is the reality that, despite this strong legislative and policy base, service delivery for children in need and children at risk is not sufficiently co-ordinated, is unevenly distributed nationally and must be improved. In addition, social workers must be aware of the impact and long-lasting effects of chronic neglect and act accordingly.

One of the principal commitments in the Ryan implementation plan relates to the need to ensure all children are safe and that those in care have an allocated social worker and a care plan. This will contribute to ensuring children's voices are heard. To this end, the Government has committed to filling 270 HSE social worker posts by the end of 2011 and to the front-loading of this initiative in 2010 through the filling of 200 posts. This initiative is designed to target resources at front-line services in order to ensure that the HSE fulfils its statutory obligations. The Oireachtas has voted that the necessary finance be provided. The filling of social work posts has been exempted from the public service moratorium on recruitment and replacement of staff and there is an explicit commitment in the HSE service plan for this year, as laid before the Oireachtas, that these posts will be filled.

I met senior HSE representatives earlier today to review the progress being made in this regard and they assured me that the 200 posts will be filled by the end of December. The HSE has also informed me that where any of these child protection posts were filled from other areas of the HSE, these vacancies will also be back-filled. The recruitment of these additional social workers is critical in terms of progressing the implementation plan and in ensuring the allocation of a named social worker to each child in care and the availability of care plans for all of these children. I have been assured by the HSE that this matter is being afforded the highest priority.

Much more must be done to build a strong and responsive service for children and families. It is my view that a fresh approach is required within the HSE in order to deliver the change we all wish to see. In the course of my ongoing discussions with the HSE, I raised the need for the appointment of an individual, at a national management level, who has a proven track record in the reform of children and family services. The process of recruiting this person is nearing completion and I hope an announcement will be made in the very near future.

The creation of the new position to which I refer is a logical development and is very much consistent with the emphasis on strengthening management so that children and family services receive priority within the HSE. The appointment is being accompanied by a restructuring of the service at national, regional and local level in order to strengthen front line delivery of services. Managers need to be aware of what is happening locally and regionally in order to ensure that a good quality of children's services is applied consistently across the country. The HSE has also developed standardised business processes in order that children, regardless of their geographical location, receive a good quality of service. This and the national child care information system - which is a national ICT system - will provide a basis for collecting and reporting on the delivery of front-line services and will strengthen accountability within the HSE.

Another key priority for me, as Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, was the commitment to publish a revised version of the Children First guidelines. The original guidelines, first published in 1999, were revised and placed on the Department's website in December of last year. This was done in line with the commitment in the Ryan implementation plan. A number of amendments have been made in the interim to take on board, for example, recommendations from the Ombudsman for Children and the recent guidance provided by HIQA to the HSE with regard to the deaths of children in care and serious adverse incidents. Arrangements for the printing and dissemination of the guidelines are being finalised. In addition, legislation is to be drafted to provide a duty to comply with these guidelines for all bodies in receipt of State funding.

I will bring proposals to Government before the end of this year in which will be set out a comprehensive implementation framework. This will include a particular emphasis on strengthening the audit and inspection framework. This is to ensure that the guidelines will be implemented more effectively and correctly across all sectors working with children.

Yesterday, I stated publicly that I remain fully committed to the holding of a children's referendum and pledged to redouble my efforts to advance the cause of the referendum within the Government. However, we in this House must be honest when we speak to members of the public. To suggest that if a referendum had been passed, the children at the centre of this inquiry would have been saved from the trauma and horror inflicted at the hands of their parents is incorrect. Sufficient powers were conferred on social workers under the Child Care Act 1991 to allow them to take children into the care of the State when risks were identified and where there was evidence of parental failure. There was no legislative gap. The problem, according to the report, was that the health board failed to pursue and effect a care order. It should also be noted that when the health board pursued care orders in the correct manner in 2004, there was no legal or constitutional impediment in existence at that time.

The special rapporteur on child protection to the Oireachtas, Mr. Geoffrey Shannon, made this point on "Morning Ireland" earlier today. He said that although he had campaigned for a children's referendum for the past ten years, he could not argue that the Constitution prevented or hampered these children from being taken into State care.

He said:

All of the legislation was there and I heard yesterday people making reference to the fact that if we had a constitutional referendum, this case would have been decided differently. I respectfully disagree. The Child Care Act of 1991 allows for an application for what is called a supervision order.

The Ombudsman for Children made the same point this lunchtime when interviewed on "The News At One". Again stating that we should aspire to constitutional change, she said no constitution will prevent children from being abused.

There are 5,836 children in care today, and care orders were applied for and sought in respect of many of these children. The point I am making is that the Child Care Act is employed weekly in the District Courts as the statutory tool to take children into care. I have conducted approximately a dozen town hall meetings with social workers around the country over the course of the past 12 months. I routinely ask whether the Constitution limits them in making care order applications but the response is generally that there is no such impediment.

Deputies will be anxious to hear the exact status of the current proposal on the children's rights referendum. I presented a copy of the third and final report of the joint committee to Cabinet in early March and it decided that, in view of the complex nature of the issues involved, all Ministers and Departments, as well as the Attorney General, should consider the report and examine the implications of the proposed wording for their individual areas of responsibility. I know that some Deputies have voiced alarm that the Cabinet would ask each Department to examine the proposed wording but to do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme. We cannot introduce far-reaching changes to the Constitution without asking senior civil servants what are the likely consequences Departments and the likely costs. This is part of a due diligence exercise that must be gone through by any Government regardless of shape or colour.

I listened to Ms Gemma Hussey speak a couple of Sundays ago about the terrible problems caused by the wording contained in the 1983 referendum. The language was too vague and it took four subsequent referendums to try to clarify the position, and we cannot afford to repeat those mistakes. A range of unintended policy and resource implications have been identified and in view of these difficulties, I presented to the Government the policy objectives for the referendum and was granted Government approval to develop revised wording for an amendment in co-operation with the office of the Attorney General. New wording, which takes into account the proposals put forward by the committee, is being drafted by the Attorney General's office with policy support provided by my office.

I intend to bring a memorandum to Cabinet very shortly that will contain wording that differs from the committee's proposal but seeks to maintain the full range of policy goals set out by the committee. The matter is receiving my full attention and in addition to Cabinet discussions I have had meetings with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Justice and Law Reform with a view to moving the proposal forward.

People will be rightly concerned about accountability in respect of the individual and corporate failure to identify and respond to the needs of children in the case reported yesterday. As stated, there were social work failures in the direct assessment of the children's position and management deficits in understanding legal options and the powers conferred on the health board by the Child Care Act 1991 to intervene on behalf of the children.

A spokesperson for the HSE stated this morning that the report would be handed to the regional director of operations for the HSE west and a human resources disciplinary process would commence. I remind the House that despite the temptation to call for immediate action against the staff involved, it is important that due process is followed. I am assured by the HSE that a fast turnaround in this respect is anticipated. We need only look to the UK and Haringey council in the wake of the Baby P case to see the complexities involved in these matters. Such remarks should not be read as comfort to those who may have failed to adhere to minimum professional standards and they are merely intended to highlight the dangers associated with a rush to judgment.

I thank the inquiry team and particularly the chair, Ms Norah Gibbons, for the tremendous work in producing a report of this nature. It is my opinion that this report is a template for future work in ensuring transparency in children's services.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are 15 minutes in the next slot and Deputy Charles Flanagan is sharing time with Deputies Naughten and Feighan. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many harrowing reports have come before this House over the years. Generally, in the subsequent debate Members plead that the report in question be "a catalyst for change". History has shown that those pleas almost always fall on deaf ears. The kind of systemic, attitudinal and cultural change which is clearly shown to be necessary in report after report has not happened. Earlier reports into, for example, the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the Monageer tragedy or the recent Ryan report highlighted gross dysfunction within State services that has persisted and has not been addressed in the one place it can be, at Government level.

I join with the Minister of State in complimenting Ms Gibbons and her team. In the light of the reports that have gone before this one, I will highlight six key changes I believe are necessary if the State is to discharge its duty of care to vulnerable children adequately. I acknowledge the apologies made by the Minister of State and the HSE but if those apologies are sincere, they must be accompanied by tangible action.

First, there must be a systemwide overhaul within the HSE so that a clear chain of command exists from the front line right up to the office of the Minister for Health and Children. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, may do his best but Deputy Mary Harney is the senior Minister and the buck must stop with her. Her preference for delegation amounts to an abdication of responsibility and the consequences of an absence of accountability within her Department and its agencies are painfully apparent today. The fact is that the Minister of State does not have the power required for the change.

Second, a disciplinary inquiry must establish which personnel failed to discharge their responsibilities to the six children who are the subject of this report. There must be a consequence for an abject failure to carry out duties and responsibilities competently. The horrific consequence of sustained failure by various individuals within the HSE over the years is starkly outlined by this report. It refers to a particularly serious failure by one unaccredited social worker. I do not wish to single people out for criticism but many people are responsible for failing to prevent many years of abuse and neglect in this case. However, the HSE system will remain rotten if there is no transparency, accountability or consequences for gross negligence by employees. Such an inquiry must include a section on the legal advice received by the Western Health Board in this case. Why did the health board shirk its responsibilities once an injunction was secured? There are questions to be answered.

Third, the Minister of State with responsibility for children must recognise the urgency of appointing the promised national director for child care services. As far back as 9 June, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, announced that he would appoint a new national director for child care services, an outside expert with a track record in sorting out child protection and welfare services and someone who would oversee the badly needed overhaul of services here. I realise that such experts cannot be recruited within a week, but it has been 20 weeks since that promise was made and every day since vulnerable children in this country have been either ignored or have received inadequate care from this State.

Fourth, I am calling for the Children First guidelines to be put on a statutory basis. We are all aware that these guidelines are being implemented in an uneven fashion and advocacy groups working on the ground are convinced that placing the guidelines on a statutory footing is the only way to ensure that they are implemented in a uniform fashion throughout the State.

Fifth, although it should go without saying, the Government must implement the recommendations contained in this report, many of which have been made before. It is such a sad reflection on this Parliament that it has become a cliché to refer to excellent reports gathering dust on shelves while their recommendations go unimplemented. In this regard, I am appealing directly to the Minister of State in the course of this debate to take personal responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations of this report are implemented.

Sixth, I am calling on the Minister of State and his Government to publish a proposal for a constitutional amendment giving children rights within the framework of Bunreacht na hÉireann. This case is the clearest illustration yet that we need constitutional change. I listened to the Minister of State's comments and it is most regrettable that the hard-won all-party consensus on the initial wording has been squandered by the Government and there is an urgent need for the Minister of State to spearhead a new consensus.

Every day that goes by without a date being set for the referendum this Government is failing vulnerable children. This House must acknowledge that the current wording of the Constitution does not protect children like those who are the subject of this report. The Constitution was used as a sword by the children's abusers to prevent the Western Health Board from removing any of the children from their abusive parents' custody without a further order of the High Court. The written affidavit submitted to the court when the injunction was being sought relied on the Constitution. In it, the mother stated "I say that I and my husband as a married couple have inalienable and imprescriptible rights over our children and I ask this honourable court for an order entitling us to keep our children together."

It is not satisfactory that the Constitution in its current format is capable of exploitation by dangerously abusive parents. I subscribe to the notion that the ideal place for a child is with its family but where a child is being abused, it is crucial and essential that the State can and does intervene for the good of the child.

This morning, I attended a presentation by advocacy groups which provide services to the most vulnerable children, namely, those who are abused physically, sexually, emotionally, materially and educationally. The eight groups, under the umbrella Saving Childhood, were all struggling to provide services having seen their funding cut in the past two years. All were extremely concerned about what will happen in the forthcoming budget.

I ask the Government to look at the big picture, to recognise where more appropriate savings can be made, for example, by streamlining funding into one single coherent stream involving one service level agreement for each group over a five year period. I ask it to recognise that cutting services for aftercare, counselling for victims of abuse and groups like those comprising Saving Childhood amounts to short-term savings and long-term costs of a financial, individual and societal nature. Let us not continue to replicate the mistakes of the past. When we do, it is vulnerable, voiceless children who pay the very heavy price.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Norah Gibbons and her team for the work they did on this report. The case is first and foremost a tragedy and our thoughts and prayers must be with the children who have lost the opportunity to grow up in a loving home. We must ensure that all the resources of the State are made available to the six children concerned to come to terms with and cope with their terrible experiences. The failure to listen not only to the children, but those around them such as neighbours and relatives, facilitated this appalling case of abuse. Barbaric cruelty is far too tame a phrase to describe what the children went through and survived, and survived they did.

Not only are they to be commended for speaking up and for giving evidence against their parents, which for them brought back all kinds of terrible memories, most importantly they are to be commended for allowing this report to be published in an attempt to prevent this happening to any other family. The reason I want to acknowledge their agreement to the publication of the report is because the six children have had to relive the terrible isolation of their early upbringing in the family home during two separate court cases. Not only was there the coverage of the cases to contend with and the natural discussion which took place on foot of that, there was also the media vultures encamped outside the homes of the children who tried to exploit the story and who had no qualms about putting these children through a further period of abuse.

I will put a question to the House. Have these children and their families and community not been through enough? Should they be exploited again for profit? I would hope not. At the time of the court cases the story was spun that the wider community must have known what was going on and did nothing about it. It is a fact that they did know and reported it to the appropriate authorities, but their complaints were never acted upon. This report outlines the fact that serious concerns were expressed by neighbours, relatives, members of the public, the school and a garda. The report details at least 19 separate complaints over 11 years which were made to the authorities that were ignored and not acted upon.

Not only must each of the individual children be issued with an apology by the HSE, but also the community which has had to live under a cloud since this case first came to public attention. Each and every member of the community has been tarnished by the inaction of the health professionals who failed to act when confronted with serious concerns regarding these children. This has been fuelled by ill-considered comments by those who wished to divert attention away from the real failings in this case.

Reports are commissioned after cases such as this, yet nothing concrete ever happens. No one ever learns and nothing ever changes. Sadly, I went through the recommendations of the report into the Kelly Fitzgerald case which was produced in 1996. If the recommendations had been implemented, this case would not have arisen. The findings specifically mention supervision orders and assessing the views of children, two fatal flaws in the case before us. Many of the recommendations contained in the report that has just been published are simply common sense and the public would have assumed or hoped that social workers already apply such interpretations, such as speaking directly to the children at the centre of the cases and interviewing those that make complaints. Sadly, that did not happen.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Norah Gibbons for the report and its quality, and also for the fact that it did not take an age to produce it. It is a first for the Department. I also thank the Minister of State for the briefing he and his team gave us yesterday on a very difficult and sensitive case.

Most people assume that politicians are familiar with all aspects of law but we are not. It has been harrowing to read the details of exactly what happened. The report found that the pleadings of the children were ignored. The decision to publish the report was very brave on the part of the children and it was wise on the part of the judge to meet the children in an informal way. Although they were still angry and hurt, they displayed remarkable courage and resilience and we must be thankful for that. We can only hope and pray that the scars will heal.

We have seen it all before. We live in rural areas and we saw it in the Kilkenny incest case, the Kelly Fitzgerald case in Mayo and the McColgan case in Sligo. People are asking where people in areas such as child care or case workers or those who are working for institutions were. We need a debate on this area. Work cannot be done on the clock. Years ago people had a vocation for a job. I am not suggesting that what was done was wrong but one cannot have people in a position of responsibility if they do not have a vocation for the job.

Nobody in the country has been sacked and because of benchmarking over the past number of years everyone got an increase, regardless of whether they had done a good job. It has to stop because we are leaving vulnerable young children helpless as a result of a lack of care by the State. Child protection is not an enviable task at the best of times and it occupies a place in between trying to support families in their homes and taking the drastic step of taking children into care. On this occasion, the voices of the children, relatives and neighbours were not heard.

There has to be an investigation by the HSE. I wish the report had determined if somebody was culpable or responsible for a lack of duty and care. I hope that will be addressed by the HSE but the way we do business has let down the political system and the HSE. As I have said before, we cannot blame anybody else. We have to blame ourselves and make sure that this will never happen again.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact that the report has been published. I note the words of Norah Gibbons on the children and the importance of protecting their interests in so far as we can. They have been hurt beyond belief by their parents and the failure of the State to act over a long number of years, going back to 1989 until they were finally taken into care in October 2004. This is a 15-year period during which they were neglected by the State. We have to bear in mind the words of Norah Gibbons, namely, that we do not add to their pain any further in terms of how we comment on the case.

I read the report and found it horrific but I intend to focus my contribution on what we should be doing in response to it. It is important that we use this debate to make changes, to reflect and to decide that we will not merely move on to next business as if this is something that we can deal with this week and we move on to something else next week. If we do the latter, we will be failing the children as well.

Previous speakers referred to previous reports and previous cases, and there was a raft of them - the Kilkenny incest case, the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the Monageer case, the west of Ireland farmer case, the Ryan report. The first one that really affected me was that outlined in Ms Sofia McColgan's book, which I read and by which I was profoundly affected. I was profoundly affected by the courage of Ms McColgan to write the book but also by the sense of helplessness that the children in the McColgan family felt when they tried to bring their plight to the attention of those in authority in hospitals and in schools. They simply were not heard. Unfortunately, the experience of these children has been the same and that is the overriding conclusion in the report.

The report refers to the fact that, "an ill-defined family support approach was preferred over a child protection approach, even when there was a well established pattern of parental non-compliance and recidivism". It relates back to that issue of balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children. It is clear in this report that the voices of the children were not sought on their own without parental intervention, and they certainly were not listened to. Exactly the same points are made in the Kelly Fitzgerald report.

In the appendices to this report there is reference to the Kelly Fitzgerald report and also to the west of Ireland farmer case report. The west of Ireland farmer report states that there was a stronger emphasis on the parental and familial aspects of the case presentation as compared with the protection needs of the children. Repeatedly, it is the same point, that the balance of the family's rights superseded the rights of the children.

The book Keeping Children Safe was published in 2001 by the then Mid-Western Health Board of which I was a member. The back of the book states it offers a major critique of Irish and international child protection research, policy and practice and draws conclusions which set a new agenda for designing child care systems which can balance family support and child protection, and keep children safe. Repeatedly, the same point is made, that the children simply were not heard in the situation.

We must pay careful attention to what is being said. It is clear from the report that attention was not paid, because there was no intervention but because, the report suggests, there might have been too much intervention that diverted attention from the main point, which was the abuse of the children. The inquiry report outlines the range of services involved with the family and states that:

[T]he wide range of services and their deployment, rather than a lack of them, [which] contributed to an overall failure ... to recognize the full extent of the children's suffering. The number of services going into the home may have led to a false perception that everything possible was being done while in reality the children needed to come into the care of the State to protect them from their parent's actions.

The lessons here are complex. It is not simply that somebody must go into the home. It is about what they do when they go into the home and about learning from case conferences. For example, there were a number of case conferences on this family but there was no progression. There were small insignificant improvements such as painting the house and keeping it a little cleaner, but there was no evidence that the care of the children had improved from case conference to case conference.

There is very strong criticism in this report of the kind of management, governance, supervision, learning, education and upskilling of the social workers' knowledge of the legislation, which was already in place and which could have been used, and that they were not able to stand up to either the court or the parents when it came to putting the children first in all of this. Children First is the title of the child protection guidelines and, unfortunately, the children were not put first in this case.

My main point is that we could simply state that these recommendations must be implemented, but many of them are a repetition of recommendations made in the past. If those had been implemented this case would not have happened and these children would not have suffered.

There are a number of areas where action needs to be taken. The first is to do with legislation. There is a specific recommendation in Ms Norah Gibbons's introduction. She states:

Indeed there is no reference to emotional welfare in the definition of welfare in Section 2 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. An amendment such as this would help to strengthen the recognition of the importance of a positive emotional environment for the healthy development of children and strengthen the ability of the statutory services to seek the protection of the Courts for children suffering emotional abuse, which is always present where children are neglected or abused.

That is a specific legislative recommendation and I hope the Minister of State will move to amend the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 on this point.

I also support Deputy Charles Flanagan's call for the Children First guidelines to be put on a statutory footing. That is another legislative measure that can be taken.

The third one, and on which most of the response has focused, is that we have not yet got a date for the referendum on the rights of children. Such a referendum is a critical element. The holding of a referendum would not have protected the children. However, according to the quotations to which I referred on the balance of parental rights and children rights, the balance in all of these cases fell clearly on the side of the parental rather than the children's rights. If the children's rights were enshrined in the Constitution it would be much more difficult for statutory bodies and courts to make the kind of decisions that were made in this case. Although it probably would not have prevented what happened in this case it is important for the future that we get the rights of children enshrined in the Constitution as quickly as possible.

Those are three legislative and constitutional areas where there is definite need for action but there is also need for other action. Other Deputies referred to the HSE taking specific action on where the fault lies. Having read the report, I still do not know where it fault lies. My inclination would be that it should not be so much about individual social workers as about the organisation of the system - the supervision and practises that do not seem to move a process forward from one element to the next. Indeed, the word "episodic" is used in this report and it is also used in one of the other reports - I believe it is the west of Ireland farmer case - where each episode that went wrong in the family was treated as an individual episode rather than a process of progression and learning which would have rescued those children much earlier.

Somebody needs to gather all of these reports together and all of the recommendations. Perhaps some kind of seminar should be held but anybody who is involved in child protection needs to be educated on what is to be learnt from these reports. There is evidence of a lack of training or professional development, and even knowledge of the law was not evident among some of those involved in the case.

There is a need for a learning process for everybody who is involved in child protection. We cannot assume that someone, because he or she went to college and became a social worker, knows ten years later what he or she should be doing as a social worker. There has been much development, in terms of the law but also in terms of what we are supposed to have learnt from these reports. People working at the coalface need to be knowledgeable and have an understanding of this. The term "insight" was used by Norah Gibbons. She is a very understanding person; I think we have all met her in various situations. Insight is not something one can define very easily or test in somebody's college exams. However, people need to understand the complex dynamics of a family situation where parents can manipulate their children and where the children sometimes cry out for help. There needs to be expertise among the people intervening to recognise that the children are crying out for help and to take the action that is required.

Norah Gibbons stated:

The six children at the centre of this case were denied their voice on many occasions. Their voice was not heard in the High Court in Autumn 2000 when the parents were successful in preventing a shared parenting arrangement with their relatives from going ahead. No application to protect them as set out under the Child Care Act 1991 (as amended) was heard in the District Court until 2004. Case Conferences and other meetings that should have had the interests of these children as their central focus were often diverted into dealing with other issues. Finally in 2004 these children in effect rescued themselves when they could no longer be silenced.

It was the cry for help of one of the children while in care which was the catalyst that made things happen.

This case goes back to 1989, when the attention of the health board was first brought to alcohol abuse and inadequate care in the family. It was in October 2004, 15 years later, when it came to a conclusion and all of the children were taken into care. The first child had been taken into care a little earlier because the child requested it and then spoke about what had happened in the family.

What I want to get across most strongly in my contribution is that we owe it to this family and other families who may be in similar situations - I know an audit of neglect cases in particular will be carried out - to look at this as deeply as we can. I use the word "deeply" because it is not a matter of listing off a number of recommendations at the end of the report and stating we will implement them and everything will be fine. We know it will not be fine because we know we have had such recommendations previously and they have not resulted in a change of practice.

I welcome the fact that extra social workers will be employed but what we really need to do is ensure they, and those such as public health nurses and others who intervened and were involved in this case, have a cohesive and educated understanding of the complexities of such cases.

My most important final plea is that the voices of children are heard always and that there is a definite mechanism for doing so. If this is left woolly and parents answer the door and are present when children are being interviewed it will not work. There has to be a way in which the children can speak individually to somebody who has the power to rescue them from situations such as this.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the outset, I join colleagues in an all-party expression of thanks to Norah Gibbons and her team for their thoroughness in the course of their inquiry and in the preparation of this report. The children in the Roscommon case were victims not only of horrific abuse and neglect by their parents but also of gross negligence on the part of the Western Health Board, now the HSE, over a 14 year period. It is almost beyond belief that from 1989 until 2004 the voices of these abused children were ignored by people charged by the State with the identification of vulnerable children and with intervention if they were in danger.

The report on this case will be without purpose unless the culpable people in the Western Health Board, now the HSE, are brought to account. Are any of them, especially the most negligent social workers and their management still working in the health or social care services? If so, I want to record that I would view this as being totally unacceptable. The HSE, earlier this year, confirmed that no senior management figures in Dublin were disciplined in any way for the neglect exposed in the HIQA report on foster care services. Will it be the same in this case?

The Government must proceed with the promised constitutional referendum to strengthen the rights of children. While constitutional change will not, I acknowledge, in itself prevent such abuses occurring again, it is an essential foundation on which better protection for children will be built.

In the Roscommon case, the State placed the rights of the family before those of the children even though "family" in this case had ceased to have any meaning and had been degraded to such an extent that it was only the site of gross abuse and neglect of six innocent children. When this case first emerged publicly, the HSE and the Government tried to portray their failures as the result of constitutional constraints. The report demonstrates complete failure and blame lying with the HSE as a result of faulty decision making, ineffective interdisciplinary working, ineffective assessment processes, weak management systems, a failure to learn from previous case reviews and poor knowledge of child care legislation. There was an over-reliance on family support services when it was clearly inappropriate. The protection of the children should have been the priority at all times.

Numerous people reported neglect and abuse of the children before the children were admitted to care in 2004, including teachers, members of the public, relatives and the Garda. Social workers never spoke to relatives of the children other than their parents until August 2000 even though they were involved with the family since 1989. Again, I have to ask why. People employed to ensure children are protected cannot spectacularly fail children with impunity. Nobody ever listened to these children. The desperation and loneliness they must have felt is tragic. How were the social workers not aware of the squalor in which the children were living?

This report is clearly a list of failure after failure. Key reports were missing. A file covering the period prior to 1996 was never found. Case conferences were held as box-ticking exercises for social workers rather than having the objective of ascertaining the needs and welfare of the children. In other jurisdictions, such profound errors of judgment would not go unnoticed. Why was it allowed to continue here?

A plan for a shared parenting arrangement between relatives and the parents was drawn up by the health board in the millennium year of 2000. However, this plan was blocked by the High Court after the parents took a legal action with the financial assistance of what was described in court as a "Catholic right-wing organisation". The health board then decided to seek a full care order for the children. At a case conference, the health board discussed making the children wards of court. However, no action was taken and no explanation was given for this. Another application to the High Court was only made nine months later in summer 2001. The High Court then made a ruling which allowed the health board to apply again for a care order. Incredibly, the people concerned in the health board did not understand this and actually thought they were prevented from doing so. How can that possibly be? How many other children, one must ask, have languished in abusive situations because the responsible officials either did not understand what was happening or could not be bothered to act? How often have quasi-religious groups worked in this way in the background so that abusive parents may maintain sole custody of their children, all on the basis of these groups' twisted concept of family? Are more stories similar to the Roscommon abuse case to emerge in the future?

Given the failures that were allowed to continue for so long in Roscommon, coupled with the failures of the HSE in other cases, it would be surprising if this was to be the only case. There has been the Kilkenny incest report 1993, the Madonna House inquiry 1996, the Kelly Fitzgerald case of 1996 and the Sophia McColgan case, Ferns, the Swim Ireland cases and now, this. There is a plethora of institutional failures in respect of children in this State. What more is to come?

Unqualified social workers were employed to work on this case. The HSE in reply to my Dáil questions, will not provide a guarantee that all of its employees who currently work with children, have been vetted. It states it is its policy to vet them. That is not the same thing. I ask the Minister of State to raise that question to establish the factual position. It is not good enough to have a policy if in fact, it is not being enforced.

The inquiry team expressed concern that the child care service in Roscommon continues to hold a Q mark for quality in child protection, saying it gives the misleading impression - which it certainly does - of high practice standards. Constitutional rights of the family may have proved a deterrent to a certain extent but the Western Health Board could still have intervened under the Child Care Act 1991, to make supervision orders, care orders, interim care orders or permanent care orders. At no point were the children listened to. The mother was able to secure a care order without the children having a right to be heard. No additional training has been provided to social work staff in Roscommon. The HSE manager, Bernard Gloster, has said that this will take place, "later in the year". This commitment is only being made after publication of the report. This is not good enough either. The HSE has had this report since July and is only now planning to examine whether disciplinary action is required against any member of staff. Bernard Gloster says the staff were, "well intentioned". In their case and with all respect, their intentions do not matter. When one is a social worker working with abused children, it is the effect of one's actions that counts. There needs to be a clear marker laid down. Accountability is absolutely essential. Why is the HSE allowed to issue report after report and not change anything? It has said it wishes to, "learn from this report". What did it learn from all the previous reports which I and my colleagues in this House have referred to this evening? It should be remembered that it was 2004 when the Roscommon children rescued themselves. The HSE needs to immediately provide a timeframe for its planned audit of neglect cases in other regions. I ask the Minister of State to address that point in his concluding remarks and assure the House that this will be done. I ask the Minister of State when he reports back to the Dáil on his meeting with the HSE to advise us how the HSE plans to implement the report's recommendations. I ask him to give us a clear indication of the steps now to be taken and within what timeframe. This report cannot join all the others which my colleagues and I have already cited. There has been recommendation after recommendation which have never been implemented.

The Western Health Board-HSE breached the human rights of these children through non-compliance with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, and the State may have violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 states that people must have the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Section 3(1) of the Act says that the State must in its functions comply with the terms of the convention.

The European Court of Human Rights has previously held that where the suffering of the child reaches the minimum level of severity required to fall within Article 3, there has been a substantial failing by the State. In the case, Z v UK, child protection services were informed of welfare concerns but failed to act for five years. The children lived in squalor and were seriously emotionally and physically abused. All of the parties agreed that the conditions suffered by the children were such as to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The State failed in its positive obligation to protect people from this. There are a number of parallels here with the Roscommon case. The State now needs to ensure, as I and Sinn Féin have called for in the past, that emotional abuse is included in the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. I ask the Minister of State to take this on board. All outstanding recommendations from the Ryan report, the Murphy report and all other relevant reports, need to be implemented. The promised referendum needs to be held without further delay, not as a panacea and certainly not that it will eliminate the potential for a repeat of such an horrific case as that outlined in the report presented by Norah Gibbons and her team but most surely, as a means of helping to ensure that it will not recur.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá deich nóiméad againn le ceisteanna agus freagraí.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The report starkly highlights a number of shortcomings with regard to social workers in Roscommon. It is clear there was a significant level of neglect of the service in Roscommon. One of the recommendations was that an audit of current practice in chronic neglect cases be undertaken in County Roscommon. When will this be initiated and when is it expected to be completed? Who will carry out this review?

In light of the fact the review of such cases in the county is yet to be completed, what assurances can be given that chronic neglect of children is not happening in the county now?

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to ask the Minister of State about his role. Does he accept that his relationship with the HSE means it is not possible for him to be a fundamental link in the chain of command from social workers right up to the top? Does he agree that it is a fundamental weakness in the system? The terms of reference of this report did not necessarily deal with the matter of accountability. What does the Minister of State intend to do to meet his political responsibility to ensure there is an element of accountability in this respect? The word "accountability" has been used more than any other during this short debate. The Minister of State has a duty to ensure there is a level of accountability. A glaring omission from this report is the fact that third party reports or complaints were not dealt with. Why was that the case? What is the Minister of State doing about it? Why was it possible for the same social workers in Roscommon to have a neighbouring family's children taken into care at the same time that this case was being ignored? What will be the terms of reference of the HSE investigation that is consequential on this report? Does the Minister of State have any role or function in setting the terms of reference? When will the report into the investigation be published? It is necessary if we are to ensure those responsible for the litany of failures in this case are brought to answer.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some general questions have been asked. What action does the Minister of State intend to take on foot of the recommendations in the report? Will he establish a means of reporting progress on the implementation of the recommendations? When many reports of this nature are published, we are given a commitment that the recommendations will be implemented but there is no follow-up monitoring of how each of them is being implemented. Page 71 of the report states "there is no regional specialist Child Sexual Abuse team or unit available in the West of Ireland". There seems to have been a naive lack of awareness of the possibility that this case might involve sexual abuse. Has that gap been filled? Is such expertise now available in the region?

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I alluded earlier to the fact that when things go well in a service, Ministers are well able-----

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should ask a question.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to phrase the question in a certain way.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Time is running out. Two other Deputies wish to speak.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that. Ministers are quick to accept praise when things go well, but they will not take responsibility when things go badly. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, or the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, should apologise to these children. The HSE apology should not be the only one. Why have the Children First guidelines not been implemented on a statutory basis? When will that happen? One cannot expect the public to have any faith in the guidelines until they are given such a basis. The HSE is not fit for purpose, especially when it comes to child care. Reference has already been made to the many reports that have been published. I will not make that point again other than to say that no one is being held to account or made responsible. The subliminal message that is being transmitted is that the HSE should carry on regardless. When will the referendum on children's rights be held? When will the Children First guidelines be placed on a statutory basis? Can we have new protocols within those guidelines to ensure the litany of failures by social workers that has been outlined - reports were not signed and went missing, etc. - is corrected? I ask the Minister of State to answer those three questions.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked a number of questions during my contribution. Why is the HSE allowed to issue report after report without anything being done with the recommendations of such reports? Can the Minister of State tell the House what we can expect in that regard now that this report has been published? Will he report back to this House after he meets HSE officials to discuss this report? Will he outline to the House the extent to which he intends to implement the recommendations of this report and previous reports that have been mentioned by Deputies during this debate? Will the Minister of State consider the point I made about emotional abuse in the context of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964? I ask him to ensure the critical amendment I mentioned is enshrined in that legislation.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Ms Norah Gibbons for her tremendous work in producing this report. Every time a report is being drawn up, we want it as soon as possible. I am delighted this report seemed to be produced much more quickly than most other reports.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy have a question?

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is this how things will be done in the future?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An audit of other possible cases of chronic neglect in Roscommon has already commenced on foot of a recommendation in this report. It is being carried out by Ms Lynne Peyton, who is an independent child care consultant. Similar audits are to be commenced in two other local health areas, if they have not started already, before being undertaken in the rest of the country. As the Roscommon report has been in the possession of the HSE since July, it was able to start the Roscommon audit before now. In recognition of fact that the chain of command is an issue, the HSE has commissioned a report from PA Consulting. It is currently being prepared for implementation. There are concerns about the supervision of risk by social workers on the ground. Such concerns relate, for example, to how risk is monitored by team leaders, principal social workers and local health managers. I meet HSE officials on a monthly basis. I take as much care as I can to make sure all the reforms we are trying to effect are actually happening. I am satisfied that the appointment for the first time of an official with overall responsibility for children and families at national director level will ensure that child protection is a mainstream priority within the HSE. The official in question will report directly to the chief executive.

It is obvious that I am accountable in this regard. I do not agree with Deputy Flanagan that the Minister for Health and Children is abdicating responsibility in this respect. She has given me enormous support. I take responsibility for any Government failures in this area. The Minister, Deputy Harney, has never been found wanting in terms of offering me support. This is the only one of the six points the Deputy made at the outset with which I do not agree. We are going to do those things the Deputy mentioned.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suppose one out of six is not bad.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am letting the Deputy off lightly. It is important that we agree on the reforms that have been undertaken or are about to be undertaken. We need to be careful when we suggest the political system should cause heads to roll. The former UK Minister, Ed Balls, made an absolute mess of the Baby P case in Haringey when he called for Sharon Shoesmith to resign. It set in train a chain of events that is still unfolding, three years on, and has been the subject of coverage in the British media again this week. We need to be careful to allow the employer in this case to deal with any disciplinary proceedings that are necessary, as it has already undertaken to do as quickly as possible. It is right that people expect accountability not just for the sake of retribution, but also to support good practice. We hear nothing about those who are doing good work.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Minister of State guarantee that will happen?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is happening. They have given an undertaking to me, as the person responsible to this House for telling Deputies what the HSE is doing.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will we have accountability?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I met them this morning. We went through this with the HSE yesterday as well. I am giving the House an undertaking that this will happen.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Failure must have consequences.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot anticipate the outcome of the-----

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Billions of euro was given to the banks overnight.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As for Deputy Reilly's bluster-----

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Meanwhile, our kids are left in squalor year in, year out.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He wandered in here, he did not listen to what I had to say and he did not take the care to read my speech.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He came in here to ask questions that everybody else had already dealt with.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That will not change the fact that the Government, in report after report, continually ignores the needs of children.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should have the courtesy to come in here on time.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Day in, day out, it talks about change while leaving children in danger.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Reilly, please

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It acted overnight to save the banks. That is the reality.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Reilly to obey the Chair.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what makes people angry in this country. It has been a core failure of the Government-----

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Deputy have some respect for the Chair?

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and of the Minister of State in his position.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is exactly the type of hysterical outburst to which I refer.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not hysterical. It is the reality.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for illustrating my point.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is no wonder that the Minister of State does not know-----

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If he had any interest in getting the truth of this case, or allowing those who might be listening to this debate to get some illumination on this issue, he would not come in here and act in such a manner.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have gone over time with the question and answer session.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could we get some replies?

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State willing to use the five-minute wrap-up time that is available to him to answer the remaining questions?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I will answer the remaining questions in the final five minutes.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Reilly wandered in and asked for an apology. If he had been here for my speech, he would have heard my apology, or read it if he had taken the time to read the speech. I will respond to his question about whether the HSE is fit for purpose. The HSE is what we have. The child protection system provided within the HSE, which involves primary care teams, is the best way of delivering better outcomes for children in this country.

Speech and language therapists sit down with public health nurses, social workers and child care workers. If one looks at this report closely-----

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Brendan Drumm did not think so.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Brendan Drumm was wrong and I do not mind saying that. He knows my view on that and I totally disagree with him. In fairness, I think he accepts he was inaccurate when he said that. My position is very clear. The HSE is fit for purpose in regard to child protection services.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Its record would indicate otherwise.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The problem is that although many good things are going on in our child protection service, we do not hear about any of them because we cannot report on them due to the Child Care Act and privacy issues in regard to children in care. We do not know about the thousands of children who are living in loving foster care families and who are getting excellent interventions. We cannot know about how things have improved over the past 15 years thanks to everybody who cares about children.

Inevitably and rightly, all we hear about are these kinds of reports but the public is unable to weigh up the balance. What they hear all the time in terms of these tragic reports-----

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The public are stupid and the Government knows best.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will Deputy Reilly allow the Minister of State to conclude? Deputy Naughten wants to ask a supplementary question but he will run out of time.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is my job to ensure the recommendations are implemented and I will account to the Dáil. Suggestions were made in the Seanad that the sub-committee of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, established to deal with children, should deal with the coverage of the recommendations. That is something I am prepared to do.

I am sorry I have not reached all the questions but I will take supplementary questions if Deputies would prefer.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In regard to the shortcomings indicated in this report and the review which is ongoing, are there any other issues which have gone under the radar to date and which have been identified in that review? People in Roscommon are very concerned about the content of this report and about what protection measures are being implemented on an ongoing basis. Has anything of concern been identified in the review to date?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. It has only just started as far as I am concerned. The publication of this report is very important in terms of transparency. The High Court judge has indicated he will give a full judgment which may provide a roadmap for future cases like this one to be dealt with in a timely fashion and under a template and parameters provided by the courts in order that we do not have the delays associated with Kelly Fitzgerald in the 1990s and a case in which Deputy Shatter was involved last year.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State saying that the review has only commenced even though the HSE has had this report since July?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To which review is the Deputy referring?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The review of the neglect cases in Roscommon.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. It started very recently.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It only just started-----

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure exactly when it started.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----even though this damning report has been with the HSE since July. That is a disgrace.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not completed.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a disgrace.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not completed and as soon as it is, the Deputy will be made familiar with it.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will go back to my original question which the Minister of State did not answer for some reason. He adverted to the national audit but did not advert to the internal HSE disciplinary process in the formal investigation. What does he expect from that disciplinary inquiry?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State did not refer to Children First being placed on a statutory footing.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We expect accountability and transparency. What else could one expect from a disciplinary-----

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does that mean?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It means what I am telling the Deputy. I expect the commitment by the HSE to carry out a human resources disciplinary process will result in those who are found not to have met a minimum professional standard and not to have discharged that to the people they propose to serve will face the consequences of that.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the timeframe?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The HSE has assured me that there will be a quick turnaround. I cannot give a stronger commitment than that.

In regard to Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's question on putting Children First on a statutory footing, there are a number of steps. Children First has been reissued and I will launch and publish it very soon. We need an implementation framework to ensure all the sectors which deal with children, whether education, health care or sport, are all up to speed on what Children First means, that they appoint Children First officers and that they understand their obligations.

As the Ombudsman for Children pointed out earlier this year, we have good guidelines but we do not implement them uniformly. We must also have an audit of how it is being implemented and then we will put it on a statutory footing. There is no point making something illegal unless we teach people how to comply with the law. It is a very complex area.