Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 15, line 34, to delete “the Minister for Education and Skills” and substitute “any Minister”.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 13(2)(f) is intended to focus on the special and unique relationships between the service delivery systems in the education and health areas and the effective functioning of the Child and Family Agency. Services within the remit of the Departments of Health and Education and Skills obviously have to work in tandem with the agency and may depend on one another. That is why the focus is on the particular relationship between the agency and other bodies. The services are being taken from under the umbrella of the HSE, but there is ongoing contact with, for example, public health nurses and the CAMHS. The task force recommended that aspects of the public health nursing service and the CAMHS ought to be under the agency. While that is not happening at this stage of development of the agency, we already have 4,000 staff transferring and it is intended that these staff will move across once the legislation has been completed.

There is a particular relationship between the Department of Health and the new agency, about which there is no question. We also have the National Educational Welfare Board moving in under the aegis of the agency to work in a very specific way on the issues affecting children in the education system. That is why both ministries are named in terms of the preparation involved. This is about the annual report. It is stating the agency, like all agencies, will prepare an annual report and that it shall comment on what happened in the previous year. It outlines what should be included in the annual report and inserts a provision that "An annual report shall include ... other particulars that the Agency considers appropriate or as the Minister after consulting the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education and Skills may require". That is simply to reflect the particular relationship between these two ministries, but, of course, it does not in any way preclude the agency in preparing the annual report from taking into account the various consultations in the preceding year, perhaps with other Departments, with some of which being more relevant than others. I will be consulting colleagues on an ongoing basis in terms of general Cabinet business and business related to the work of the agency. I will be preparing memos on any legislation I bring forward and it is mandatory, as the Deputy knows, to get the views of every Department on legislation. Therefore, there is already a mechanism in place for every Department to be involved in the legislative programme of the Department. That is standard practice. It is also standard practice to engage across ministries on an ongoing basis on elements of work being undertaken.

This amendment and amendment No. 15 particularly point to the strategic functions and close relationship of the Departments of Health and Education and Skills. It is important to focus on that relationship which does not have to be diluted by saying one has to consult "all Ministers" before one can prepare the annual report. There is more of a strategic relationship with these two Departments. One only has to look at the different bodies coming together in the agency to appreciate this, which is the reason they are mentioned. It is understood work will be done with different Departments from time to time and I have no doubt that this work will be reflected in the annual report of the agency. However, I do not believe it is necessary to build into the legislation that before the annual report is produced there has to be consultation with all Ministers.

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

That is not what I was proposing. I am certainly not trying to straitjacket people into doing other than what they need to do. The annual report is meant to reflect on the work done in the preceding year. I anticipate that, in the course of any year, the agency will find itself engaging with a number of ministries, including the Departments of Social Protection, Justice and Equality and any number of others. My own sense is that it is particularly prescriptive. Make no mistake about it, the entirety of the National Educational Welfare Board is moving within the remit of the new agency, which is why I said I understood the reference to the Department of Health.

The issues that arise are not only those related to public health nurses which the Minister highlighted but also other issues, as yet unresolved, pertaining to some other disciplines under the aegis of that Department. The Minister is of the view that the current wording does not impose a straitjacket or limit the agency to consulting only the two Ministries in question. I have tabled the amendment because I believe it may do so. My proposal is eminently sensible.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 18, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:"(5) The Board shall always include three individuals with experience or knowledge of the legal environment as it pertains to children and families; the disciplines of child protection, psychology, family support and therapeutic services.".

I understand the position taken by the Minister in focusing on having expertise on the board, rather than representatives of the various sectors which come within the new agency's remit. I accept also that there is significant experience among those she has already appointed to the board, including the chairperson, Ms Norah Gibbons, whom I hold in high regard.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the Minister and her successors will ensure there will be, at all times, at least three members of the board "with experience or knowledge of the legal environment as it pertains to children and families". The family aspect is very important in this regard. The decision to drop the word "Support" from the title of the new agency caused significant and understandable concern. It is very important, therefore, that we affirm by every means available to us that the new agency will honour and stand over the responsibilities that have heretofore resided with the Family Support Agency, in particular, with regard to family resource centres.

I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment. It is all very well for her to take the view that she is doing this with good reason, but she is also setting down a marker for those who will succeed her. We want the same consideration to be shown by her successors. For this reason, I want the disciplines of child protection, psychology, therapeutic services and family support referenced in the legislation and reflected in the composition of the board and the knowledge and experience of those whom the Minister will appoint.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is aware of my view on this issue. The amendment is excessively prescriptive and could create inflexibility. I have observed such inflexibility on other boards where specific qualifications are prescribed for members. When appointing members to the board of the new agency, we must consider the broad range of skills and specific skills needed. Such flexibility must be available to the Minister in appointing the board of an organisation with 4,000 staff and a budget of close to €600 million. He or she must ensure the board has the correct mix of expertise at all times and this mix must include individuals with a good grounding in child protection and others with skills in strategic management, human resources and corporate governance.

The problems that arise with boards appointed in a highly representative manner, if one likes, is that the broader remit of the agency is lost somewhere along the line. It is to avoid such a scenario that I have left the appointments process open and flexible. This is the correct approach if we are to secure the proper mix of expertise required to run an agency of this nature. The Deputy will note from the individuals I have appointed to the board that I have sought a mix of experience in a range of areas central to the effective functioning of the board and the new agency. I introduced an amendment to clarify the issue of family support. There is no question that family support has been in any way excluded. It is, as stated in the text, central to the agency and many of the members of the board have a background in social work and family support services. However, we also have a mix of people who understand the governance of large organisations, human resource functions and so forth. That is the mix we need. As I stated, rather than specify qualifications, I have taken the view that the approach provided for is the best way to obtain the mix of personnel and experience that we need to have the board function effectively.

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

When the Minister and I met recently to discuss Report Stage, I requested, among other things, biographies of those who had been appointed to the board. As I have not yet received that information, I am not privy to all of the qualifications, experience and backgrounds of those the Minister has appointed. I am only aware of some of those whose names are already familiar to me and with whom I have engaged during the years in other roles they have performed. I would appreciate it if the Minister arranged for her office to provide me with the information I requested.

I make it abundantly clear that I wish the chairperson of the new board and her team well. I hope they will have many years of personally satisfying service in their particular responsibilities. I have no doubt that the Minister is choosing appropriate individuals to serve on the board. If she is not willing to accept the amendment, I ask her to be specific and particular in the legislation and accept the spirit of what I am seeking to achieve. I am not implying that she is not doing this but commending that she and those who come after her do so.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments I have introduced and the tone of the legislation clearly indicate what are the priorities of the agency.

Obviously, the Minister, in deciding to appoint a board to the agency, will reflect how best what is in the Bill can be delivered by the right mix of persons on the board. As I say, I myself have done that. I point out that the Bill does not prevent the Minister from appointing board members who have a particular professional background. Of course, the Deputy will get the details and the CVs of the board members I have appointed.

In terms of those who understand the sector and family resource, there are a number of persons who have detailed experience in that area. When the Deputy looks at the names, he will see that they have quite a lot of experience in local delivery from family resource centres. I am aware there was some concern about that, but we have made it clear. Family support is integral and that will be reflected on the board on an ongoing basis.

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 34, line 34, after "to" to insert "the Board of".

My sense of it is that the appropriate target for any directions in writing emanating from the Minister should be to the board of the agency rather than to the agency, and subsection (1) is open to misinterpretation. It could be to the chief executive officer or senior executives, as the case might be, but I believe that the chain of contact and the point of impact in terms of the Minister's position should be with the board. That clarification is necessary. The Minister, in issuing any additional direction, should do so in writing to the board of the agency. I hope that is self-explanatory.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify that such is the case. In section 21(1), the Bill provides that the board is "the governing body of the Agency with authority, in the name of the Agency, to perform the functions of the Agency." This is clear and unequivocal. The Minister's relationship is to the agency and that will be to the board of the agency.

Sections 41 and 44 both provide for engagement between the Minister and the agency. In this connection, both the performance framework and the performance statement, that is, under sections 41 and 44, respectively, shall be developed by the Minister and provided - I clarify - "to the Board" of the agency. Clearly, the relationship is to the board of the agency. It will be up to the board then to develop the corporate plan and the business plan, respectively.

I assure the Deputy that references to the agency in this context are to the board of the agency, as defined in the Bill. Therefore, I am not accepting the amendment.

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

I myself am absolutely clear about that. That is why I put forward the amendment. In accepting that situation, can the Minister clarify whether she is accepting the amendment?

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not accepting the amendment because it is clear.

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

It is not clear. When one looks at the definitions in the opening pages of the Bill, the first interpretation is "Agency", and it states, "means the Child and Family Agency established under section 7;". Referencing to agency, in this particular instance in terms of new directions in writing, does not specify that it is the board of the agency. It is, arguably, a small matter, but surely certainty is reasonable to achieve.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister, accepting the basis of the argument that it is the board of the agency, would not then accept it and provide for "in writing to the Board of the Agency for any purpose relating to this Act". Make no mistake about it, in referring back to the definition of "Agency", it does not state, "the Board".

This is all about clarification and strengthening so that it is not open to misinterpretation. Given my and the Minister's shared understanding that it is the board of the agency, that is exactly as it should appear in the legislation. I again commend it to the Minister. It will not alter the Bill in any way. The resistance to accepting it is beyond my understanding. It is about introducing certainty and clarity and I do not understand why there is this stoic opposition to any and every amendment presented despite the common sense behind them all.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Deputy Ó Caoláin will be aware, on Committee Stage I accepted quite a number of amendments on a clarification that the relationship was to the board of the agency. Section 21(1) is clear. It states, "The Board shall be the governing body of the Agency with authority, in the name of the Agency, ...". In other aspects of the Bill, I made it clear, in terms of the performance and governance of the agency, that at all times the relationship of the Minister is with, and the directions to the agency from the Minister are to, the board of the agency.

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

Of course, it is. Why do we not just say it?

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Ó Caoláin pressing the amendment?

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

Yes. I cannot understand or accept this absolute refusal to amend for clarification purposes.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 17 in the name of Deputy Ó Caoláin arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and will be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 35, line 9, after "functions" to insert "and must be in accordance with section 8 and section 9".

In the related amendment, which relates to lines 22 and 23 on the same page, I seek to insert a new subsection (4), after section 48(3), which would read, "A direction given by the Minister under subsection (1) shall not interfere with the exercise of professional judgement in a particular case in the performance by the Agency of its functions and must be in accordance with section 8 and section 9."

These are related. This is also a matter of clarification in sections 8 and 9.

The introduction of the new subsection (4) to section 48 adds further clarity to the Bill.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 17 is unnecessary because the Minister clearly could not give a direction that is not consistent with the agency's functions. The agency can only act within the parameters set out in section 8. It is also inconceivable that the Minister would issue a direction that goes against the best interest principle. Directions from the Minister have to accord with the statutory parameters of the agency's obligations under the Act. The functions are laid out clearly.

In respect of amendment No. 18, section 48 deals with the power of the Minister to issue guidelines, not directions. Section 47 deals with directions. Unlike directions, guidelines do not have to be complied with, but the agency is asked to have regard for them. I think that is a reasonable provision. Even though the proposed amendment regarding professional judgment is not necessary, there is no intention whatsoever to interfere with the exercise of professional judgment in any particular case that falls within the agency's functions. It is it not implied anywhere that such is the intention. A wide range of professionals are required to exercise professional judgment in often complex and challenging scenarios. Their judgments are informed by years of working at the coalface and are crucial to both intervening and assisting. With the establishment of the agency, we want to ensure the professionals working on the front line feel more supported by management and that the relationship between management and front-line staff is closer. This is reason for the reduction in the number of managers from 36 to 17 and for giving them responsibilities in key areas such as supporting front-line social workers, care workers and psychologists, understanding the complexity of the cases coming before them and considering the supports and resources required. I am not accepting these amendments.

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

I will be pressing amendment No. 17. I take the view that it is better to be clear and assertive in regard to specific matters - in this instance, the functions of the agency. However, I will not move amendment No. 18. I should have altered it before resubmitting it on Report Stage because the Minister's points were also made on Committee Stage.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 24 are related and will be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 41, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:“(16) A service provider shall operate in compliance with section 9 where applicable.”.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments. Section 9 requires the agency to operate in the best interest of the child at all times. This group of amendments would require any service provider operating on behalf of the agency to do likewise. It would be wise to include them in the interest of clarity. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 56(13), the Minister may prescribe requirements which include requiring service providers to take into account the best interest of the child where they are engaged in relevant services. In addition, section 56(15) defines a service provider as a person providing child and family services that are similar to activities carried out by the agency. I refer Deputies to the phrase "consistent with its functions" in that section. We had a long discussion about the agency's functions. Service providers have to be consistent with the functions of the agency. As the agency will be required to observe the best interest principle in the performance of its functions, it is entirely reasonable that any service provider engaged in the provision of child and family services on the agency's behalf be required to adhere to the same principles. The agency will have overall accountability for the delivery of services, whether directly provided or commissioned. It is up to the agency to ensure the points the Deputies have made in regard to the amendment are in accordance with its functions and principles. I am sure the Deputies will agree that is good governance.

In regard to amendment No. 20, services in the context of this section include the use of premises, equipment and the services of employees. The focus is on the services that another statutory body might provide to assist the agency in the performance of its functions. I have already dealt with the proposed amendments to section 9 and their applicability to a person or body acting on the agency's behalf. I consider the provision to be unnecessary because the legislation is clear in this regard.

In regard to amendment No. 21, the placing of a child in special care or residential care is a decision that is not taken lightly. It is always taken with the best interest of the child at heart. It is recognised that the child's engagement with the courts, where necessary, must allow for the consideration of the views of the child. If the agency enters into an arrangement with any suitable person to discharge its obligation, by implication that includes the obligations set out in section 9.

All aspects of the care of such children are subject to the Child Care Act 1991. We have already discussed how the child is paramount under that Act and the Adoption Act 2010.

I am not accepting that amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 24, section 59(4)(b) provides that the agency may impose requirements on a person to allow the agency to monitor the provision of services, where the person is directly providing services. Such requirements could include requirements to ensure the best interests of the child are observed where the person is directly providing services to children. Where providers are providing services, they are expected to demonstrate, at a minimum, that they are upholding the principles established in section 9 as an aspect of any proposal to provide a service to children or families. I will not accept the amendments.

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

It is a well trodden path back onto my feet to say that it is entirely reasonable to expect it would be understood. Affirming the adherence to compliance with section 9, which deals with the best interests of the child, is what we seek with this series of amendments. It should be properly affirmed in the arrangements with service providers that provision of services by statutory bodies, the particular arrangements of special care in residential places and supplemental services. In any of those, the point is not made as the amendments seek to do. Why would we not make it abundantly clear to all concerned? Those who do not come under the aegis of the agency can be outside providers. We need to say publically that we expect strict adherence at all times in the carrying out of their functions and the provision of services, whatever the setting, so that the best interests of children is paramount and is the primary consideration. I do not know what argument anyone can put for why we do not say that often enough. We should be saying it repeatedly so that it is properly understood and strictly adhered to. I expect nothing less of the agency. This is an address to those they will engage in the provision of particular services and support.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 9 is core to the rationale of how the child and family agency is supposed to operate and its principal purpose, namely, the best interests of the child. The amendments want to make it equally clear in respect of service providers. The Minister's point, in respect of section 56, is that service providers can carry out services similar to activities carried out by the agency and consistent with its functions. That is a lot less clear than making it crystal clear that the service providers, in the operation of their duties and in their work on behalf of the child and family agency, should do so in the best interests of the child. Instead, the text is a fudge and is less clear. Does it mean they have parallel responsibilities if we say the service provider should provide a service that is similar to activities carried out by the agency and consistent with its functions? Does it infer the service providers have the same responsibility to act at all times in compliance with section 9 and in the best interests of the child? The presumption is that it is the case but it is not as clear as it could be in the legislation. I see no reason the same onus, as is on the agency in section 9, cannot be put on the service providers in the legislation.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 9 sets out the responsibilities for the agency when it is making decisions about children in respect of its functions and planning and reviewing the provision of services. Section 9(1) states "The Agency shall, when making decisions in relation to the performance of its functions under section 8(1)(a), (b) or (c), have regard to the best interests of the child in all matters." That is important. Section 9(3) states "The Agency shall, when planning and reviewing the provision of services in connection with the performance of functions under section 8(1)(a), (b) or (c), ensure that consideration is given to the views of children." Section 9 takes into account the special interests of the child, gives consideration to the views of the child and spells out the responsibilities of the agency. It would not be consistent with the agency's functions to enter into a contract with a service provider where the service provider is not obliged to co-operate in compliance with the agency's responsibilities. That is common sense and is as the situation should be.

The matter of the service providers' compliance with section 9 can be dealt with appropriately and with the necessary flexibility in each contract the agency has with service providers. Inserting such conditions into a contract creates an obligation on the service provider, which is actionable if there is non-compliance as it amounts to a breach of contract. The need for absolute compliance with section 9 by service providers providing services on behalf of the agency is most effectively and appropriately dealt with in the contract the agency makes with the service providers. I will not accept the amendments. It is inconceivable and not consistent for the agency to enter into a contract with service provider that is not working in accordance with the various sections I outlined.

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

A few months ago, we would have said that matters concerning children that have happened since that time were inconceivable. We could hardly have expected that a child would be taken from its family because of the colour of its hair or the colour of its eyes. It was inconceivable. I only instance those sad occurrences and I could go on and on about other matters. It is because the inconceivable presents itself in this strange world we live in that inconceivable is not a word we, as political voices, should employ. We should at all times be prepared for the unexpected. I do not accept the argument presented by the Minister is sufficient to jettison the importance of making it clear that there is a legal imperative on service providers engaged by the new child and family agency on matters pertaining to the interests of children, nor do I accept that we should not make it abundantly clear in legislation that the same requirements that apply to the agency apply to the service providers. This refers to the best interest of the child.

Deputy Troy and I crafted these amendments not to make it so closed that it is unworkable. We recognise that this measure shall operate in compliance with section 9 where applicable and there will be situations where it will not be the case because the best interests of children may not be remotely involved in the consideration of some aspects. However, it is where children are at the heart of any such arrangement that I want to see a legal imperative that the outside providers adhere to the exact same strict criteria of the best interests of the child, which is what this Bill is about.

It concerns a new start in cherishing, protecting and providing for the interests of children in this State. That is something this country has historically failed abysmally in achieving. Why would we not go for the best possible protection or fall back on the idea that it would be "inconceivable" that something like this could happen? It is not inconceivable and it is only tragic when something happens that we have not anticipated.

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 42, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:"(7) A service provider shall operate in compliance with section 9 where applicable.”.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 43, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“(11) A service provider shall operate in compliance with section 9 where applicable.”.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related and will be discussed together.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 43, line 16, to delete “by voluntary bodies”.

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

I do not oppose either of these two amendments but I welcome the Minister's reason for them, which is to provide greater clarity. I wish she had employed the same approach in the many amendments that Opposition Deputies have provided for exactly the same reason of providing greater clarity. I will not oppose the amendments.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 43, line 18, to delete “by the person concerned”.

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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 43, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:“(9) A service provider shall operate in compliance with section 9 where applicable.”.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 53, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a contract, agreement or arrangement relates to a service required in connection with the performance of a function transferred under section 82 and also relates to a service required in connection with the performance of a function which, after the establishment day, remains a function of the Health Service Executive, the Health Service Executive and the Agency may agree in writing that such contract, agreement or arrangement shall continue in force as if the name of the Agency were included therein with that of the Health Service Executive or, as may be appropriate, its trustee or agent, and the contract, agreement or arrangement concerned shall be enforceable by or against the Agency in so far as the service the subject matter of the contract, agreement or arrangement is required in connection with the performance of a function transferred under section 82 and by or against the Health Service Executive in so far as the service the subject matter of the contract, agreement or arrangement is required in connection with the performance of a function of the Health Service Executive.”.

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

I am indicating acceptance of the Minister's amendment. As the Minister might say, it offers greater clarity on the matter.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 26 is out of order as there is a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 57, line 10, to delete “a condition” and substitute “conditions”.

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

I support Deputy McConalogue's case on behalf of his colleague, Deputy Troy. This is in the context of the supervision of early years services for children. The arguments presented for amendments Nos. 27 and 28, dealing with registration, are appropriate and I urge the Minister's acceptance.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Interpretation Act 2005 provides the basis for the interpretation and application of primary and secondary legislation. Section 18 of the Act deals with the general rules of construction for legislation and states the following:

The following provisions apply to the construction of an enactment:(a) Singular and plural. A word importing the singular shall be read as also importing the plural, and a word importing the plural shall be read as also importing the singular.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the second amendment, which would replace "12 months" with "36 months"?

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 58D(9)(c) provides that the agency must remove from the register any provider that has contravened a condition of the registration within a 12-month period. There is no discretion attaching to this action. I am of the view that the period of 12 months is reasonable with regard to the application of the sanction concerned and is modelled on existing provisions governing the regulation of residential centres for children. I am further of the view that a breach of conditions that occurred three years previously might not be reflective of the current practice of a service provider. Accepting this amendment would require in such instances removal of that service provider from the register.

Deputies must bear in mind that this legislative framework will, once enacted, require services to be registered in order to operate. It will be an offence to carry on an early years service without such registration. Removal from the register and the necessity to cease operation of an early years service is the option of last resort but it is the right option when people are not complying with conditions. There is much work being done to prepare for the significant change in the way in which the inspection system will operate. I will remain in close contact with the inspectorate during the implementation phase and keep this and other related matters under review. At this point I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment. I will keep it under review as we get feedback from inspections and see the new regime in place.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 57, line 30, to delete “12 months” and substitute “36 months”.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 59, line 10, to delete “from time to time” and substitute “annually”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure there would be annual visits to inspect services. It is important, particularly in the light of recent experiences, that the legislation is clear in terms of the requirement. Too often we have seen when it is not clear and a specific timeframe is not given within which visits should take place that visits do not take place and unsatisfactory situations arise as a result. I see no reason the Minister would not agree to a specific timeframe and commitment on visits to services.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 58 deals with the supervision of early years services and provides for the agency inspecting early years services from time to time. The use of the phrase "from time to time" is measured and deliberate. It allows for inspections as often as is required, be it once every three years, once a year or several times in one year. The substitution of the phrase "from time to time" with "annually" would make the inspection regime more rigid. It would allow for one annual visit to an early years service provider. In effect, it could negate the registration process as the agency would not legally be in a position to expect adherence to any condition that might be imposed in accordance with the registration regime, other than on a 12 month basis.

While I accept that the principle of the amendment is to allow for an inspection on a yearly basis, I am advised that the provision, as it stands, allows for this and for more frequent inspections should that be required. The amendment would be too rigid. The way the Bill is phrased allows for several visits in a year rather than simply prescribing one annual visit. We have the experience from the inspections that where inspectors find non-compliance with conditions, they frequently return within a few weeks or months. Several inspections can be carried out to ensure compliance with the regulation. The phrase "from time to time" is measured and deliberate and it is an attempt to ensure those visits can take place, as opposed to a more rigid prescription on the frequency of inspections.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The prescription of a mandatory annual visit would not prevent more regular visits. As the Minister indicated, in cases where a service is not in order more visits are required. I do not believe such a change would inhibit extra visits. Adding a requirement that such visits should happen every year would ensure they would happen every year. If the Minister sticks to the general formula of “from time to time”, we run the severe risk that visits would not happen annually. We have seen from “Prime Time Investigates” the importance of ensuring there are regular inspections. I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter and accept the amendment.

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

I support the broad thrust of Deputy Robert Troy’s amendment. If constructing it myself, I might have chosen the phrase “at least annually”, which would probably better reflect the Deputy’s intent and the supportive arguments presented by Deputy Charlie McConalogue. That said, we must recognise that “from time to time” might not provide for the required reporting parents seek in determining the suitability of early years services for their child or children or their desire to have an updated assessment of a service the child or children already attend.

The insertion of the word “annually” is a step forward. The Minister made a point on inspections taking place every three years, two years, one year or whatever the case may be. Is there a requirement that a visit must happen within three years? "From time to time" could mean beyond three years. The broad thrust of the amendment is meritorious. While I would have worded it slightly differently, it is an advance on the words “from time to time”. Therefore, I join Deputy Charlie McConalogue in supporting it for these very reasons.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the registration period is three years, an inspection must have taken place within the period if one wishes to register again. That is part and parcel of the new regime.

We are appointing new inspectors so as to ensure there will be an inspector in every part of the country. Provision has been made in the budget for next year also for the recruitment of extra inspectors. New standards will replace the way services are currently judged. Clearer standards will shortly be outlined that will replace the current regulations. A range of factors will be covered.

In the United Kingdom, for example, inspections take place approximately every two years. The frequency of inspections varies from country to country. If a service is non-compliant, inspectors can visit it again within a given year. That is the reason the provision has been framed more broadly. As we develop the services, we can continue to examine what is an appropriate regime of inspection and how often visits should take place. Currently, it varies quite a bit from county to county. We need to build up services, put inspectors in place and have a national standard. All of that is happening. It was not the case previously, but that is the system we are moving towards. The reason we have included the phrase “from time to time” is that it allows for inspections as often as is required. I accept the point that we want to see more frequent inspections than has been the case in the past, but we wish to allow for inspectors to make visits more than once a year.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin made a good point, that if the amendment had specified that visits should take place “at least annually”, it would have made the amendment more acceptable. I will not accept the amendment today as drafted, but I accept the principle of regular inspections. We are working towards ensuring the resources are in place to allow regular inspections to happen. Inspections on their own will not improve the quality of child care services. It is about the training of staff and mandatory levels of training for those who work in the service. It is also about putting in place a mentoring system to support child care workers on the front line. We have a preschool quality agenda and are working towards achieving targets in that regard. Much work requires to be done to ensure all services reach the standards we want to see. We are putting inspection reports online. We now have almost 1,700 reports online. At least ten reports from recent weeks have gone online. Parents are now in a position to see precisely what is happening in the services and what inspectors are saying about their nursery or the early years service their child is attending. That is very helpful in raising standards.

Reference was made by Deputy Charlie McConalogue to the “Prime Time Investigates” programme which I accept generated concern. None of us liked what we saw on the programme and we need a range of initiatives to deal with what was raised in it.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands amendment No. 29?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe the wording “from time to time” is good enough for the inspection regime. If we want inspections to happen regularly, we should be specific about what we believe is a sufficient level of inspections. Given the way child care services have grown so rapidly in recent years and that in many regards it is a nascent sector, it is important that inspections are regular. The Minister indicated that the number of inspectors across the country might be inadequate. There are clear requirements for how a service is supposed to conduct itself and how service providers registered by the new Child and Family Agency will have to look after the interests of children. I do not believe acceptance of the amendment would prevent more frequent visits in cases where an inspection has highlighted that a service might not be operating in the way it should.

However, we should be making very clear in this legislation what the absolute minimum requirement is. Instead of the Minister saying to us today that she will keep the matter under review and that she may be more specific in the future, she should be specific today by saying an annual inspection is the least that people deserve by way of assurance that every service provider is operating as it should. Stating "from time to time" is not good enough. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, which I wish to press.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 30, in the name of Deputy Troy, is out of order, as is amendment No. 31, in the name of Deputy Ó Caoláin.

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

May I ask a brief question to the Minister about my amendment?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

In doing so my intention is not to be controversial or to contravene Standing Orders. I refer to the appropriateness of ruling out of order the amendment in respect of after-care for children in State care. Now, almost at the conclusion of Report Stage, I take the opportunity to say I would have withdrawn my amendment if it had been allowed to stand, because I understand the Minister has successfully secured Cabinet agreement to introduce legislation to provide for a statutory assessment of all those with care needs after their 18th birthday - that is, on their maturity or their move from childhood to young adulthood. I very much welcome that and commend the Minister on that success. In light of my amendment, No. 31, I hope she will be able to address this in her response. The development strikes a very positive note at the conclusion of Report Stage of this Bill.

I hope that the Minister, in her response, might be able to indicate to us how quickly she expects the new legislation to be presented. Its publication is something we have long campaigned for. There are many interested voices across the non-governmental sector and among those who have been through State care, who, from their experiences, have been advocates of the introduction of such a statutory right. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate in so far as she can on the assurances we would like to hear and if she could state whether the development is all we have been led to believe.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to be brief, because we will be discussing what is in the Bill on Fifth Stage.

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to the Deputy very briefly. I thank him for his words on the Government's decision, which was to provide a statutory underpinning for the assessment of need of children. Although we are not discussing the particular amendment, I must state that my proposal is to expand eligibility, including by extending the provision to children who are in care on a voluntary basis, not just children who are subject to a care order. Therefore, the provision will be broader. My proposals are intended to ensure the new provisions will be well integrated into the provisions that already exist on care planning. I have agreement from the Government in this regard. Officials are working on the draft heads of the Bill. I regard this as a priority given some of the stories we have heard about some of the personal experiences of young people who have had after-care. Having a statutory assessment of need available to children in care when they are around 16 would be very helpful in terms of planning their aftercare, and it should ensure better outcomes.

I will bring the legislation before the House at the earliest opportunity. The next Bill I am likely to bring to the House will be the Children First legislation or the legislation regarding Oberstown. Irrespective of which comes to the House first, I will ensure that the after-care legislation is part of it. That is a priority.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.