Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, and the fact that he is listening to this debate and paying attention to what is taking place. I feel a little weak in this area and do not have considerable experience, as confirmed to me when I listened to Senator Corrigan, who has a background in psychology, and also to Senators Feeney and Healy Eames.

Last year, I was in a queue of cars after the barrier gates at a level crossing came down. A boy of 12 who was running across the tracks got scared and lay down between them. The train was likely to come very soon. Luckily, one or two of us jumped out of our cars and helped the boy. One of the helpers knew where the boy had come from. He had climbed out the window of a home that was looking after him very well and had managed to get out without his carers knowing it. We took him back to the home and I was so impressed with the interest of all the staff in the boy. He was in the home for respite because he is clearly troubled. I noted the care and attention that was being given to such youngsters and was reminded of the care and attention they need.

When I saw this Bill, I realised it is very important. Its aim is to improve the support and care provided for children in secure care and the high-support units. One need only read of the shocking incident that happened in Doncaster in England last year to realise the importance of legislation in this area. It involved two boys who were brought up in an environment of extreme neglect. They were allowed to watch violent horror films and were given drugs at night to keep them quiet, among other things. The social services in Doncaster were found to have made a series of blunders and did not make the necessary intervention to take the children out of their abusive environment. The result was an incident that nearly left children of the same age dead. We need to do our best to prevent a similar occurrence in Ireland.

Unfortunately, we have much to do to improve child welfare in Ireland. The Children's Rights Alliance, CRA, said last week the Government's performance in the past year was "barely acceptable" because of its failure to act on child education, health, material well-being and child safety. The most recent report on the adequacy of child care warns that low staffing levels continually put children at risk and that serious gaps in services mean child protection is inadequate. There are under-resourced teams, a lack of appropriate care facilities for children and a dearth of aftercare services. In addition, the Ferns report's recommendations have not yet been implemented.

The Bill could be improved in several areas to make what I would call a real difference to the lives of vulnerable children. One of the sections that sticks out is section 45 which states the HSE "may" continue to provide aftercare after the age of 18 years. This matter has been referred to. The vagueness of the section needs to be examined by the Minister of State. At the very least, could a legal requirement be introduced to ensure vulnerable children are checked up on by a mentor, for example, two to four times a year, between the ages of 18 and 22 years? They are also going to need a wide variety of supports, including financial foundations, accommodation, training and education, advice and information. Recent research highlights the fact that many of those who left care facilities at 18 years ended up homeless within two years. Senator Feeney referred to some of those whom she saw on Molesworth Street, Dublin. The Government must learns the lessons of the Ryan report which highlighted major problems for young adults leaving the care system at that age. It must go that little bit further to protect children in the light of past failings.

I am in agreement with Barnardos when it states the Bill is unclear regarding the child's right to representation. It fails to give him or her an automatic right to representation, either through having party status in proceedings or through the appointment of a guardian ad litem or a solicitor where he or she has competency for such. In her book Children's Rights in Ireland: Law, Policy and Practice, Ursula Kilkelly says:

The legislative provision is so riddled with caveats and discretion that it falls significantly short of an effective duty to ensure the child's views are heard, as required by Article 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. It also fails to guide the courts in the exercise of their extensive discretion as to whether to hear children in such cases and, if so, by what method.

This point needs to be made much clearer. Even a child should be provided with an automatic right to representation. In a case where a child is old enough and has the competency to instruct a solicitor, he or she should be entitled to legal representation. While a solicitor will represent a child's view to the court, it is also necessary that an independent person should be acting in the best interests of him or her. If a guardian ad litem is appointed to each child, they will be able to carry out both functions. The Bill is an important opportunity to include a legal provision for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in cases affecting children subject to special care orders.

It does appear that, in terms of the guardian ad litem, that person is lacking crucial powers needed to support the child in his or her care. Under section 23ND of the Bill, once a special care order has been made, the HSE has the power to agree to medical or psychiatric examination, treatment or assessment, and the authority to consent to a passport application. There is no requirement that it apply to the court to dispense with parental consent. These powers appear to exclude a child's family or a guardian ad litem in a way that could disadvantage the child who may have reasonable grounds for the rejection of such undertakings by the HSE, but it seems unclear how he or she can express these views. The powers are perhaps too far-reaching in that they could have such a large impact on a child's future.

Some of the language used in the Bill is perhaps harsh. As has been said, the word "detention" is used and it has negative connotations because people could obviously associate it with criminal matters. The Bill deals with secure care for vulnerable children who desperately need it, which fact should be reflected in the Bill. There is no need for the word "detention".

I am also concerned that there is a lack of research into how effective secure and high support care is for children and young people who have experienced the system. If we are to go ahead with the Bill without doing such groundwork, perhaps we are neglecting internationally renowned successful models of child care. Instead we may be simply propping up an old unworkable model with several changes. The Bill may have little effect, unless we have a much more far-reaching analysis to see if the system has provided children with the support and resources they need. However, I hope the necessary changes will be made to the Bill in ordfer that it will improve the support and care provided for children in secure care and high support units as soon as possible.

I am pleased the Minister of State has brought the Bill before us. I am also pleased that he is paying attention to this debate and giving us an opportunity to have some say in the legislation. He is capable of improving the Bill by using the methods referred to by various speakers. I welcome the Bill and the Minister of State's interest in this area.