Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I thank all Senators for their valuable contributions to the debate on the Bill. The Seanad has a unique ability to be independent in its analysis of legislation, whether it is undertaken by Government, Opposition or Independent Members. This allows for a full and frank debate on issues, permitting us to improve legislation accordingly. Therefore, I welcome the contributions made and will try to deal with the way we are considering issues raised by NGOs and, separately, by Senators.

As Senator Quinn and others have pointed out, aftercare is already on a statutory footing, but it is expressed in a discretionary way. Many children are leaving care for whom no aftercare is necessary. Therefore, a discretionary power is being provided in the legislation. We are aware that a child who has had a secure upbringing in a loving home with his or her natural parents and all the protections afforded will continue to enjoy the protection and love of his or her parents when he or she reaches 18 years of age. On the other hand, a child who has suffered multiple traumas leading him or her to be in care - together with a teenager's sense of detachment, isolation and loneliness, compounded by the fact that they are in care - will encounter unbelievable problems when her or she turns 18 years. No one would expose his or her children to that risk. It is the one issue we need to tackle urgently.

Many of the children who emerged from institutions referred to in the Ryan report suffered from addiction and family breakdown and came to the attention of the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, however, that situation is being repeated. Senators Quinn, Corrigan and Feeney spoke about the need for a longitudinal study to examine the outcomes for children in care, specifically those in special care. My office has a research capacity which I am anxious to use to see how effective such interventions are. There is no point in placing a child in care if one simply will discharge him or her with the same problems or, worse, compounded ones.

When the implementation plan for the Ryan report was launched, I said my interpretation of section 45 was that where there was a need for aftercare, the HSE would be obliged to provide it. Although it is phrased as a discretionary function of the HSE, the truth is that if the need is clear on an assessment made in preparation for leaving care, the service has to be provided. There are those in foster family care, particularly relative foster care, who do not need aftercare or any planning for leaving care in the same way or the same extent. I am continuing to discuss with the HSE the way in which it will discharge its functions under section 45.

I am sympathetic to the points made concerning the use of the word "detention". Civil detention is a unique process. Somebody is being locked up against their will, however, no offence has been committed. It is a unique process and the way we describe it is important. It is in distinction to the children detention schools. We might look at the way they are beside each other in the Bill. They appear to be the same process but they are quite different. The word "placement" might be more appropriate. The special care order is the effective language that will be used in terms of a court order and the words "to detain" or "detention" is simply descriptive of the effect of that. I do not have any objection to using the word "placement" and it is something we might consider on Committee Stage in the Seanad.

Regarding the guardian ad litem point made by a number of Senators, I am concerned about rising costs in legal proceedings. It is a serious factor and something that must be borne in mind. I am sympathetic to the view that a child the subject of a special care application should have a right to legal representation and to a guardian ad litem but the cost should be reasonable. I do not believe anybody would argue with that. I would have some doubt whether it is always necessary to have counsel but if the Health Service Executive has counsel in court in the context of a special care order, there is probably a right for counsel to be available to represent the guardian ad litem, in other words, there must be like for like in terms of the application made.

We are trying to reform the guardian ad litem system. It is an unusual position in that in an application for a special care order, the HSE makes an application on the one hand and, on the other, there is a guardian ad litem who is paid by the HSE but who is trying to discharge the functions set out in the Act, which is to represent the child and inform the court of the child's best interests. It is a strange position and it requires further reform. I take on board some of the points Senators have made.

Senator Cannon made some political points about lack of intervention, which I strongly dispute. There are fewer children in our children detention schools and in our special care and high support units because of the success of particular early intervention and prevention policies we introduced in the past ten to 15 years, in particular the Garda diversion projects under the Children Act where we have provided children, who accept responsibility for offences they have committed, with an opportunity to restore themselves and not be subjected to criminal sanction. We are treating detention as a last resort and not something that would be applied except where other possible sanctions or interventions have occurred.

Equally, in regard to our youth affairs budget, there were marches outside these Houses, and that is fine, but there are cutbacks in every sector. Almost nobody has been absolved of having to share the pain of cutbacks but our budgets in youth affairs have risen exponentially in the past ten or 15 years. I reject the view that we have not focused on prevention and early intervention. We have done that and we have seen the benefits of it.

Senator Norris referred to the fact that the Bill lacked vision. I want to outline my vision of the Bill to the House, and Senator Corrigan expressed it very well. Many children who have seriously challenging behaviour have been ignored from time to time by the health services because a criminal sanction may be pending or there may be a charge brought and for the first time the HSE, the Garda and the Irish youth justice service have to work together regarding the most challenging children in our country. That is a significant departure, albeit in an amending Bill. One of the functions the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs was set up to do was to integrate services, whether that be the HSE on the one hand, which provides special care, or the criminal justice system which provides detention. The fact that one is operable does not mean the other is excluded. That integration of services is now being put on a statutory basis, and that is what I consider will be the vision in this Bill.

Special care has been provided in this country for a number of years, and I pay tribute to Mr. Justice Peter Kelly who single handedly wrestled the issue on to the political stage, but I pay tribute also to the individual workers referred to by some speakers earlier who work on the special care side with the most challenging children and provide them with the kind of supports and effort that are vocational. One needs to be dedicated to these children because they are very difficult to work with but it is very rewarding work as well. I have visited Ballydowd and Gleann Álainn special care units in Cork where the staff enjoy their work, although it is very challenging.

The second aspect in terms of the vision is what the HSE is doing in regard to shared campuses and what happens if a child is leaving special care after nine months, a question asked by Senator Corrigan. We hope to have shared campuses to ensure a child would be able to move from special care to high support. They would have the same staff around them but they would no longer be under secure civil detention, as we described it. They would continue to be cared for in a less secure environment. In that way there is a linear path to their care in that it is hoped whatever behaviour they are exhibiting at the beginning of the special care order will be dealt with by the interventions provided. That allows the child to move on in their life.

A number of other specific questions were asked. Senator Alex White asked the reason the Children Acts Advisory Board, CAAB, is being abolished. The answer is we are subsuming virtually all of its functions into the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. In so far as we are not it is explained by the fact that we have moved from the District Court model of making special care orders to the High Court model and all the safeguards that come with that. A number of functions will no longer apply. We already have an admissions and discharge committee in the HSE and arguably that work was being duplicated by the Children Acts Advisory Board.

I believe I have addressed most of the issues raised by Senators. It is hoped we will be able to go into specific issues on Committee Stage.

Senator Feeney raised the issue of section 12 procedures where gardaí, under the Child Care Act, would take a child at risk into a place of safety. The procedure is that they would bring the child to the HSE, or a place of safety if it is after hours, and a determination would be made as soon as possible as to whether a care order should be applied in respect of that child, up to and including a special care order. The Senator also raised the issue of monitoring outcomes.

Regarding children begging on the street, it has nothing to do with this Bill but the Senator raised the question. In the past week or so the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, published legislation to try to outlaw the procuring of a child for the purpose of begging in the street. I have asked him to consider the question of an adult begging on the street with a child in their company, which is inappropriate and should give rise to the effect of a section 12 application, but in any case the HSE has a key function in protecting all children under the Child Care Act.

I hope I have addressed most of the questions raised by the Senators. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate. I would be sympathetic to some of the points raised.