Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome the Minister of State, for whom I feel great sympathy, as this is a very difficult brief. I do not doubt his bona fides and desire to do his utmost to make sure children are protected in society. The sympathy I feel for him personally is combined with a sense of asperity about the continuing failure of the State and State agencies to do the needful.

I recognise that it is extremely difficult to foresee all possible situations in which children might be harmed, take the appropriate actions and provide the appropriate resources to make sure children are fully protected. There are few crimes more evil than the abuse of children, sexual or otherwise. Once stolen, a childhood cannot be returned. Sadly, we have learned that the abuse of children is far more common than once supposed. The Ryan and Murphy reports in Ireland have opened many people's eyes, as has the Johansson report in Sweden, according to which 61% of women and 42% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their time in state-run foster homes and orphanages. The reports make for horrifying reading. It is incumbent on every organisation in the State, religious and secular, and the State to make sure we put in place whatever procedures are necessary to ensure children will be safe from harm. There can be no exceptions or excuses for failure.

I welcome the report of the Ombudsman for Children's report on the investigation into the implementation of Children First: Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children. It is timely in that it deals with a matter of grave public concern. If one strips away the polite public service jargon, the report is an indictment of the HSE and will lead people to question the extent to which Government responses extend beyond the commissioning of reports. It concludes that, at times, child protection services were not given priority in the reform process. It states, "To date, there has been no shortage of analysis of what the problems are, but far less action to tackle them". In the very next sentence it states, "The HSE is currently undertaking a strategic review of the delivery and management of child protection services". How many reviews do we need before something is done? This is what many will feel entitled to ask.

It is important to note that Children First was published in 1999. It provides detailed guidance for HSE staff, the Garda and others involved in child protection. Its goals are to ensure children are protected from abuse and that their welfare is promoted. The fact that in 2010 we are still looking at reviews and investigations of this kind is an indictment. Putting Children First on a statutory basis is only part of the solution. There is a need for additional resources to make implementation possible. There are significant issues which must be addressed in an implementation strategy, including communicating widely the revised guidance; development of a range of protocols related to information sharing; co-operative working between statutory and voluntary agencies and the church; and the development of strategic plans across the HSE.

The report finds that half of local health offices either do not have proper local procedures in place or have only recently drawn them up. The Ombudsman for children is greatly concerned that in most parts of the State there is no 24-hour access to the child protection notification system, despite the fact that such access is required by Children First guidelines. This means the Garda and accident and emergency departments in hospitals cannot check, out of hours, on a child, about whom they have concerns. Furthermore, in almost no part of the State are joint action sheets implemented. These sheets are intended to record exactly who is responsible for what when a child protection concern being dealt with by the HSE is also the subject matter of a criminal investigation by the Garda.

The report's investigation also confirms the finding of previous reviews that Garda and HSE co-operation is not working as required. Although many links between the two are based on informal co-operation, this, too, is contingent on personal relationships. There should be created a statutory duty to develop protocols which would allow for better communication between the key agencies and between statutory and other agencies. The HSE and the Garda should co-operate to a much greater degree. This would not, necessarily, be resource intensive. It requires a greater willingness on the part of people to be less protective of their own organisations and more proactive about safeguarding children. While the HSE and the Garda have statutory responsibilities, children would be safer if a more collaborative working relationship was built with other organisations working with children.

All of these failings increase the likelihood of vulnerable children falling through the cracks. They are described by some, euphemistically, as systems failures. In plain English, this means no one is held responsible when a child in Government care dies. It is not good enough. No one would accept such an explanation from the church and one would be right not to. Nor should we accept any such explanation from the State.

The actual recommendations of the Ombudsman for Children contain some startling suggestions. Recommendation No. 18, for example, states record-keeping should be sufficient to record decisions taken and guide future actions and that sufficient resources should be put in place to ensure this. What health care organisation does not keep a record of decisions taken? It is disheartening that such action has to be recommended in the first place.

Part of the problem is attributable to the shortcomings of the Children First guidelines. Clearly, Garda vetting is an important part of the recruitment process, but it is not helpful to refer to vetting without talking about proper recruitment procedures, as the guidelines do. Vetting and the exchange of soft information need to be underpinned by legislation.

Little attention is given to supporting the maintenance of a child's links with his or her family when such links are in the best interests of the child. Outcomes for children in care can be catastrophic, as recent events demonstrate. Given this, we would expect to see in the document more detail on the importance of family support, both at a strategic level and in care plans.

Unfortunately, the Children First guidelines do not adequately address the issue of oversight of the statutory agencies involved in child protection. For example, it is their role to carry out child protection inspections. I suggest to the Minister of State that a sign of genuine action would be for the State to appoint a Government equivalent of Mr. Ian Elliot who has been a godsend to the church who would ask the tough questions about child protection and name and shame those failing to do their duty. It is evident that such a person is needed to fire a rocket of reform into the morass of systematic maladministration which characterises the health service on this issue. Failure to do so will, in time, lead to further Ryan and Murphy reports. The mere thought of this should be enough to fill us with horror.

It is easy to point to all of the things that are going wrong, but I recognise that individuals nearly always mean well. That applies to the Minister of State downwards. In a recent debate in this House all Members subscribed to the idea that in the words of the Proclamation we should cherish the children of the nation equally. I apply this to minors, not just to all of the children of the Gael.

We should accept the difficulties faced by the Government. I do not like to see this become a political issue, where one party accuses another of not caring enough about children. That is not where the problem is. There is a need for a wider analysis of the currents and trends in society. The breakdown of family life, lack of access of children to father figures in their lives and the greater economic challenges we now face all make it harder for the State to do its duty by vulnerable children. We must also recognise the limitations of the State. There is no substitute for the functioning family in the welfare of children. At best, the State will always be playing catch-up.

Criticism is deserved. I respect the fact that the Minister of State is taking advice and do not think he is being personally obdurate on the issue. I speak as someone who has tracked it for a long time, from my time working in the press office of the church, in which I experienced at close quarters the pain of having to learn hard lessons about how situations had been dealt with in the past. A particular debt of gratitude is owed to victims of abuse who were not silenced and were clear and sometimes relentless in their criticisms, necessarily so. However, the Minister of State says the Government is not proposing to introduce any form of mandatory reporting at this time. The reason given is that Mr. Geoffrey Shannon, with whom I was at college and for whom I have the highest regard, advises "against the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse on a legislative basis, citing international evidence that suggests that mandatory reporting only serves to overload child protection systems with high volumes of reports, often resulting in no commensurate increase in substantiated cases". While the Minister of State said he agrees with this view, I find myself scratching my head.

We are talking a lot about the past failures of the Archbishop of Armagh. I would hate to have to live with the thought that my not having gone to the police with knowledge I had at a particular time might have contributed to the context in which a person proceeded to abuse children. That argument has been very well ventilated. It is a personal story about which we are all hearing, yet the State is saying it still does not believe people should have to go to the Garda. Perhaps I am missing something but I believe there is a disconnect. The Minister of State says we should not make it a requirement for people to report crimes involving child sexual abuse to the Garda because it will not necessarily lead to more convictions-----