David Norris (Independent)

The first thing that needs to be said is that we in the Oireachtas are indebted to the Office of the Ombudsman for Children for producing this report, which is a highly significant development. It is not entirely adversely critical of the Government but it does provide a useful foundation for progress. I hope it can be dealt with in a non-partisan way. We must discuss this in the light of tragic events such as the death of Daniel McAnaspie, but I do not think we should make political capital out of it. I was taken aback to hear the usual old ding-dong across the floor, into which the question of moving a writ for by-elections was introduced. This is irrelevant and represents an attempt by both sides, but especially Senator Butler, to make capital out of the subject. It shows that real concern for the welfare of children is not the priority people pretend it is. We are still becoming bogged down by talk of by-elections and so on. That is regrettable.

I agree with the statement of Senator Alex White, whose contribution I watched from my office, that it would be useful if we had the time to go through the report line by line. This is one of the occasions on which a lack of sufficient time is a problem. We had 15 minutes of waffle from the Leader of the House this morning which was completely irrelevant to everything, but we get seven minutes each to talk about this report. When we discussed the Ryan report, I went through the report line by line and had to gabble, as did Senator White. We need time if we wish to take such reports seriously.

I was interested but not surprised to hear the position of the Iona Institute being so articulately placed on the record by one of my university panel colleagues. To drag a defence of Cardinal Brady into this discussion is, to my mind, on the margins. That said, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss that.

The report is not unremittingly negative. I notice the Ombudsman begins:

Some of the conclusions in this report are positive. It is recognised that substantial efforts have been made at various times since 1999 to implement Children First.

The interesting phrase here is "at various times", which suggests a lack of consistency and raises the question of the priority attached to it. The other aspect of the report I found helpful was the Ombudsman's references to the office of the Minister, rather than to a particular Minister. She does not personalise the matter or make accusations against this Minister of State, who is in fact a decent, intelligent and caring person. The Minister of State himself indicated, in the section of his speech that I heard in my office, that the majority of criticism covered the period 2003 to 2008. It is recognised that efforts are now being made to implement the recommendations after a considerable time.

There is a significant lack of what one might call joined up thinking in this area. For example - this is critical - there is the lack of a 24-hour service. This means people cannot find out if children are covered by the child protection notification service. Unfortunately, crises do not neatly and obligingly arise during office hours; they will often happen in the early hours of the morning, or at some other very inconvenient time or at the weekend. In this situation where we are often talking about crisis intervention we need a full 24-hour service. I would have thought that this was inarguable.

As a member of three trade unions who supports the trade union movement and the right of every worker to join a trade union, I was saddened by the comments of the Ombudsman for Children on the industrial relations issue involved. There was such an issue because IMPACT was concerned about what it saw as an extra burden being placed on the shoulders of workers by the implementation of the Children First guidelines. It became involved in negotiations with the Eastern Regional Health Authority, ERHA, and had a prioritisation work agreement, but it did not include implementing the Children First guidelines. I have criticised politicians in this House for not having the welfare of children as their first priority and I am sad to say it seems some of the trade unions which I greatly admire also do not have it as a priority. They should.

Another issue - I am not sure whether it has been mentioned - is the disproportionate difficulty encountered by children of asylum seekers or asylum seeking children. A much higher ratio of such children disappeared from the protection of the HSE. I recall raising this issue on a number of occasions. At least one of the children concerned turned up in a brothel, which is very worrying. If a child was placed in the protection of the State and they were not sufficiently supervised to prevent them from ending up in a brothel, that is a serious criticism of what is happening.

It could be said the Ombudsman for Children's report is stating we are still failing in our responsibility to implement proper child protection systems. It is 11 years since Children First was introduced. It has been reviewed three times, but its recommendations and principles have never been consistently and fully implemented. I find this worrying. The most significant elements that are missing include a definition of abuse. The structures to enhance inter-agency co-operation at regional and local level have not been put in place or are discontinued. That is a classic example which indicates the lack of joined up thinking. Poor record-keeping is also mentioned. There was an analysis undertaken in counties Cork and Kerry which showed that 75% of files had no record of the outcome. That is absurd. Surely, the outcome is one of the most significant aspects.

The Minister of State said in a statement picked up by the newspapers that he welcomed the statements - I would expect this gentlemanly Minister of State to say this - and that the recommendations made in the report would be reflected in an implementation framework which was being developed. Can he give us any indication of the timeframe involved because it is important that we know when that it be done? I was glad he mentioned that many of the findings were constructive and that he could work with them. It is worrying that there are findings of unsound administration, bad practice and a lack of joined up thinking, but we have a decent Minister of State and if we can keep the partisan elements out and keep our minds focused on the welfare of children, we will get somewhere.

It is not particularly relevant to drag in, so to speak, the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Brady, but I accept it is not appropriate for any institution, be it the State or the church, to abuse children. What is sauce for the goose is definitely sauce for the gander. I have no difficulty with this, but that is a matter for debate on another day and there are other aspects which will not be so pleasing to the Iona Institute mentality when I raise them in the House.