James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Many issues have been raised. Since some relate directly to my Department and some relate to other Departments, I will confine my comments in so far as I can to the former, given the amount of time that I have.

Senator Mooney referred to an opt-out clause. Under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013, Tusla is responsible for its own budget and how that is allocated. Therefore, we must leave that as a matter for the agency. It does not apply in the HSE either. We can indicate to it the important areas. The intent of the clause in question is to recognise that fact, not to serve as a mechanism by which the agency would seek to avoid its responsibilities. In a general way, there is always pressure on the Exchequer. Therefore, to start conferring statutory rights to specific services would result in our constant argument about ring-fencing funding for one area of the budget when that money must come out of another area because of the situation in which we found ourselves.

I wish to address an issue that a number of people have raised, namely, the underfunding of Tusla. Tusla was set up in 2014. I will go through it seriatimbut, at the risk of being confrontational, which I do not want, I was disappointed by the cynicism of Senator Mooney's contribution. Last year, Tusla got an extra €20 million plus. This year, it got €38 million on top of that plus €20.7 million to address current deficits, legacy issues, etc. It is a new agency and is doing sterling work, but it must find its feet. I decided that we would fight as hard as we could to get it the money it needed to do the job required of it.

In the context of unallocated cases of children at risk, Tusla has put together a three-year business plan. Many Senators know my next point, but I wish to put it on the record again. No child at immediate risk is left without a social worker. If a teacher is concerned about a child in a classroom today, a social worker will be on the case before that child leaves school. There are priority areas, however, and some of the children involved, while falling into those areas, are not in immediate danger. This is not satisfactory, but Tusla put together a three-year business plan and told us what it needed for the coming year. We met that need, so it is for the agency now to deliver. That is a challenge. I emphasise the point because this problem has not been addressed by successive Governments over many years. To expect Tusla to address it in one year is unreasonable.

My next point must be taken in context. I made it to the Senator's colleague in the Dáil. When Fianna Fáil was in charge of this country and Ireland was awash with money, there was no structured support for aftercare. Consequently, there were numerous tragedies. Like us, the Child and Family Agency has made serious progress and will continue in that vein. While I thank everyone, including Senator Mooney, for supporting the Bill, it is the case that, during the previous Government's term, Deputy Shatter raised the issue of children dying in State care and had a hell of a job getting any information out of the HSE or that Government. We are in a different paradigm now. We would all love for matters to move more quickly than has been possible, but we are moving strongly.

This brings me back to the economy. We need a strong economy as the engine to provide the range of resources necessary to support our children, child care, parents and families. This year, Tusla has been given a considerable amount of extra funding and is consequently in a position to deliver its core services. There will always be a need for more funding. There will always be legislation, such as this, that Tusla believes might require additional funding. Let us see how that situation progresses.

Senator Mooney compared the UK with the Republic of Ireland, but the main difference is that the UK did not have Fianna Fáil to wreck its economy. Tusla and my Department co-operate with many other Departments, in particular, Education and Skills, the Environment, Community and Local Government in terms of homelessness and Health. Some of the Senator's contribution seemed to suggest that my Department should take over the entirety of those Departments in order to ensure the well being of children. That is not how we operate. Rather, we co-operate with and encourage many other Departments and highlight the needs of children in their policies.

Senator van Turnhout was concerned about the language being negative to services. That is not the intention but, as others have pointed out, we cannot allow a legal loophole through which we do not have the right to inspect a service before it sets up.I am a great believer that prevention is better than cure. Let us ensure the service is right before it opens its doors. We do not have the legal right to do this. It is important. This is not to say most people would not like to be registered and inspected. I doubt anybody goes into this service without the best intentions. Senator van Turnhout inferred from the figures we gave that 140 are in unstable accommodation. We have made great progress on this and will make further progress on it. The Senator mentioned the fact that time spent in detention schools is not included in the assessment of duration spent in care. A person might be in detention for a purely criminal activity and have no other issues, and it would not be appropriate to include this as time spent in care, whereas for those who have a care history, it would absolutely feed into the assessment.

The question of "may" versus "shall" brings us back to the statutory rights issue. Although the average age of leaving a home is 25, many people leave home long before this age. Maybe, in an ideal world with unlimited economic resources, we could aspire to offering support up to the age of 25 in the future. Hopefully, with the ongoing financial recovery, it might be possible sometime in the future. The Senator suggested giving children in care over 12 months a plan at the age of 16. Although we considered it, things can change so much, and the plan must be made again. It is far too early. One would have to consider the situation. The six months out gives plenty of time, and the three months relates to those who have been away and return to care, and who would not have qualified until they did so.

I am happy to say there is additional money in this year’s budget for more inspectors. Tusla will have more inspectors. Senator Moloney raised an issue regarding a child with difficulties being moved to a different county during his or her leaving certificate exams. It strikes me as bizarre, and I will investigate it if the Senator will give the details. Extending CAMHS to 23-year-olds would be a major decision for the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. In the past, we had terrible difficulty with children moving from age 16 to 18, particularly in my constituency, with different parts of the service saying they did not look after people of that age. Children were falling through the cracks. I do not want it to be repeated. With proper co-ordination, co-operation and greater coherence of approach, we can improve outcomes for our children, especially those in care.

Senator Quinn mentioned an appeal mechanism. There is no need for an appeal mechanism, given that it is reviewed within three months if the person is unhappy. This is a de facto appeal. The Senator raised some other issues which EPIC raised, which I did not quite hear. I have met EPIC on a number of occasions and while Jennifer Gargan does fantastic work with young people who have been in care, the people who have been in care are the real resource there. They are phenomenal young people who feed back in a very meaningful way about their experiences in care and the issues they found difficult and which we would seek to address, including continuity with their social workers. They have produced a wonderful little book for children going into care, which is very clever. Although it is ostensibly geared at the child, it is also geared at the adult giving the care and makes one think about what a child who is going into care is experiencing. I thank EPIC and all those children who have been in care who have gone back to help others who have been in care and who continue to contribute.