asked the Minister for Health if his attention has been drawn to the public disquiet concerning the prolonged delay in the enactment of the urgently needed legislation relating to children.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Child Care Legislation.
8.
As the Deputy is aware, the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, 1985, was being examined by a special committee of the Dáil when the general election intervened. While the committee had met on only two occasions, it had become clear that the Bill required substantial changes, involving as many as 150 amendments. These were necessary in order to meet points raised by various groups and individuals involved in child care and, more particularly, to take account of a Supreme Court judgment in 1985 which cast doubt over the constitutionality of some of the proposals contained in the Bill.
Since coming to office, I have been considering what action is appropriate in relation to the Bill. In view of the constitutional difficulties and the many changes that are required, I have come to the conclusion that it would be more expenditious to allow the 1985 Bill to lapse and to introduce a new children Bill, drafted in the light of the Supreme Court judgment and the many helpful comments made in relation to the 1985 Bill. A large amount of work in this regard has already been done by my Department and I hope to bring forward a new children Bill by the summer recess.
Would the Minister agree that every effort should be made to bring forward the restructured Bill? Is he aware that the virtually complete absence of staff in the parliamentary draughtsman's office has inhibited enormously the bringing forward of this legislation and that the previous Bill took four years to draft? If it is now to be redrafted could he ensure that we will see the revised Bill in 1987? I have grave doubts about the prospects of seeing this Bill because, as the Minister knows well, in 1982 absolutely nothing had been done in relation to it and if that position develops again we shall have no child care legislation enacted in the lifetime of this Dáil.
My intention is that this Bill will be brought forward to this House by the summer recess. As the Deputy knows, a great deal of good work was done on this Bill during the term of the last Dáil. The Second Stage passed through this House and a committee of this House were set up to examine the Bill in greater detail. In order to expedite the passage of the necessary legislation I believe the appropriate way is to bring forward a new Bill.
Does the Minister intend the Bill to be a comprehensive Bill which will contain the elements which were intended to be in three separate Bills? Will it include not just the child care area but the child justice area and will it deal with adoption?
No. Initially it is intended to bring forward the Child (Care and Protection) Bill on much the same lines as the Bill that was before the House, but taking account of the various suggestions and comments made during Second Stage here, the submissions from various interested groups with a legitimate interest in the Bill and the Supreme Court judgement in 1985.
In view of the remarks the Minister made regarding anticipated constitutional difficulties let me ask him if the drafting of the restructured Bill will safeguard and not erode any basic children's rights out of fear that it may be unconstitutional.
We are taking account of the constitutional difficulty that arose over the last Bill and the Bill will do what it sets out to do — to provide legislation for the rights of children having due regard to the rights of parents.
Given the extraordinary delay in having this Bill before the House, is the Minister absolutely certain that his decision not to proceed with the Bill and seek to amend it will see fundamental amendments made to very major legislation in this House and in the Seanad? Given the importance of having a children Bill which will, update legislation which is essentially old, can the Minister really stand over this further delaying mechanism? I will not say tactic because I accept the sincerity of the Minister's words. Is he satisfied that it would not have been better to advance and continue the work on the Bill which was far advanced in this House in Committee?
As I explained, the Second Stage of this Bill passed through this House; a committee of the House were set up to examine the Bill in detail; there were up to 150 amendments necessary and account had to be taken of the Supreme Court judgement in 1985. I have no doubt that the correct way to proceed in those circumstances, rather than bringing 150 amendments before the House and having to remove a whole section of the Bill, is to prepare a new Bill. I believe that is the most expeditious way of dealing with this legislation.
Question No. 9.
I want to be perfectly sure, lest the wrong impression be created that effectively it was initially discussed, that of the 150 amendments of significance including the deletion of a section——
A brief question, please.
——and the 138 were consequential amendments throughout the Bill.