Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 May 1993

Vol. 431 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Referral Service for Homeless Children.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Liz O'Donnell if she should come into the House.

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this matter of the referral service for homeless children in the Eastern Health Board region. It is not a new problem but it has reached a new intensity with the industrial dispute that is currently taking place. The failure of the health board to provide proper accommodation for homeless children and young people has been evident for quite some time.

Under the new Health Care Act the health board has a clear obligation in section 5 to provide for children who are homeless and to take the necessary steps to provide accommodation if there is clearly no alternative. The health board has not done so in the past and there has been an appalling ad hoc arrangement where staff have been trying to fill the gaps. They have clearly been finding it difficult for quite some time. The result has been that totally inappropriate accommodation has been provided on occasions for young people and children. For example, the health board has provided bed and breakfast accommodation with no backup and no provision for adequate care for these children.

Recently, in a blaze of publicity, the Minister for Health stated that he would not introduce the Health Care Act regulations unless he had the resources to do so. The Kilkenny incest case put additional pressure on the Minister and gave much media attention to the problem. However, in relation to regulations and the sections of the Act already in place, there is a clear lack of resources. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy to give this undertaking in relation to protecting young children from abuse if at the same time accommodation is not provided for young people and children who may be, on occasions, escaping abuse in their homes and seeking shelter from the State.

The recent housing assessment indicates that there is a high level of homelessness and need for new housing. It is not clear from the Estimates what the need is among young people but there is general acceptance that within the Eastern Health Board region there is a well established need to provide for the specific conditions that exist relating to homeless children. The evidence is there.

For a long time in my own area of Wicklow, and I am sure in Kildare also, there has been no provision for young homeless people. In the Dublin region, staff have been providing after hours oncall cover on a voluntary basis. This is totally untenable. The fact that IMPACT, the union representing them, is now taking action is simply an expression of the total frustration experienced by those operating the service who are simply unable to continue to do so.

Unless this problem is tackled swiftly and resources allocated to providing both staff and accommodation we will continue to have children, like the 13 year old boy who was turned away last Tuesday night, being refused care from the Eastern Health Board. The irony is that on the same night the Minister, Deputy Howlin, announced the new £35 million package to implement further provisions of the Health Care Act. The reality is that the Minister has an obligation to fund equally the regulations already in place to ensure that all our young people and children at risk are catered for.

The Eastern Health Board out of hours service for homeless juveniles was established in March 1992 on terms agreed between the Eastern Health Board, the IMPACT union, and social work staff on a local basis after full consultation.

The front line after hour service is provided by three social workers specifically recruited for the service.

In addition, agreement was reached with IMPACT and staff for the provision of an arm's length supervisory role by a senior-head social worker, through his or her availability for advice and consultation via a mobile telephone at night. Under these arrangements, the supervisor is paid an allowance of £50 per week and is provided with a mobile telephone unit for use at home. The Eastern Health Board considers that this rate of allowance is appropriate, given the extent of supervision required. There is a pool of five persons, amongst whom the supervisory arrangement rotates.

It is important to note that not every client contact made with field workers would result in a call being made for advice and consultation to the supervisor on duty. It is understood that, on average, there would be only two or three such calls made each week to the supervisor on duty. Matters arising from those calls may be expedited through further telephone calls made by the supervisor and-or by action by the field worker, acting on advice or instructions received.

At the establishment of these arrangements, it was agreed by all parties that the senior-head social workers providing this night time supervisory "back-up" would be paid £50 per week to operate the mobile telephone and to provde advice and consultation by phone if contacted after hours by the social worker on duty in the field.

IMPACT now seek to have this agreed £50 figure substantially increased. IMPACT have specifically referred to the paramedical "on-call" rate. This latter rate, however, is paid to staff such as radiographers who have a liability actually to attend in person at a hospital. The role of the supervising social worker is essentially confined to providing advice by telephone, or to making telephone calls subsequent to being contacted.

At a meeting with union representatives on Tuesday, 25 May, the Eastern Health Board signalled its willingness to refer the dispute to such third party review as would be agreeable to both sides. This was rejected. The offer still stands.

The three social workers in the field are continuing to provide night time services on a normal basis to clients, which may include referrals to other agencies as appropriate. The situation is being closely monitored.

When the after hours service was introduced, it was agreed that an evaluation would be conducted after 12 months. That evaluation is near to completion. The union has been asked to stop the current industrial action in order to allow the issues in dispute to be addressed and reviewed comprehensively within the framework of the evaluation process.

Am I to take it that the Minister is not taking any initiative in this regard?

Deputy McManus is here every day looking for more resources for various projects.

That is my job.

She is here day after day whingeing about the tax measures needed to bring in money. That is a cheap and cynical from of politics. Deputy McManus represents a very small party which received a minuscule share of votes in the last general election. I accept the party needs to increase party support but it should not seek to do so on the backs of victims of this country.

When I speak on behalf of the homeless here I will not take that kind of criticism from the Minister. I will defend the homeless.

The Deputy should not do so on the backs of victims.

How dare the Minister speak to me in that way.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 June 1993.

Top
Share