Liz O'Donnell
Question:3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Health the recommendations, if any, of the report on the Kilkenny Incest Case that are currently outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2758/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kilkenny Incest Case.
Liz O'Donnell
Question:57 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Health when a child abuse register will be established as recommended by the report on the Kilkenny Incest Investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2759/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 57 together.
As I explained to the House on 25 May last in a comprehensive reply to a previous question, considerable progress has been made in implementing many of the substantive recommendations of the report of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation that relate to the health services.
Priority is continuing to be accorded to the central recommendation of the report concerning the implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991. Some 61 of the 79 sections of the Act are now in force. These include the core provisions of Parts III, IV, V and VI which deal with the protection of children in emergencies, care proceedings and the powers and duties of health boards in relation to children in their care. The investigation team underlined the need for the early introduction of these provisions and I was in a position to bring them into operation with effect from 31 October last, together with three new sets of regulations governing the placement by health boards of children in foster care, residential care and with relatives. In accordance with the time scale set by the Government for the full implementation of the Act, it is my intention that the remaining 18 sections which deal with the supervision of pre-school services and the registration of children's residential centres, will commence by the end of the current year.
Since 1993, in the region of £30 million on an annual basis, has been invested in the development of an infrastructure to support the Act and to enable the health boards to cope with the new demands placed on them under the legislation. The Health Estimate for 1996 includes provision for a further round of new service developments in the child care area. These allocations represent the largest ever investment of resources in our child care services and demonstrate the commitment of the Government to strengthening those services and equipping them to respond to the needs of vulnerable children.
Of the remaining substantive recommendations of the Kilkenny Incest Report that come within my area of responsibility, the most important of these relate to mandatory reporting, revised child abuse guidelines, and standardised child abuse registers.
The position on mandatory reporting is that a discussion paper on the subject is currently being finalised and will be issued later this month as a basis for widespread discussions with the various interest groups.
As regards a revision of the child abuse guidelines issued by the Department of Health in 1987, the Deputy is aware that the procedure I introduced last year for the notification of suspected cases of child abuse between the health boards and the Garda represents a major amendment of the 1987 guidelines, in so far as the interaction between the two key players involved in child protection is concerned. It should also be noted that the health boards have reviewed their regional child protection procedures in the light of the relevant recommendations in the Kilkenny Incest Report and have taken specific measures to improve arrangements in this area. I consider it prudent to await the outcome of the forthcoming consultation process on mandatory reporting before the current guidelines are revised further since that process is likely to throw up issues which will need to be addressed in any new guidelines.
On child abuse registers, I would make the point that the 1987 guidelines already provide guidance on the collection, recording and exchange of information on suspected and confirmed cases of child abuse. It is not therefore the case that lists or registers are not at present being maintained by the health boards. Having said that, however, I am conscious of the need to ensure a uniform approach by the boards and of the importance of incorporating certain safeguards into the system.
I intend that the recommendations in the Kilkenny Report relating to the introduction of revised national child abuse guidelines and the establishment of standardised child abuse registers will be vigorously pursued as soon as the preparatory work currently under way in the Department for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Child Care Act has been completed. I hope by that stage a clear consensus on the mandatory reporting question will have emerged and that all of the issues that need to be addressed in revised guidelines will have been identified.
How can the Minister continue to give the same answer to the issue of mandatory reporting and the establishment of abuse registers which was the other recommendation of the Kilkenny Incest Case report? The tendency to be lethargic about this issue was also a feature of the Minister's predecessor. On 17 May 1994, a year after the report was issued, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, said he would establish a discussion document procedure on mandatory reporting. On 24 October, the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, said exactly the same thing. On the same day he said he was seeking urgent consultations with the Attorney General in relation to Madonna House.
How can the Minister continue to say the Government is still at the discussion document stage, five years after the Law Reform Commission's report recommended mandatory reporting and three years after the Kilkenny report made the same recommendation?
I am surprised by that question. Most people who have studied the issue of mandatory reporting realise just how complex it is. Serious consideration is required by all the agencies and interests involved. That is why I have a discussion paper. The Deputy has quoted me and others in the past, but I will refer to an article written by her colleague, Deputy Michael McDowell on 5 November 1995 at a time when I was considering precisely what he suggested. In that article, entitled "Praise-worthy principle, but problematic", Deputy McDowell said that mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is a laudable principle that will be difficult to translate into practical law. He concluded by saying that to legislate in a way which is both practical and effective will require a careful and measured approach, which was why John Bruton should ask Austin Currie to publish a discussion document within, say, three months.
I have produced a document within that time.
Let us see it.
Unlike the Deputy not everyone sees this issue in simplistic terms.
No one is saying the issue is not complex but that does not excuse the Government's failure to act. As far as the discussion paper on mandatory reporting is concerned we have not moved forward one inch in three years.
That is not true.
It is a complex area yet we do not have any legally enforceable Protocols on the reporting of allegations of child abuse which would ensure children have minimum protection, despite the fact that approximately 5,000 cases are reported to the health boards every year.
I am surprised that the Deputy does not appear to understand what she has been told. Before the end of the month she will have the discussion paper I promised and that is well within the three months suggested by her colleague. When she reads it she will see that the issue is a complex one. I have been in office just over one year and I am ahead of target in regard to full implementation of the Child Care Act, 1991. I am happy that we are on the right road and that I am dealing with the issue urgently. I hope the Deputy accepts that eventually.
As regards the reports on Madonna House and the Kelly Fitzgerald case which the Minister of State failed to publish, he said he was seeking urgent advice from the Attorney General on 24 October last. Today he stated he was in urgent consultations with the Attorney General on the publication of an abridged version of these reports to guard against third party liability. The Minister's total abdication of responsibility is a scandal and is highly curious. It indicates that there is a cover up in relation to these activities and the publication of the two reports.
Some of the Deputy's language is reprehensible. She is a member of the legal profession. I explained this matter to her before, particularly as it relates to the Madonna House investigation. I received advice to the effect that substantial parts of the report cannot be published without running a serious risk of grave contempt and defamation. A number of civil actions have been initiated against Madonna House and the Eastern Health Board by or on behalf of former residents of the home. These actions claim damages against the defendants for assault, negligence and breach of duty. I am advised that it would be improper and unlawful to publish any material which prejudges issues arising for determination by the courts pending proceedings. If a potential client approached the Deputy in her professional capacity and she advised him or her that he or she was running a serious risk of grave contempt and defamation she would expect the advice to be heeded.
This House is privileged.
The time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted.
May I raise a point of information during Question Time?
Question No. 3 was dealt with in priority time. It could not have been dealt with had we not adopted that procedure. I am now proceeding to deal with Questions Nos. 4 and 5 which can be taken in ordinary time in accordance with the procedures of the House.
Is it possible to raise a point of information now?
We will deal with the questions before us in the ordinary way. I wish to facilitate the Deputy but I am constrained by the time factor involved. If Deputy O'Donnell's question was not called during that time it could not have been dealt with at all. I am only allowed to deal with the last two questions on the Order Paper.
Under Standing Orders is it possible to raise a point of information now?
No, not if it deals with the previous question. Only the Deputy who tabled the question may ask supplementary questions. That is the procedure in dealing with Priority Questions. We will now deal with Questions Nos. 4 and 5 and Members will be able to ask supplementaries.