I wish to share my time with Deputy Callely, who will shed some light on the case I am raising.
Adjournment Debate. - Child Care Services.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing to return to this extraordinary case. On 29 June 1999 I informed the House that I had been involved as chairman of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace in the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven cases and a variety of other cases involving extraordinary injustice to individuals, but I have never come across a case such as this where there has been so much indifference among public institutions to the fate of a child and the well-being of a family.
This case is truly tragic. The family involved was in difficulties and it sought assistance from the Eastern Health Board. On 29 June I outlined the circumstances in which a child was taken from the family amid scenes of brutality. The situation was so bad that in his reply the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children stated:
This case bothers me more than any other which has come to may attention in two years as Minister of State.I have failed to get the information I require from the Eastern Health Board. Based on Deputy Roche's information over the past six months and a meeting I had with the family, I am deeply concerned with the way in which the family has been treated by the Eastern Health Board.
Grave injustice was the order of the day last June but now a child and its family are in limbo because of the EHB's activities. I appeal to the Minister of State to take effective action to bring this quite scandalous state of affairs to an end.
The manner in which the EHB cares for children is well chronicled in the telephone records that have been kept by the family concerned over Christmas. The five year old child was abandoned on her parent's doorstep on Christmas Eve. The previous week the EHB agreed that the child would have a seven hour visit to the family home. When the child was left with the family on Christmas Eve, no contact number was provided or arrangements made for her return. On St. Stephen's Day, the family, fearful that it would fall foul of the health board yet again, contacted the emergency services, me and the Garda but it could not get a contact number for the EHB. Over the next few days there was continued frenzied activity by the family as it tried to find out where exactly it stood with regard to the child.
In addition to the child, three other children in the family were deeply distressed throughout Christmas as a result of the activities of officials whom this State has put in charge of the welfare of children. There is more than enough room in this case for a criminal investigation. Finally, after a great deal of confusion, the child, still supposedly in the care of the health board, was left with the family. The family have been trying to bring finality to this issue. I ask the Minister of State to do so. A child cannot be treated in this way, nor can a family.
I thank my colleague for sharing time on this issue. Some of Deputy Roche's information differs from that which I obtained from one of the public institutions but I was surprised that the former Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, on 29 June 1999 stated "I have failed to get information I require from the Eastern Health Board". He then referred to the Child Care Act, 1991. When this case was brought to my attention by my colleagues in the EHB and Deputy Roche, who expressed genuine concern about it, I tried to make inquiries but found that I was unable to obtain the required information. Deputy Roche referred to the indifference of the public institutions charged with implementing the Child Care Act, 1991.
I congratulate the new Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children on her appointment.
A mechanism must be found, however, to ensure that the required information in cases such as this one, which has troubled me along with many others, is made available to an elected public representative, the Minister or Minister of State of the day, or a member of the public. It is totally unsatisfactory that a person wanting to get basic information comes up against a brick wall. I do not know what amendments are required but I ask the Minister of State to make the necessary amendments to the Child Care Act so that this will never happen again.
I thank Deputy Roche and Deputy Callely for raising this matter. The Deputies will appreciate that under the Child Care Act, 1991, the provision of services to individual children is a matter for the health board concerned. The Oireachtas has established health boards on a statutory basis and has given them statutory powers while reserving others for the Minister of the day.
Deputy Roche and Deputy Callely are well aware that the child in question is under a care order and is the subject of ongoing judicial proceedings. As these cases are heard in camera, all the parties are constrained in what they can say but I understand that in this particular case the judge has specifically told the parties to refrain from public comment.
This matter was raised previously by Deputy Roche on 29 June last and following the Adjournment Debate on that occasion, my predecessor sought legal advice from the Attorney General on his powers to seek a report from a health board in respect of an individual case and, in particular, on a case which was before the courts under the Child Care Act, 1991.
The advice of the Office of the Attorney General was that a Minister is entitled to seek information from a health board about a particular case if the Minister has come to the view that this knowledge is required, for example, to keep the state of health legislation or of the health services under review and to satisfy himself or herself as to whether legislation needs to be reviewed. That is to say, the Minister can seek a report in a specific case but only for a general purpose. Any report received in this way cannot be used in any other way, including in a reply to matters raised in the House in response to a parliamentary question or in response to an Adjournment Debate. My advice is that to give such information in the House could be seen to be indirectly interfering with the proceedings currently before the court as well as being beyond what is permitted by the legislation.
I can understand the importance of allowing a statutory body such as a health board to discharge the functions for which it was established, but I also understand the frustration this can cause for parents in difficult family cases. I very much regret that I am limited in this way.
It is most unfortunate that there has been such a complete breakdown in communications and trust between the family in this case and the health board concerned. I have no doubt that everybody is acting from the best motives and with the best intentions, and I am sure everyone wants to act in the best interests of the child. I am well aware that Deputy Roche has been concerned with this case for some time and has pursued it vigorously.
I am aware also that the board has reviewed its handling of this case internally and that it stands over the actions of its professional staff, but I also know that this position is not acceptable to the parents. Bearing in mind what Deputy Roche and Deputy Callely said about the difficulty in their respective capacities of getting information, and my difficulty as a Minister in gaining access to the information and the use of that information, I will consider this case further and see if there is any action which I am in a position to take. In the circumstances I have outlined, however, I do not propose to comment further at this stage.
May I comment very briefly?
It is not appropriate. We have never had a comment, Deputy Roche.
I am simply making the point that the Minister has been misled.