Ombudsman for Children Bill, 2002 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Agus sinn ag teacht go dtí deireadh na Dála seo, tá an-áthas orm go bhfuilimid chun an Bille seo a léamh inniu. Reachtaíocht fíor-thábachtach atá ann a thabharfaidh cabhair agus tacaíocht do pháistí na tíre mar a gheall muid le cúpla bliain anuas. Cuirfidh sé leis an straitéis náisiúnta do leanaí a lansáladh dhá bhliain ó shin agus, leis an airgead breise atá curtha isteach ar son na leanaí go háirithe agus leis an aidhm le guth láidir a thabhairt do pháistí. Le hOmbudsman for Children, beidh gúth neamhspleách, speisialta ag páistí.

I am delighted to introduce this important legislation in Dáil Éireann. In many ways this Bill is an appropriate conclusion to the work for children done by this Government in recent years. The focus of my tenure as Minister of State with responsibility for children and that of my predecessor has been on improving services for children and on giving them a voice.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of an Ombudsman for Children. The main functions proposed for the ombudsman are to promote the rights and welfare of children and to investigate individual complaints made by or on behalf of children arising in the course of the administration of public bodies, schools or public hospitals.

In introducing the Bill I am aware of the need to safeguard the rights of children. Put simply, children matter. Their status and well-being speak volumes about the values and quality of life within our society. Attitudes and perceptions to the role and place for children in society have changed in recent years and this has led to many policy developments in relation to child care services. We have seen increased investment, the introduction of new legislation and the publication of strategic policy documents during the past five years, and the introduction of the Ombudsman for Children must be seen in this context. The commitment to the establishment of an Ombudsman for Children is also contained in the Government's key social policy document, An Action Programme for the Millennium.

The Government has been committed to extending the range of services for children in recent years and has invested and additional €171 million for child welfare and protection services since 1997. This level of additional funding continues to provide and support a wide range of developments in this area and emphasises the Government's determination to put in place effective strategies and services to promote and protect the welfare of children.

The Government is committed to developing all aspects of child welfare and protection services and in recent years significant reforms have taken place in terms of legislation, policies and services to promote the protection and welfare of children. For example, we brought forward the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998, which provides protection for any person who acting "reasonably and in good faith" reports suspicion of abuse of a child. We published Children First – National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children in 1999 which sets out to improve the identification, reporting, assessment, treatment and management of child abuse. These guidelines are being implemented on a national basis in the health boards and in schools but also in sporting and other voluntary organisations.

It was encouraging to note that in the recently published report on sex abuse and violence, the SAVI report, commissioned by the Rape Crisis Centre, we saw some evidence suggesting that there has been a drop in the level of child sexual abuse since the start of the development of guidelines for those working in the field. I am confident that in ten years' time, the development of the Children First guidelines and the associated investment will be seen to have further impacted on the levels of all forms of child abuse.

The expansion of family support projects, the launch of the springboard projects and other early intervention schemes will also have long-term results, helping to strengthen more vulnerable families. The report of the working group on foster care, 2001, sets out clear objectives for the development of our foster care service. The Government has already indicated its commitment to implementing this report by increasing the foster care allowance from €90.84 per week to €270.50 for children under 12 years and from €108.62 to €296.50 per week for children over 12 years. I believe in the principle that children deserve the love and protection of a family and where, for whatever reason, they cannot remain in their own family the support of a foster family is crucial. Those families give to our child welfare service a service that can never be underestimated.

Major developments have also taken place in the provision of residential care for children. The capital investment programme has improved the number and quality of places available for children, and the establishment of the social services inspectorate has ensured that standards are set and adhered to. The places required for particularly troubled children in high support and special care units have increased from 17 to 94, including the facility at Ballydowd, which is being opened on a phased basis.

The Children Act, 2001, substantially adds to the protection we offer children and involves a total overhaul of the juvenile justice system. It gives a new legal basis for dealing with children who have behavioural difficulties and children who are offenders. The Act replaces the Children Act, 1908, and is based on the principle that detention of children should only be used as a last resort. The key elements of the Act involve: raising the age of criminal responsibility from seven to 12 years; the introduction of family conferences to enable children and their families agree on an action plan for the child; and the use of restorative justice where a child offender can face and apologise to a victim.

Acknowledging the crucial role played by child care workers in frequently difficult circumstances, new salary scales and structures were agreed and extra support and training places put in place. I acknowledge the difficulties for child care workers and the difficulties for health boards in recruiting new child care and social workers. We remain committed to ensuring more are recruited and trained to meet the needs of the service.

The Government has also published a detailed strategy document to tackle youth homelessness. The primary goal of the youth homelessness strategy is to reduce and, if possible, eliminate youth homelessness through preventative strategies. Where a child becomes homeless we must ensure that he or she benefits from a comprehensive range of services aimed at reintegrating him or her into the community as quickly as possible. This strategy involves taking on board the needs of the child but also involves the family, the local community and all the services which come into contact with the child.

The national children's strategy launched in November 2000 has been internationally welcomed as a model of good practice in relation to the provision of supports and services for children. The three goals which are backed by 117 target actions are that children will have a voice, that voice will be understood and that children will receive quality supports and services. The vision outlined in the strategy is one which we all share –"an Ireland where children are respected as young citizens with a valued contribution to make and a voice of their own; where all children are cherished and supported by family and the wider society; where they enjoy a fulfilling childhood and realise their potential". The national children's strategy is a ten year plan and already a number of initiatives and structures have been put in place to ensure it is implemented in full.

The Ombudsman for Children is a key provision of the national children's strategy. The ombudsman will provide an independent mechanism to vindicate the rights of children. The establishment of such an office is in recognition of the need for an independent person to act as a powerful advocate for children and promote the welfare and rights of the child. The introduction of an Ombudsman for Children is a further step along the road to providing our children with quality services and letting their voices be heard. Many countries have an Ombudsman for Children, sometimes called a commissioner for children, therefore, the establishment of the office of the Ombudsman for Children will bring Ireland into line with best practice internationally.

The most important role of the Ombudsman for Children is that of promoting the rights and welfare of children. In this, the function is different from that of the existing Ombudsman whose focus is solely on dealing with complaints. It is, however, a common feature of other ombudsmen for children internationally and it is crucial that the Ombudsman for Children has the ability to advocate independently for children. The Ombudsman for Children has been given a range of roles and functions to achieve this, including the following: highlighting issues of concern to children; encouraging the development of appropriate policies, practices and procedures which affect children; advising the Government on the development and co-ordination of policy relating to children; monitoring and reviewing the operation of legislation; and establishing structures to consult regularly with children.

Until recently, little thought was given to the views of children, even on issues which affected them directly. The first major consultation with children probably took place during the development of the national children's strategy. The results of that consultation not only fed into the strategy document but determined its outcome. Learning from that process, we have since had the first meeting of Dáil na nÓg and local councils are in the process of being set as Comhairle na nÓg throughout the country. The Ombudsman for Children will find, as I have, that the views of children and young people are valuable and well informed.

In drafting this legislation, I was anxious to ensure that complaints could be made to the Ombudsman for Children on the actions of a wide range of bodies, public and private. In the event, considerable work with the Attorney General's office was required to frame the legislation in order that schools and voluntary hospitals are included. I am pleased that the proposed jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for Children is wider even than that of the current Ombudsman. In particular, it is important that we have been able to provide that schools can be included in the complaints procedure. For the vast majority of our children, the only State institution which directly affects them is the education system. I was anxious to ensure that schools would be included in the Bill. The Ombudsman for Children will cover all children and tomorrow I will bring forward an amendment to include young people in the Prison Service.

A concern has been to ensure that the Bill is workable, that it will operate practically over time and that the rights of the child and those of his or her parents are maintained. This legislation should be seen as a first step. Over time, as legal difficulties are addressed, other organisations in the voluntary and private sectors will be brought within the aegis of the Ombudsman for Children.

In recent times the involvement of the State in the lives of our children has increased and decisions taken within public bodies have a significant bearing on them. Problems can arise in balancing the needs of organisations and the just and fair treatment of a child. It is inevitable that difficulties or mistakes will give rise to wrong or unfair decisions or a child may feel that he or she is being deprived of something to which he or she is entitled. There is no way of guaranteeing that this will never occur but what is being done is to provide a method by which the grievance can be re-examined independently.

There are arrangements in place at present which allow decisions to be queried. Under the Education Act, 1998, there is provision for appeals to be made in respect of State examinations. However, mechanisms such as this are designed to address specific situations and they do not cover the whole area of the State's interaction with children.

The Ombudsman for Children will affect the operation of a myriad of institutions by providing an opportunity to seek redress by, or for, a child without having recourse to adults or professionals in the first instance. What needs to be ensured is that when a child complains an examination of the situation can be started quickly without becoming entangled in an ever increasing web, which could confuse and alienate our children from public institutions.

The Ombudsman for Children is intended to be an independent and easily reached mediator. One of the roles will be purely to investigate and report. The importance lies in the power to investigate the actions of those affecting children and to report on these to the Oireachtas. To our children, this ombudsman will be an important advocate for them, providing informality and accessibility in resolving the issues they consider important.

The Bill provides for the establishment of an Ombudsman for Children who can investigate, on his or her initiative or on the basis of a complaint from a child, family member or a professional, actions taken by a body listed in the First Schedule to the Bill. The remit extends to Government Departments, schools and public voluntary hospitals. Certain areas, notably the courts, security matters, military activities and decisions made in relation to asylum will be exempt from scrutiny.

I wish to comment on some of the noteworthy features of the Bill. It is proposed that the Ombudsman for Children shall be appointed by the President on the resolution of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. This is in line with the appointment of the current Ombudsman. It is my belief that the acceptability of the Ombudsman for Children will be enhanced by the fact that the holder is acceptable to all sides of the House.

The terms of the employment of the Ombudsman for Children are set out in section 4. The independence of the office is vital, as our children must see that this is an independent authority. The Bill sets out that the Ombudsman for Children shall be independent in the performance of his or her duties. The six year term of office, in line with the current Ombudsman, underlines the independence of the office from Government. I will bring forward an amendment tomorrow to remove the age restriction on appointment in section 4.

The ombudsman may undertake an investigation on his or her initiative or arising from a complaint made by a child, a family member or someone who has a professional relationship with the child. However, if a parent is not the complainant, one of the parents must be informed that a complaint has been made. This is to ensure that the constitutional rights of the parent are not diminished in any way.

In line with the Ombudsman Act, 1980, the Ombudsman for Children may not investigate an action if it is trivial or vexatious, if the complainant has insufficient interest in the matter or has not already used reasonable means to remedy his grievance. However, the ombudsman will give the complainant reason for his or her refusal.

I wish to comment on certain other matters that are excluded from the ombudsman's remit. The ombudsman will not investigate where legal proceedings have been initiated, where there is a statutory right of appeal to a court or where there is right of appeal to independent tribunals or referees drawn from outside the Civil Service. It is not intended that the ombudsman should replace existing appeals procedures or interfere with the judicial process. Defence matters have been excluded on the grounds that they do not directly affect the lives of our children. Public personnel matters are also excluded. It is felt that the Ombudsman for Children is intended to be concerned with grievances arising out of the dealings with public bodies and not with the relationships between employer and employee.

All investigations will be carried out in private and the body or person against whom the complaint is being made will have an opportunity to comment. The ombudsman may require persons to furnish documents and information for investigation, but has no power to compel the disclosure of any document or information relating to decisions of Government. Any publication or utterance by the ombudsman in the course of his or her investigations is privileged. These provisions are there to provide protection for the privacy of the complainant and those complained about.

I am happy that this legislation is before the House. It may well be the last significant legislation to be passed by the 28th Dáil. It is a fitting end to the Government that has done more for children than any other Government. Having regard to the amount of investment, structures, strategies and long-term policies that have been put in place by the Government, real progress has been made. We all acknowledge that real progress can yet be made and that there is a good deal more to do. In bringing forward this Bill, we can ensure there is an additional voice for children to add to those other voices who are already strong advocates on behalf of children. Molaim an Bille don Theach.

Ms Fitzgerald

I wish to share my time with Deputy Currie.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Ms Fitzgerald

I welcome the Bill. An ombudsman for children is an important part of the infrastructure needed to protect children's rights. I acknowledge the role a Fine Gael-led Government played in initiating this Bill under Deputy Currie initially and the Minister of State's work in bringing it to the House today.

One must examine the headlines and stories of recent weeks about children and acknowledge that an extraordinary task will face the ombudsman. There is an irony in this Bill coming before the House today when one considers that, on the one hand, we are establishing the office of an ombudsman for children and, on the other, that there was a Government decision this week to provide 25 new places which, if the Child Care Bill put forward by the Government and brought before the House, was fully enacted would be illegal.

We have seen headlines on the crises in child care such as "Violent boy released to make room for joyrider". There was the tragic death of two gardaí and it emerged that two of the young men involved were refused places in detention centres and that secure places were not available to them. Statistics on the extraordinary number of cases in the health boards were publicised again this week. Some 2,272 cases are on the waiting list for social work services and in two areas in the ERHA, 81 out of a total of 232 social work posts are vacant. On the one hand, a structure is being developed comprising a children strategy providing an increased voice for children.

There are 25 new places being announced this week as a reaction to the sad and dreadful crime involving the death of two gardaí. On the other hand we have a child care system in absolute chaos. Talking to people on the ground – social workers or those trying to get referrals of child abuse cases – one finds the resources simply are not there. There was never so much money but never so few resources. That is what people say.

The difficulty for many people with this Bill is not so much the detail of it, which is obviously welcome, but the gap between the words and the reality for children in difficulty. There is a huge difficulty in getting the expert help that many families need and in many ways there is a credibility gap. If one looks at what a potential ombudsman will face – the background against which he or she will do his or her work in child care – it is an area of extraordinary challenge and the system is undoubtedly in chaos. Anyone who knows the system could not disagree with that description. There are extraordinary problems and a huge need exists for more initiatives, such as full enactment of the Child Care Bill, provision of more places and establishment of a better infrastructure throughout the country.

An extraordinary staffing crisis also faces the child care sector and I have given some figures on it. There are huge problems with retention of staff, even though there has been some success in recruitment. Clearly not enough attention has been paid to retaining staff. Retaining staff has become almost impossible. We have one of the lowest numbers of qualified child care workers in Europe and a very low percentage of trained staff deal with child care in Ireland. The Minister of State will know this was highlighted in the report on the Kim O'Donovan case and in other reports. In many ways the staff crisis is undermining everything – it undermines many of the efforts the Minister of State is making, such as the resources she is putting into this area. The staff simply are not there to do the work and the staff being recruited leave very quickly.

This is the background against which we judge the situation and against which the ombudsman will have to work. If the Child Care Act was fully enacted it would be illegal to create the new places in a prison setting, as the Minister of State is doing. I presume she will deal with that anomaly tomorrow so that the 25 places will be covered by the Child Care Act. Is that correct? Perhaps she will deal with that in her response.

This is the situation and in that context, the key question people will ask about the ombudsman's office is whether it will really be independent and well resourced. From the description in the legislation the intention is that the office would be independent, which is very important. One cannot emphasise that independence enough. Will it be properly resourced? Will it be able to cope and undertake proper investigations? Will it be able to influence legislation, for example? Many people feel the danger is that the office could be swamped with queries and unable to cope with the amount of work referred to it, given the background I outlined. Will it be able to handle the work? There will be no shortage of work – how will the office prioritise it?

It has been proven in other countries, as the Minister of State said, that an independent ombudsman's office such as is envisaged here can play an important role in the future, as I am sure this one will. It is extremely important that the Dáil gives it the resources, independence and support to enable it to undertake what could be a vital part of the infrastructure protecting children's rights. The history of children's rights has been one of very slow progress, given that parts of the 1908 Act are still operational. We have been very slow to bring in new legislation and children's rights have not been centre stage. There will soon be an amendment to the Constitution involving children's rights but it is not there at present.

The task of putting children's rights centre stage has been an enormously slow process. It is no surprise when one sees the statistics emerging about sexual abuse. A recent survey stated that one in five schoolchildren had suffered sexual abuse and that one in ten women had suffered rape as an adult or child. That study laid bare the reality of sexual abuse and the infringement of children's rights in Irish society in the past. Abuse in residential centres and the lack of care have also illustrated the lack of protection for children's rights in residential care.

Many reports emerging today suggest we cannot be complacent about our young children in care at present. Sister Stanislaus Kennedy recently issued a report which showed very alarming statistics about the downward spiral of many young people who emerge from care; they quickly become homeless and must deal with addictions and lack of support. They find it hard to cope once they leave the care system so there is no room for complacency about the future prospects of children in care today, either. There is a need for review of the care system overall. We need to re-analyse the numbers in need of care and protection and to examine the services needed but which are not there at present.

Other statistics in relation to children which one should bear in mind regarding the work of the Ombudsman for Children include the poverty figures which indicate that 25% of Irish households live in relative income poverty, while 8% of children are in consistent poverty. That is a very high number given the boom of recent years and when one takes relative poverty into account one is talking about thousands of children. Another statistic relates to the number of children growing up in bed and breakfasts. Research from Focus Ireland shows that more than 1,200 accompanied children under the age of 18 lived in that kind of accommodation in 1999, so hundreds of children do not have access to accommodation appropriate to their needs. That is the background against which an ombudsman will have to work and it is a big challenge. The Minister of State said the ombudsman would not be responsible for everything and I take that point but obviously there is no shortage of work for the ombudsman. There has been a huge change in the approach to children which is obviously welcome. Children's rights are centre stage and the challenge now is to match the rhetoric with the resources needed to deal with the challenges I outlined.

The Minister of State should consider a number of specific areas of the Bill. A number of amendments in the Seanad were not accepted for a variety of reasons but many people in the child welfare sector are still concerned about a number of sections in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will accept some amendments in this regard. In section 7(1) there is an absence of any reference to the ombudsman's protection responsibility. That was debated in the Seanad and I put it on the record here also. The lack of such a reference weakens the Bill considerably. If it is not the function of the Ombudsman for Children to protect the rights of children, who will do so? In view of recent court decisions it seems that the role of the ombudsman in this regard will be even more critical. I refer in particular to the Supreme Court judgment of 17 December 2001 in the case involving the Minister for Education and Science, Ireland, the Attorney General, the Eastern Health Board and the Minister for Health and Children. There is concern about this area.

Will the Minister of State comment on section 11(1)(e)(i) which deals with the exclusion of refugee, asylum seeking and immigrant children? In the Seanad she stated that these children would be included, except for the decision regarding status. Will asylum seeking children who are in direct provision come under the remit of the ombudsman? A recent report was critical of conditions in direct provision. Would such children be able to seek support from the Ombudsman for Children? There is concern that these children are excluded from the protections which this Bill could provide. Large numbers of unaccompanied and separated children are arriving in this country and there is a problem regarding trafficking in children. Will the Minister of State clarify whether these children will have the support of the ombudsman or whether the ombudsman will be able to investigate their cases? There is a belief that such children will not be covered by the legislation.

The exclusion of children in detention also remains a concern. Such an exclusion goes against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides for the protection of the rights of children and young people in the criminal justice system.

Section 11(3) gives unlimited authority to the Minister to stop investigations. In many respects this is the most worrying element of the Bill as it appears that the Minister will have a veto over investigations into actions which could be taken by public bodies, schools and voluntary hospitals. Will the Minister of State reconsider this provision? If the Minister has unlimited authority to stop or veto investigations, surely the independence of the office of ombudsman is compromised. One of the key issues for the ombudsman will be the degree of independence which the office and the holder will have. This matter needs to be unambiguous. Surely the principle of independence and the work of the ombudsman will be undermined if a Minister can stop or veto an investigation. The ombudsman should be given the right to investigate, or to continue to investigate, an action in the best interest of a child. Such a provision could be inserted in the Bill to strengthen the independence of the office.

The ombudsman's right of court referral was discussed in the Seanad and arises again. The Minister of State said she could not allow for such a provision as there was a potential for a guardian ad litem and the courts should be allowed to do their work without referrals from the ombudsman. The office of the ombudsman would be strengthened if it had expressed powers to refer cases to domestic or international courts when important principles arise. Such a provision would strengthen the Bill and the powers of the ombudsman to protect children.

The Bill has considerable potential to protect children's rights. However, unfortunately, it appears that important and vulnerable groups of children will be excluded from its protections because of the manner in which it is drafted and because the Minister of State has not taken on board the amendments proposed in the Seanad. These areas remain of concern to many groups working for the welfare of children. This is the last opportunity the Minister of State will have to consider these amendments and I ask her to review her decision not to accept them. I await with interest her amendment regarding how these provisions will work and whether they will further include the young people who will be so affected by the provision of new places.

I welcome the Bill, but it could be strengthened. The Ombudsman for Children will have an enormous task. I hope the office is independent, well funded and resourced and, in time, I have no doubt it will develop and become an important element in highlighting inadequacies, suggesting remedies and noting key areas where further action is needed to protect the rights of children. This is the first step, but I have no doubt the office will expand and develop.

Mr. Currie

In introducing the Bill, the Minister of State said: "In many ways this legislation is an appropriate conclusion to the work for children done by the Government over recent years". Thanks be to God that statement is not true as, if it was, the outlook for children would be bleak. In the dying hours of this Government, and in view of the horrific events of the past few days and weeks, it is obvious that our child care system is a shambles. It is an indictment of the Government's record that such events are happening five years after it took office. The Government is unique in history in that it had piles of money to spend, but, as is indicated by the Bertie bowl, sometimes it does not know how best to spend it.

I regret and never cease to be amazed by the pettiness which some Ministers invariably display. I am sorry to say that, despite being relatively young, this Minister of State belongs to that category. She made no mention of the genesis of this Bill – how or when it originated. History began with the election of the Government.

This process was initiated in 1996 when I commissioned the Children's Rights Alliance to publish a report on the issues involved in establishing an ombudsman for children. I pay tribute to the Children's Rights Alliance for the initiative it showed. It produced a report entitled Seen and Heard – Promoting Children's Rights in Ireland. The report called for the establishment of an office of ombudsman for children on a statutory basis. That marked the initiation of the process being concluded here today in relation to an Ombudsman for Children. There then followed a useful debate on the protection of children including mandatory reporting. In December 1996, I announced I would not introduce mandatory reporting but I put forward a number of alternative proposals for the protection of children. The main proposal related to the establishment of an Ombudsman for Children. In April 1997, I established an interdepartmental working group involving officials from all of the relevant Departments, nine in all, in addition to the Office of the Ombudsman. A number of meetings of this working group were held before the rainbow Government went out of office in June 1997.

When I left office I was hopeful that sufficient progress had been made to ensure that the succeeding Government would have to proceed with the measure. For a while it looked as if I would be disappointed. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat programme for Government made no mention of an Ombudsman for Children. Now that the Bill for the Ombudsman for Children has passed through the Seanad and should shortly go through this House, I can reveal that I had to use a particular strategy to ensure the Ombudsman for Children became Government policy.

I refer to a debate in this House on Wednesday, 17 December 1997 during which I asked the Taoiseach whether in view of the day's news, the obvious continuing necessity for greater protection for children at risk and the fact that the Government reneged on its commitment to introduce mandatory reporting, an announcement would be made in regard to an ombudsman for children. The Taoiseach replied that the commitment in the programme for Government would be met. He said that, despite the fact that there was no commitment in the programme for Government. I asked when that would happen and the Taoiseach replied that it would be met in due course. When I said that the proposal should have been implemented before then, he replied that the well thought out proposal would be implemented in due course. I asked the Taoiseach to confirm that the establishment of an ombudsman for children was a Government commitment and he did so. I said that he should inform the Minister for Health and Children of that because he was not aware of it. That is how a commitment to establish an ombudsman for children became part of the Government programme. It was because the Taoiseach made a mistake on the Order of Business and the Department subsequently found that it had to proceed to honour that commitment.

I welcome this Bill and regret that, despite my assistance, it has taken so long to come to fruition. It is now in its sixth year since initiation. Why has something so potentially powerful in protecting the rights and promoting the interests of children taken so long to produce in circumstances where almost daily we have examples of the necessity of such protection and promotion? How many children might have escaped abuse if this Bill had been passed four or five years ago? It is beyond doubt that the position of children today would be much better if an ombudsman had been created then.

The importance of the first holder of this office and the appointment of the right person is crucial. He or she can be a symbol of our concern that the welfare of the child is paramount. We keep using the phrase "the interest of the child is of paramount consideration". Here is the opportunity to put that into practice. The passing of this Bill is a step forward which could bring that about but the appointment of the right person is crucial. He or she should be a spokesperson for children and must gain their trust which will not follow automatically. I do not want to see a lawyer or civil servant appointed to the position. It should be a daring and inspiring appointment. Perhaps we will get the chance, after the election, to make such an appointment.

In Norway the first appointee was a television personality who had made his name on children's television. That is the sort of inspiration and daring that is required. We need to go beyond the traditional people who are appointed to these positions and appoint someone who will inspire our young people, someone in whom they can place their confidence and with whom they can identify. We want an appointment that will bring out the idealism of youth, the idealism which still exists despite the growing cynicism among young people. That sort of appointment should be made as a counterweight to the prevailing cynicism.

The person appointed to this position must be fully independent, particularly of the Departments of Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If there is not true independence the appointment will not work and cynicism will increase because of that failure. I share the concern of Deputy Fitzgerald on the matter of the Minister being able to veto investigations. I ask the Minister to underline the independence of the office.

I am glad the Minister has something for which she can take credit because there is not much else for which she can take it. She certainly cannot take credit for out of control children or for progress in relation to inter-country adoptions. On the latter issue, people have to wait four or five years for assessments. She cannot take credit for welching on the Government commitment in relation to mandatory reporting and she cannot take credit for the adoption contact register. I am sorry Deputy McGennis is not here because when I was Minister she continually raised that issue with me but her bleeding heart was cured by the election of this Government.

The children of this country are lucky now to have an ombudsman to look after their interests. They are lucky not to have to rely on this Government which has let them down time and time again.

Ms Shortall

I welcome the eventual arrival of this Bill and concur with many of the remarks made by Deputy Currie in relation to its genesis. It is disingenuous of the Minister not to refer to the Bill's origins. I am glad that the Children's Rights Alliance, in its press statement, recognised that the groundwork for this legislation was done by the rainbow Government in December 1996, in particular by the then Minister with responsibility for children, Deputy Currie.

In January 1998, the UN committee on the rights of the child drew attention to the fact that we did not have an office of an ombudsman here to uphold and promote the rights of children and their protection. The Minister announced her intention to set up such an office. That office was promised by her predecessor in 1999 and again in November 2000 with the launch of the children's strategy. It is only now, in the middle of 2002, that we are getting around to debating the Bill.

Six years have passed since this legislation was first promised and the Minister has not done much to boast about in the intervening period. Today's Ireland is not a particularly good place to be for children or young people. I am not saying this purely as an Opposition spokesperson. Many independent surveys have been done showing comparisons between the life opportunities and life chances of young people in Ireland and those in other countries and we come out badly in all of them. We have the highest rate of alcohol use among 15 and 16 year olds and the highest rate of drug use among 15 year olds. We have an exceptionally high rate of youth suicide, especially among males. We have a high pregnancy rate among single girls. We have serious problems with educational disadvantage. If the Minister of State had attended the meeting held yesterday in the Mansion House with a group made up of principals of disadvantaged schools in the Dublin area, she would have heard first hand how bad things are on the education front for a great number of children here in the Dublin City area.

In many ways this is a very difficult time for young people. A damning report that came out yesterday showed that we are not making any progress in terms of early school leaving. Children are still dropping out at the same unacceptably high rates. The school system is simply not responding to the needs of children from poorer communities.

However, it is not only those from poorer communities about whom I am concerned but young people generally. When we consider the rate of under age drinking, for example, we can see that the State, which should have a role in protecting children and protecting childhood, has reneged on its duties completely. Legislation on this issue is inadequately enforced. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a great deal of the fact that he had introduced a new law in July 2000 to curb under age drinking. There is no doubt that it would have been a strong law if it had been enforced. However, not a single pub in the Dublin area has been closed for selling alcohol to people who are under age.

All the Members would agree that one of the biggest problems in our constituencies, in urban areas and also in parts of rural Ireland, is the rate of under age drinking. That the Garda are incapable of enforcing the law adequately to deal with the problem sends out a very clear message to young people: that we as adults, legislators and authorities, do not really care about their welfare. We do not care enough to ensure that a clear focus is put on the problem and that they are protected from themselves when it comes to the use and abuse of alcohol. That record of lack of enforcement is a serious indictment of this Government in relation to the needs of children.

When it comes to under age working a clear message is also being sent to children that nobody is too pushed about their interests. One of the biggest problems in many schools is that students as young as 13 and 14 are working weekends, evenings and late at night. Many schools now have less than 50% attendance on a Monday morning and very often many of the pupils are gone by lunch time on a Friday to their part-time jobs. One of the biggest problems being raised by school principals is the manner in which part-time work interferes with children's schooling and the manner in which having a part-time job, working late at night and being paid, in many cases, substantial amounts of money, gives young people access to a very adult kind of lifestyle, which has a huge impact on their lives and on their education.

There is no desire on the part of anybody in Government to tackle this problem. It is quite obvious that the needs of employers, in terms of having access to low-paid workers – people who are prepared to work in circumstances which are often unsafe and against the law – take precedence over the rights of children to their childhood. Only a handful of inspectors are responsible for enforcing the legislation which pertains to young people working. The Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Acts do not operate as a protection for young people. An increasing number of young people are being sacrificed for a booming economy. They are being provided with the opportunity of earning large amounts of money and nobody is stepping in to stop it.

One of the most pressing concerns among parents is the extraordinary increase in the level of street violence, which is very often completely unprovoked. It is hard to meet a parent nowadays who does not recall some story about their sons or daughter being attacked mindlessly on the street coming home from a football match or a meeting with friends. Children are being beaten up just for the sake of it. Anybody who is remotely different – a child who is quiet, a young person who may be gay or have dark skin, anyone whose family is in any way different – becomes the target of young people who have learned how to bully in our society. I spoke to a mother this morning who told me about how her eight year old child had been beaten up on three occasions in the past six months. We are talking about an eight year old – a very quiet child who was simply a little bit different to the bullies living around him.

I spoke to a parent last night who told me about his son who was beaten up, along with his friend, when coming home from a football match in Glasnevin at eight o'clock the other night. They were unlucky – one of their mobile phones rang as they were passing a gang and the gang heard the phone, decided they wanted it and beat up the two young teenagers. That was at eight o'clock at night. In my constituency last Sunday week, when the tragic deaths of the two gardaí occurred, three stolen cars were driven around at speed and eventually burnt out, to the horror of the intimidated residents. The day after the two gardaí were killed I was out in my constituency and came across a fairly horrific scene. A car had been driven up a long road with a bend and had gone out of control knocking down a tree and a telegraph pole, including all the cable providing electricity to the houses. It had jack-knifed, somersaulted and landed on its roof. A child described as being about 12 or 13 crawled out, limped away and escaped. That was at 3.30 p.m. It was pure chance that no children were playing on that footpath at the time. I do not know what condition the driver of the car was in and nobody ever will because he is gone and nobody is following up on it.

On a regular basis, through questions in the House, I try to get the attention of the Minister of State for particularly difficult child welfare cases. Her replies to those questions and her comments when introducing this Bill and her comments that frequently appear in the media lead me to believe that she is living on a different planet to the rest of us. She is very good at trotting out the figures about how much extra she is spending and how she has issued guidelines and produced reports. That is all very well but it is really only window dressing. I wonder if she has any clue what it is like to live in communities where people live in fear of youths who are out of control. Recent tragic events have drawn media and political attention to these problems, but they have existed for years without being addressed. Public representatives have drawn attention to them, but no great interest has been shown by the Government or the media. By and large, such problems affect the children of the poor and we can be sure that if poor people receive little political attention, their children receive even less.

One wonders how these social problems have been allowed to get out of control. I am sure Deputies who represent Dublin and other urban areas agree that the main item on the agenda at public meetings is trouble caused in communities by young people. Citizens do not want to have park benches, green areas or telephone boxes located near them as they fear that gangs will begin to congregate in their vicinity.

Mr. Durkan

That is right.

Ms Shortall

Very little is done when gangs start to engage in threatening behaviour and intimidate people.

We do not have sufficient community gardaí. The community garda service seems to be the lowest priority within the force, even though it is the service most demanded by the public. Community gardaí are the first to be removed from their roles if other work, such as escorting prisoners, needs to be done. Many communities do not have a regular community garda who they can get to know. The idea of a community garda service is based on local gardaí working with local people, getting to know local families, nipping problems in the bud when young people start to get into trouble and ensuring that the cycle of crime is stopped by working with parents and others. This process cannot work, however, as sufficient numbers of gardaí are not available in urban areas.

What can be done by the Garda Síochána if cases are pursued? I have had a great deal of contact with the Garda in my constituency and I appreciate that many members of the force work long hours to pursue children who cause trouble, such as persistent joyriders or those often on the streets after midnight. Many of these young people do not have a parent at home; they get involved with drink and drugs and cause nuisance in their areas. They may have dropped out of school at a young age. The Garda Síochána processes individual cases and refers those involved to juvenile liaison officers, who may try to encourage involvement in youth clubs or similar activities. When a child has clocked up 20 or 25 offences and it is felt that there is a strong legal case, preparations may begin to put matters in the hands of the courts. A custodial sentence in a secure place may be sought for the safety of the child and the community. More often than not, however, the police force is given a slap in the face from the juvenile criminal justice system, as judges in the Children's Court place offenders on probation rather than delivering a custodial sentence.

I wonder why judges choose to return young offenders to their communities. Is there a vast gulf between the lives of judges and those they encounter in their courts? Judges sometimes feel sorry for children and decide that they deserve another chance, rather than placing them in custodial care. They are loath to give a custodial sentence in the knowledge that there are no places, as they feel there is no point in going through the charade of giving a 12 month sentence if it cannot be served. Judges are unwilling to ask a garda to accompany a young offender to Oberstown House or Trinity House as they know they will be turned away at the door. It is a bad lesson to send out to young people involved in crime or on the verge of becoming involved in crime. It is wrong that serious offenders who have accumulated 25 or 30 charges and who have attracted publicity should be allowed to return to their communities to give the fingers to all levels of authority. It is quite likely that they will drive recklessly in a stolen car that night. It is quite clear that there is no deterrent in the present system as many young people see themselves as untouchable and invincible. They can quite openly give the fingers to authority by gathering more and more of their peers into their gangs. The State has no way of dealing with these problems.

These troubled and troublesome children should not have been allowed to get out of control. The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, and others often make the case for early intervention and argue that extra secure places are therefore not needed, but prevention and early intervention services do not seem to exist. As they observe newborn children and their parents in maternity wards, doctors and nurses can often predict with a fair deal of accuracy those who will end up in the care of the State, one way or another, within ten or 15 years. Teachers can tell which children are likely to get into trouble by looking at them at the age of four or five when they start school. As politicians, we often encounter parents at our clinics with a child in a pram and another getting in the way and we can bet that some of them are likely to end up in the care of the State. Assistance is needed at a very young age.

No single Department is charged with administering a system of family support. We know that €1 spent on an infant will save €7 later in his or her life, but no Department is willing to take on the responsibility. Many pilot projects and voluntary groups, sometimes run by religious orders, in our constituencies are trying to put in place a system of family support services. It is obvious that such services are needed to deal with the problem of juvenile crime. Families need to be helped when they are struggling at an early stage, as it becomes clear that a parent is dysfunctional, possibly as a result of not having experienced decent care in his or her childhood. Families become seriously dysfunctional when the problems of parents, themselves the product of families which did not operate properly and in which alcohol or drug abuse and domestic violence may have been commonplace, are passed on to a second generation. If parents did not experience satisfactory care as children, it is probable that they will continue the cycle by not knowing how to care for their own children. The State's duty in such instances is to provide support, education and practical assistance so parents can provide basic care for their children, but this duty is not being met.

The service provided by public health nurses for young children is another part of the safety net. In many parts of Dublin, however, there is no public health service. There are no developmental checks in many working class areas as public service doctors and nurses are in short supply. Nobody is intervening on behalf of the State when children are born into homes where mothers cannot cope and where there are serious concerns about a lack of nourishment and a failure to thrive.

The next line of defence should be the social work service, but such a service is non-existent in many areas.

Mr. Durkan

I agree.

Ms Shortall

The social work service, as it operates at present, is a disgrace. I have to say that the failure of the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, and senior Ministers to tackle this problem is a similar disgrace. Nothing has been done in the past five years to tackle the dire shortage of social workers. We have approximately 3,000 children on waiting lists for social workers. These are cases of suspicion of sexual and physical abuse, serious neglect, family dysfunction or undernourishment, which all seriously affect children's lives. It is no wonder that those children, who are often left in dangerous circumstances, grow up to believe the State does not care about them, and that if they are in difficulty, or being abused in some way, they must fight their own corner. Many end up fighting just to survive and become the people who bully others on the street, are disruptive in school, and beat up others because they feel so badly about themselves. The Minister of State has left them to their own devices by her failure to address the serious shortage of social workers.

In my area on the north side of Dublin, there are 12,000 children waiting for a social worker. In area seven, which is important in terms of child welfare, as Deputy Fitzgerald knows, and covers Ballymun and the north inner city, there are supposed to be 120 social workers but there are 51 vacancies. For the past two weeks, there has been no duty social worker in Ballymun. This means that in cases where, as often happens, a child is not collected from primary school because the parents have forgotten, are asleep or high, or for whatever reason, the school principal must take care of the child until late in the afternoon. The normal thing is to ring the duty social worker but there is none in Ballymun. If the Garda pick up a child who is homeless and sleeping rough, who might be strung out on drugs or out of his or her head on drink, they try to contact a social work service that is not there. That is the reality of what this Government has done in the past five years. It has left an increasing number of children to their own devices.

The incident last week resulting in the deaths of two gardaí is an example of the regular occurrences of joyriding and intimidation, under age drinking and other huge social problems that afflict many working class communities. The Government has allowed them to develop through its inaction and failure to recognise the importance of providing child welfare and protection services in the areas where they are most needed. There is little or no planning to provide proper social work services. A person needs about 540 points to get into Trinity College to do a degree in social work, and every year the places on the course are over-subscribed about tenfold because there is no match between the number of training places and the demand for social workers. The Minister of State is introducing an Act which will require at least 250 additional social workers to implement it, as she stated in a press release last week, but there is no hope of doing that for the next five years as the staff are not there. The Eastern Regional Health Authority is attempting to recruit staff in the United States and Denmark to deal with our serious indigenous child welfare cases.

Non-attendance at school is one of the first indications of problems at home. Three years after the Dáil passed the Act on education welfare, the Government has not employed one additional school attendance officer. There is only a school attendance service in Dublin, Cork and Waterford, while in the rest of the country, it is the responsibility of the Garda, which cannot do that job.

Mr. Currie

A situation that goes back to 1926.

Ms Shortall

Not a single additional school attendance officer has been appointed since that Act.

There are now fewer places in the five special schools – the detention centres – than there were five years ago. There are 30 places unfilled and the Minister uses the excuse that they are being refurbished, but, in some centres, units were refurbished and then smashed up requiring refurbishment again because of the chaotic situation there. The Minister is not examining what approach is being taken by the staff in the centres. There is little managerial responsibility being taken by the Department regarding what actually happens. There are problems recruiting qualified staff and many have left, 80 from Finglas in the past two years, for example, with the result that young offenders, whose lives are chaotic because of their upbringing and the State's failure to intervene, are out on the street. If they are lucky, they get a place in a special school, but they go into another chaotic situation. Those children most of all need order in their lives and a proper ethos in the centres to restore order for them. They need people who realise that this may be the one opportunity to salvage a child from the criminal justice system for life, but that is not the case. Instead, we see the children increasingly running these centres themselves knowing that they only have to threaten to beat up staff or to smash up the place in order to get indulged with whatever they want. There is no ethos of expecting any kind of normal behaviour from these children and no one in the Department of Education and Science accepts responsibility for this state of affairs.

The Minister of State often talks about extra places, including today again, and her colleague, Deputy O'Dea, spoke of these at the weekend. We are told that we have 24 new places in Ballydowd, but it took a long time to get Ballydowd off the ground. In theory, there are 24 places, but I would like the Minister of State to confirm that there have not been more than eight children there because there is not enough staff and they are unable to control the children. There are six there at present, while huge numbers of children come before the courts desperately in need of secure places which are not available because no one has taken charge of the situation. The Minister of State prefers the more pleasant aspects of this area such as launching reports and issuing guidelines, but will not dirty her hands to deal with the real issues that affect these places such as how they are run, the ethos that prevails, and ensuring that there are enough staff to run them. We have a large number of temporary, part-time, inexperienced and, in many cases, clueless staff attempting to deal with the most difficult children, and very often failing. Low self-esteem is then reinforced in these children, as is the view that they are invincible and that no one gives a damn about them. They come out tougher, greater bullies, more determined to beat the system.

I will have more to say about this Bill tomorrow, but will say now that this Government's legacy in terms of children's services and welfare is absolutely disgraceful. We have a crisis right across children's services and I welcome the fact that we will have an ombudsman to deal with these problems as we cannot depend on good will or enthusiasm from this Government to ensure that children's rights are upheld. The Government has failed abysmally in that regard and I hope the person who is appointed to this important office will take the Government seriously to task about the neglect of the past five years.

Mr. Durkan

The passage of legislation to facilitate the appointment of an Ombudsman for Children is an important milestone as such an office has been needed for a considerable time. It has been on the stocks for an exceptionally long time and I hope that when the position is created there will be benefits but, like previous speakers, I have reservations and doubts.

I sometimes wonder whether the Government is clued into what is happening outside the House at all. Is the position of children recognised? We throw up our hands and are appalled at an atrocity carried out by youngsters who should have been cared for and should have been elsewhere and we ask why something was not done for them. As Deputy Shortall mentioned, services should be provided and there should be intervention at a crucial time in the life of a child to protect him or her and his or her family to ensure they are given a reasonable chance in life. However, they have no chance in some cases. They have the choice of a life of crime or nothing and I cannot understand why it takes so long for the message to get through to Government.

I have repeatedly raised the issue of detention places for juvenile offenders. It has been raised in the courts on a daily basis for the past 20 years. The Government and the Minister of State are aware the need in this area has increased on an annual basis and will continue to increase. What is being done? Ministers rush around in a frenzy after tragic events and make token announcements that extra places will be provided as if this will solve the problem. What has gone wrong? Why can the message not get through? Why must the issue always fall between stools? It involves the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform but there are too many cooks. Everybody and nobody has responsibility.

On the streets of an average size town, hordes of young people congregate at street corners at night because they have nothing to do. These young thugs should not be there because they will get involved in drug taking. The Government and Minister of State do nothing to divert them from such activity and social workers are not called in to help these children. Many young fellows partake in illegal skateboarding in paved areas and on roads. They are not provided with custom built facilities to cater for their needs. That is fair enough because skateboarding is a passing fad. However, young people are not provided with alternative facilities nor has anything been learned from the past.

A function of the ombudsman will be to examine and investigate complaints against public bodies which should be fun. When all the public bodies charged with the responsibility of providing facilities and services are investigated, the ombudsman will have a field day.

I refer to social deprivation and the quality of housing and the circumstances of a child living in such an environment. What chance does the child have of survival? He or she has little opportunity to attend school and, subsequently, take up employment because everything is stacked against him or her. Conditions in certain estates are absolutely appalling. I am shocked when I walk through housing developments where the conditions are comparable to the worst in the world and the saddest aspect of this is that it is happening when Ireland is supposed to be among the ten wealthiest countries in the world and is supposed to have the best facilities. We sashay around the world showing off about how intelligent we are, how many resources we have and how much better than everybody else we are but we should look around the deprived areas of Dublin and ask ourselves what chance we are giving the next generation when they leave school, if they attend at all.

This Bill, like a number of others, is a last minute effort and I do not know whether the ombudsman will resolve the problems in this area. Will he or she be able to challenge those with the responsibility of providing necessary services in the modern world?

Deputy Shortall mentioned the question of social workers. All of us are aware of domestic circumstances where the services of social workers are required almost on a daily basis to at least give the family moral support so that family members will have someone to whom they can refer their problems. However, public representatives are now in the business of providing support where the State has failed to provide it. In years gone by, health boards attempted to identify the children or families that were at risk and provide a support service to advise them on various issues, which would help them and, hopefully, the next generation.

Oddly, in the 1980s when Ireland had no resources, such a service was provided but it has ceased because no money is being invested in this area. Priorities have changed. It is our priority to boast that we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world with the highest economic growth rate and so on. That is positive, welcome and important but the development of services to support those experiencing social and economic deprivation should have gone hand in hand with that. Failure to do so will affect the quality of life not only of those directly involved but also of society in general. That is why we have experienced the problems that have come to the fore recently although everybody has turned around and pointed the finger at everybody else and said something should be done. There are ways and means to do so and investing time is the most important factor.

Previous speakers referred to the lack of public health nurses. I find it frustrating that the emphasis on the provision of adequate staff in public health nursing appears to have gone by the wayside. It is as if the Government has decided this service is a luxury we cannot afford and that it will not fund it because there are other areas it has identified as priorities. Both public health nursing and social workers can contribute greatly towards stabilising those in society in need of constant support until they can help themselves.

We have learned in public life that, if a person in difficulty can be provided with a stable environment, a good home in which he or she can feel safe and the prospect of a job, that person can be brought to a position of helping him or herself and participating in the competitive market. However, if we do not do any of these and remove all props, not only will that person pay the price, society will as well. I do not understand why these props are removed.

The quality of assistance in mainstream education for children with special needs in light of the quality of the contracts and terms of employment of special needs teachers is another huge area where there are vast gaps in the system by any standards, be they European or other international standards or ours, given that we purport to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world which is in the business of providing the best services. Surely in this climate we should be able to provide, if not the best, then very close to it. Why has the Government not done that? After almost five years of working on it, it has not produced anything. Again, it is a question of priorities.

A former Taoiseach once said about certain aspects of the public service that he did not think it was that bad. I regret having to tell members of the Government parties that it is bad and especially in the area to which the legislation refers. They will discover that in no uncertain terms in the next few weeks. Some critical and urgent effort should be made by the Government in these areas between now and the day of the general election to provide the type of service and back-up required to address the issues encompassed in the legislation.

All of us have cases to which we can refer which have been brought to our attention by constituents. We tend to avoid publicising them in deference to the people concerned. We have been repeatedly called upon to intercede on behalf of people who suffer from deprivation. No group in society is more affected by such conditions than children. From the time they become conscious of what is happening around them, it takes them time to recognise that they are not the wealthiest or the most affluent, that they do not live in the best conditions and that one or both of their parents or some or all of their family are addicted to drugs. It also takes them a little longer to work out the options open and available to them. I am sure that, given average intelligence, they come to the conclusion that there is not much for them.

It is high time that there was not only an Ombudsman for Children but also a serious examination of the quality of life of children from playschool or primary school to second level to try to understand the obstacles in their way and the formative activities which take place around them, and to try to intervene on their behalf rather than against them, which is what happens at present. They know society is against them, even though they know in many cases that what they do is wrong. As previous speakers said, they are bullying their way through society. Despite this, they must have thought at some stage of the options available. If they did, they would have worked out that they were not good.

If I were asked to identify the issues which have a bearing on the welfare of children, their families and society, it would be those to which I and others have referred in the debate, such as housing conditions, job opportunities, the possibility of continuing in school to achieve a job and the possibility of feeling that there was some respect for them or recognition of their plight. That is not just recognition in the form of words but also in the form of intervention on their behalf to do something about their circumstances. This has been discussed in the House on many occasions.

It saddens me when I do my usual rounds at the weekend to find two parents who must live in separate houses, renting at a high cost with one receiving a subvention from the health board. They cannot live together because, if their circumstances were to change, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs would penalise them heavily on suspicion of co-habiting. In fact the husband and wife may only just be visiting each other. This means the only option these people have is to live apart. It is the only way they can survive. This is the way they are treated by one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. Even the most basic societies encourage the family, yet we in this country discourage the family. Couples are forced apart and then we complain about single mothers. It is extraordinary.

These are not isolated cases. They happen regularly and we deal with them every week, although we can do very little for them. It takes about five years to get a local authority house, in which case people are delighted because they can be independent and go to work and can tell the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs that it cannot pursue them anymore because they are legitimate, can live together, get married and have a family. What type of crazy situation are we presiding over? One would not have to be an Einstein to work out that this equation does not add up. The system does not meet the requirements of society in so far as children and families are concerned.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin)

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this Second Stage debate. While I do not welcome all their comments, I am pleased that they all welcome this important legislation. I acknowledge that the Bill had its genesis in 1996 and, like every other Member, I wish it could have come before the House at an earlier date. However, had it come forward earlier, it would have been exactly the same as the 1980 Ombudsman Act and would not have been as extensive as it is now. It took much negotiation and work on the part of the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that we could include the voluntary bodies, and it would not have been an effective Bill had it not included schools and voluntary hospitals. By taking the time and working through it, today's Bill is stronger and wider in its remit.

The focus of the Ombudsman for Children is to promote and investigate. In light of some of the comments made earlier, I wish to stress that there are many issues that will not be included in the job specifications. The ombudsman will not be in every home or every community and will not be with every child inside or outside his or her home. The ombudsman is not an inspector, a counsellor, a teacher nor a parent, but has a specific role and will be an additional voice to those who already work on behalf of children – Members of this House, people in voluntary organisations and people who work on a daily basis with children constantly advocate their rights. The ombudsman will not solve all of the problems, nor do I accept the view that the ombudsman should have a duty to protect. That is the job of others such as parents. Health boards have a statutory duty and schools and voluntary organisations also have a duty to protect the children in their care and it is not the job of an ombudsman to go down that road as well. Where there are failures in the system or where children have been let down, then the ombudsman can, and will, address those issues and in so doing will be able to provide that extra protection.

Deputy Fitzgerald asked a question in regard to what she perceived to be a ministerial veto but in fact is not such. It applies only to actions by Ministers in regard to the functions assigned to them and relates only to Government bodies. We investigated this provision, which arises from a strong recommendation by an all-party committee on administrative justice in the late 1970s and was included in the 1980 Act, very carefully. Bearing in mind that the 1980 Act is now 22 years old, we went back to the Office of the Ombudsman and asked if it was really necessary to keep this provision. It was seen as a very strong and important protection for that office's independence and its retention was strongly recommended, despite the fact that it has never been used.

Deputy Fitzgerald asked if the extra places being made available by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be covered. They will be automatically covered because those places will be designated by the Minister for Education and Science, and included under that designation. As the Deputy knows, I will be bringing forward an amendment to extend the provision to those who are held in detention in the prison services. In regard to asylum seekers, it is only the administration of the law which is excluded and all other elements are covered under this provision. Unaccompanied minors are in the care of the health boards and are, therefore, automatically covered as health boards are public bodies.

I do not think there were any other specific issues in regard to the actual legislation, but a number of comments were made on the broad area of children. Everybody in this House accepts the importance of early intervention, but we also accept that it is not something that existed for many years. We do not have to look too far back to realise that any child who put a foot out of line was locked up in an institution. We have seen the results and repercussions of that and the long-term devastating effects it has had on people. It is only in recent years that we have come to realise that children and their families need to be protected and that early intervention services must be put in place. That is what we have started to do. There is a commitment to ensure we invest heavily in this area and it is not true to say that is not happening. We have teenage parenting projects, Homestart and Lifestart—

Ms Shortall

They are just pilot projects.

Ms Hanafin

No, they are not. Homestart is not a pilot project. Homestart, Lifestart, the community mothers' scheme, family support workers, pre-school projects, child care projects and the Springboard projects have all been extended throughout the country. We have learned that early intervention works and that is why we have invested so much in family support projects in which we will continue to invest. The children who are out of control now at 15 and 16 years of age did not have such benefits when they were younger.

All of the investment is dependent on having the necessary staff. I accept that there are difficulties recruiting staff but, unlike other Members of the House, I acknowledge the work that is currently being done. For Deputy Shortall to say that the people who are working in the residential centres are clueless is an insult to those staff who are working in extremely difficult situations.

Ms Shortall

I was referring to the temporary unqualified people.

Ms Hanafin

It is very unfortunate that it is not recognised that these people are dealing with very violent young people in very difficult situations. They need our support and encouragement and do not need to be insulted by terms like "clueless".

Ms Shortall

They are unqualified staff.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shortall, you had an opportunity to make your contribution and the Minister of State now has her turn.

Ms Hanafin

We recognise the shortage of staff and recruitment is taking place all over the world. Due to the expansion of our programmes, there are now greater opportunities for qualified staff to work in the community or in residential care. Resourced by Government, the health boards, which have statutory responsibility for this area, have gone as far as South Africa and Scandinavia to try to recruit people. In addition, we have increased the salary scales and put a new career structure and a changed management system in place.

Ms Shortall

Not in education.

Ms Hanafin

Additional places have been made available in colleges to train social workers in the hope that they will stay and work with children, recognising that it is a very challenging area for them but one in which there can be great rewards.

Another factor in improving staff retention is the improvement in buildings which make them more appropriate to the work. For many years, buildings were unsuitable due to size or lack of security but money has been invested in that area. The social services inspectorate is ensuring that the guidelines and standards are met. It is highlighting problems so that everything is being done openly and we are gradually moving towards providing for the people who need residential care. Having moved from early intervention to residential care, we should not forget the huge support that has been provided in the middle for foster families.

Of the 4,000 children in care, some 3,500 are in foster care. We would like to see every child having the love and care of a family, but foster carers provide a home for children who cannot other wise get it. We have made huge progress in working with the Irish Foster Care Association, whose work I acknowledge, and supporting foster families in order that we can give a proper standard of life to children who cannot get it in their own homes.

Deputies raised the issue of alcohol abuse and the quality of life for children. The situation in regard to under age drinking is undoubtedly a serious problem in this country but it is linked to wider issues such as the culture of alcohol that exists here where whatever the occasion, alcohol is the answer. The enforcement of the legislation is hugely important, but the legislation and the power is there to ensure that pubs can be closed. Pubs and off-licences have been closed—

Ms Shortall

Not enough of them.

Ms Hanafin

—and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform introduced very strong legislation to ensure that action can be taken at that level. It will take a great deal more than that, however. It will take a change of attitude among parents who accept that under age drinking is the lesser of two evils given that their children could be on drugs and who do not acknowledge that it is the serious problem it is. It is leading to much of the aggressive behaviour we are seeing on our streets.

With regard to children who are out of control, the Garda has been expanded. At the end of the year there will be 1,200 more gardaí on the streets than there were when the lifetime of this Government began and 2,000 more are promised to ensure that the Garda will be in the community to enforce the legislation. I fully accept that there are children who need to be locked up for their own protection and for the protection of society, but detention has to be a last resort, which is the principle set out in the Children Act. The number of diversionary programmes which have been running hand in hand with the juvenile justice system has been increased from 12 to 64 to cater for much greater numbers of young people. Deputy Shortall criticised the report on early school leavers which was published yesterday and which acknowledges the progress that has been made and that there are now 6,500 young people in youthreach projects. The report also acknowledges the problems that exist, but says the vast majority of the recommendations made in 1997 have been introduced.

Ms Shortall

The problem is that they have not worked.

Ms Hanafin

In 1997 the Government was committed to implementing the recommendations and it did. They have worked in so far as they were meant to and there were other things which were not included in the recommendations of the 1997 report which have also worked. Deputy Durkan referred to resource teachers and special needs assistants of whom there are now 1,500 of the former in the system and 3,000 of the latter working with young people and small children to ensure that they get a break in education. We all acknowledge that by giving it to them early they will get the break later on. The disadvantage schemes have been extended to ensure that giving children an even break ensures that it is not just schools that get funding, but any child who qualifies under the disadvantage system.

Ms Shortall

Is the Minister of State saying there is no problem?

Ms Hanafin

What I am saying is that real progress has been made, but that we are coming from very far behind. We are coming from a time and a culture in which children's rights were not recognised and in which children did not have a voice. If a family had problems, nobody would interfere, protect the children or work with them.

Ms Shortall

Nobody does now.

Ms Hanafin

The attitude has now changed and there is a great deal more to do. I am the first to acknowledge that, but others should acknowledge, as most of the voluntary organisations have, that a huge amount of progress has been made. It has been made with regard to family support, legislative protection and foster and residential care and the presentation of this Bill means further progress is made with the introduction of the Ombudsman for Children.

The rights of children were not considered before, and Deputy Fitzgerald mentioned earlier that she could see a day when we will have a constitutional referendum on the matter. I hope that happens. The thinking of the people would not yet allow such a referendum to pass, but we are getting to that stage. It will take another few years of multi-disciplinary work and of everybody working together. For some time I have been advocating that people at all levels respect the roles of different professions, groups and organisations. Where there is a shortage of social workers, a real contribution can be made by family workers, youth workers, drugs counsellors, teachers and other professionals working together to identify children in need and to work with their families.

We are committed to ensuring that we build on the investment, legislation, progress, standards and strategies set out over the past five years. We are also committed to ensuring that where resources are given to statutory bodies such as the health boards, they are used to most effectively benefit the children whose needs have to be addressed. Deputy Shortall is a very active member of her local health board and as a former chairman knows exactly what the boards can and should do. The Ombudsman for Children is a further step towards giving children a voice. As an independent officer backed by these Houses and appointed by the President, the ombudsman will have a crucial role in ensuring that wrongs are righted and failures are addressed.

Deputy Currie raised the matter of the type of person who will be appointed to this crucially important position. We have to ensure that the calibre of the Ombudsman for Children is such that he or she will garner respect and authority, as well as being able to implement decisions and demand a response. He or she will have to be able to deal with public and voluntary bodies, to work with Government and against it and, more particularly, be able to deal with children, to listen to them, understand them and work to implement their views. On top of being able to fulfil the role, the Ombudsman for Children will have to be someone who cares and believes that children matter, like every Member of the House – certainly those who spoke today. Much is done for them, but there is an awful lot more to do to ensure that they get the protection and quality of life we want for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24 April 2002.

Sitting suspended at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 23 Apr 2002

Ombudsman for Children Bill, 2002 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 2002