I wish to share time with Deputy Mary Upton.
Child Protection: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Alan Shatter on Tuesday, 27 January 2008:
"That Dáil Éireann:
expressing its serious concern at:
the shocking and disturbing revelations of neglect and physical and sexual abuse suffered by six children in Roscommon; and
the failure of the Western Health Board to appropriately intervene at an early stage;
calls on the Government to:
appoint an independent commission pursuant to the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 to examine all of the family circumstances relating to the six Roscommon children whose mother was convicted of incest and other offences of child abuse and neglect in Roscommon Circuit Court on Wednesday, 21st January, 2009;
ensure that such investigation has specific regard to the actions and child protection practices and procedures of:
the former Western Health Board and the Health Service Executive;
all school and religious authorities and personnel who had contact with the children;
doctors and nurses who had contact with the children; and in addition
has regard to the actions, if any, of other relevant persons and organisations which affected the approach taken by the Western Health Board or who were in a position to report child neglect or abuse;
ensure that the terms of reference of the commission also require it to investigate the action taken by Government and more particularly by successive Ministers for Health and Children and Ministers for Children to ensure the effective implementation of the Children First Child Protection Guidelines of 1999, and to implement the outstanding relevant recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald, published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Family in April 1996; and
ensure that the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Children both take all necessary and immediate action to ensure that all children at risk receive the protection to which they are entitled under our current law and that our Child Protection Guidelines are effectively and uniformly implemented throughout the State."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"in expressing its deepest concern at the circumstances surrounding the case of incest, severe child abuse and neglect involving six children heard before Roscommon Circuit Court last week:
welcomes the HSE's setting up of an independent inquiry into these appalling events to:
examine the entire management of the case from a care perspective;
identify any shortcomings-deficits in the care management process; and
make a report on the findings and learning arising from the investigation;
acknowledges the extremely difficult and complex work carried out by HSE staff in the area of child protection in particular;
recognises the HSE's work to reform child and family services which includes commitments to:
put in place national standards relating to social work and its practice; and
work with the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to advance social work practice and organisational reform in the context of the Government's overall policy for children's services — the ‘Agenda for Children Services';
acknowledges the steps being taken by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in co-ordinating and leading policy development and actions to bring about improvements in the delivery of services for children within its specific policy remit and across the public service;
commends investments in the provision of services for children which have been made by recent Governments since 1997; and
commends the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, chaired by Mrs. Mary O'Rourke, T.D., and, in particular, the recommendation included in the committee's interim report of 11 September 2008 with regard to the preparation and publication of legislation to give legal authority for the collection and exchange of information concerning the risk or the occurrence of endangerment, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children."
—(Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who said in the House last night that we should, if at all possible, be able to agree, as legislators, on how we respond to this dreadful case and to other cases of child abuse that, unfortunately, we have heard about over the years. Deputy Howlin referred to the Kilkenny incest case which occurred in 1993 and to the recommendations of the resulting report. Unfortunately, that report bears a great deal of resemblance to what will come out, quite possibly, from the recommendations of the investigative group that has just been established under the direction of Norah Gibbons in respect of the dreadful case in Roscommon.
Since the Kilkenny incest case in 1993, we have had the Kelly Fitzgerald case and Sophia McColgan's book, which would cause anybody's heart to go out to that family and commend the courage of Sophia McColgan and her siblings. Unfortunately, their story is very much replicated in many aspects of the current story. These children were crying out for help, and although they were in school, and in hospital on one or two occasions, there was no intervention for many years.
Reference has just been made to the Louise O'Keeffe case. I understand the State is going after Louise O'Keeffe for costs even though she was abused in a national school. While teachers are paid by the State, the actual management of the school is not the State's and, therefore, nobody appears willing to take responsibility. We have also had the Ferns case, the Cloyne diocese case and the Dublin diocese is shortly to report. The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland, SAVI, report, indicates that more than a quarter of men and women have experienced some level of sexual abuse yet we do not appear to be making any kind of progress in regard to these dreadful issues.
As legislators, we must look at ourselves and ask what we can do as a society. We cannot simply become outraged every time there is a case like this when we have not seen any significant progress since the Kilkenny incest case back in 1993. We must ensure that we act, whether that be in terms of changing the Constitution, introducing the legislation that has been recommended, particularly in regard to so-called soft information for the protection of children, or in general updating our legislation with regard to the protection of children. Otherwise, we will have a repetition of these cases.
We need to amend the Constitution, or at least we need to put to the people an amendment to the Constitution to protect children. The heart of this issue is the balance between the rights of the family and the rights of the individual child. We must grasp that nettle, and we must come down in favour of the rights of the child. There is a long-established core of support for the family in Ireland. We need to make a cultural shift in order to ensure the protection of children. We need to ensure the protection of the child is the most important issue with regard to these cases. Until we do that, we will have the kind of delays we see in terms of intervention where it is obviously right for the children to be taken out of the family home. Whether a child is being abused by a stranger, a schoolteacher, a priest, a family member or anybody else, we must be absolutely clear that it is the welfare of the child that counts.
We need to take these measures quickly. We have done a huge amount of research into this area. I was a member of the last All-Party Committee on the Constitution which considered the rights of children. We have had enough debate, consultation and consideration. We must act now in the interests of children.
I welcome the fact Ms Norah Gibbons is the person in charge of this group. I welcome also the statement she made which indicated she could expand her committee, that she felt she had the appropriate powers and that she could, if necessary, bring in more expertise. We need to ensure there is full confidence in this investigative group but the most important point is not just to find out what has gone wrong but to learn from it and do something positive and real to protect children in the future.
In the course of this debate, it has been reiterated that child protection is everyone's concern. While that is easily stated, it is primarily the responsibility of the State to ensure the services and facilities are in place to leave it beyond any doubt that children are protected. None of us believes there is a simple formula or set of procedures that can be cast in stone and put in place to ensure there will never again be a case of child abuse or neglect. However, there are simple procedures that, given everything we have heard, need to reconsidered, restated and reinforced. We must tackle the legislation and find what needs to be done to ensure every possible procedure that can be activated to ensure children are safeguarded is in place.
The horrific events in Roscommon are of a nature and scale that I had hoped we would never have to hear or read about again. There is nothing any of us in this House can say that will change the awful conditions and circumstances for those children and the impact this is sure to have on them. All we can hope for is that all the services and facilities that are now available to them will be put in place efficiently and sensibility to ensure they do not suffer more.
It is a fair observation that there are many other cases of child abuse out there in families and communities. They may not be of the same scale or extreme but child neglect and abuse is certainly still occurring in many homes and communities. It is too late for the children we have referred to in Roscommon to be protected but their future welfare must be dealt with and supported in every possible way. For the other children out there who are still potentially at risk, every support and intervention that is necessary and available should be put in place and provided for. Whatever about the economy and cuts, there is absolutely no set of circumstances in which penny-pinching should apply when it comes to the welfare of children.
What services are required? Is the Minister satisfied, for example, that there are enough social workers available to deal with the potential number of cases? Are there enough resources to ensure social workers at the coalface are given every legal back-up needed to allow them to carry out their responsibilities? Is the Minister satisfied the children of parents who are known to have alcohol problems or drug-related addiction, for example, are given the support or, if necessary, the intervention to protect their welfare?
On a number of previous occasions in the House, I raised from a slightly different perspective an issue that concerns me, namely, the situation of at-risk children who are safe and secure when they attend school but who return home to a dysfunctional environment where there is no order, security or food. These are children who only know fear, neglect and violence. Perhaps these cases are not as acute as those involving the Roscommon children but, undoubtedly, they leave many innocent children damaged, neglected and harmed by the failure of a parent to cope and, in turn, the failure of the State to put in place the supports and interventions that are needed, call them what one wants.
There is a need. We are all aware of situations, although we perhaps cannot categorically say there is a problem. However, there are people at the coalface whose responsibility it is to ensure those kinds of events are tackled and that the environment and conditions are changed to ensure the security and safety of those children. When we do not intervene and put in supports, we wonder later on why we have damaged children, teenagers and young adults who resort to drug abuse, crime and anti-social behaviour and drop out of school. Perhaps the investment we require now to tackle this problem seems major, but in the long term if we do not get to grips with this issue and invest whatever resources it takes to make their lives safe and secure, everybody, particularly those children, will pay an incalculable price.
It has been a horrific saga for the children who suffered in the Roscommon case. It is crucial the review of this case is independent, thorough and prompt. I welcome the appointment of Ms Norah Gibbons to chair the committee.
I call the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran. I understand he is sharing time with the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and Deputies Mary O'Rourke, Niall Blaney and Niall Collins.
As one who represents the constituency where the national focus has centred, I can say we are all deeply troubled by the severe maltreatment, sexual violation, emotional devastation and extreme neglect which have surfaced in this case. There is no doubt that on whatever side of the House we sit, the health and well-being of our children is something about which each of us cares deeply. The history of abuse in this case is extensive and appalling. This is a painful and deeply disturbing tragedy that has left us shocked and saddened and we are still trying to understand how such levels of degradation and deprivation could occur in our midst over such a prolonged period of time.
As a society, we must teach our children that they are valued and teach them to value others also. To paraphrase an American spokesperson on the issue, namely, Ms Tipper Gore, we must turn our national consensus on abuse prevention into a national conscience, where every member of our society nurtures the fact that our children are the most precious resource we have, and we all have a stake in ensuring they receive the care and support they need. It takes more than good government and public servants; it takes good people on the streets working every day to reach out and help those who are least able to help themselves.
The Roscommon case highlights the need to examine existing legislation and child protection procedures. The decision of the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, to launch an immediate, independent investigation to examine the management of the case and to compile a report on its findings is the most sensitive and expeditious way of dealing with these issues.
It is imperative that we establish the facts holistically. We cannot fix a system without simultaneously addressing every interconnected problem, and we cannot implement any legislative changes until this is achieved. The appointment of Ms Norah Gibbons, director of advocacy for Barnardos, to chair the inquiry, along with Ms Leonie Lunny, former chief executive with the Citizens Information Board, and two senior Health Services Executive staff is the most effective way to get the facts as soon as possible. It must be understood that the appointment of two senior HSE staff is a platform to ensure that the team will have complete access to the HSE system and staff, up to and including the chief executive. The investigation team will have access to independent legal advice, which will be available throughout the investigation. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, also has the right to carry out any further investigation where he deems it necessary.
It is part of the duties of a civil society to protect vulnerable citizens and others from harm, and I believe the appointed team will compile a transparent and conclusive report which will enable us to implement the legislation and corrective measures that have come to our attention in such a terrible manner.
The terms of reference for the investigation team are to identify any shortcomings in the care management process, to examine the entire management of the case from a care perspective and to make a report on the findings within six months, should there be no unforeseeable obstructions. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, fully reserves the right to carry out any further investigations necessary.
As parents, teachers, health care professionals, Government officials and concerned citizens, we must take responsibility through collaborative efforts to reach out to those at risk. Everyone must be part of the solution. Unfortunately, not every child in Ireland is raised in a safe and loving home. More often than we realise, children become the victims of abuse and neglect from the very people they should be able to trust. We must further educate children to avoid situations where abuse can occur and not to fear the authorities who are entrusted with their interests. As a community, we need to be diligent and observant and we must be intelligent and effective in that regard. Child care protection and welfare guidelines must be implemented in full and they must be implemented consistently throughout the country. This horrific case has shown us that we must think of children in every policy decision we make and implement to ensure that this cannot happen again in our society.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The revelations surrounding the case heard in the Roscommon Circuit Court last week have shocked all of us and have placed a focus on child protection. It is important that we keep in mind our deep concern, as the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Michael Finneran, has done, regarding the circumstances of the case of incest, severe child abuse and neglect involving six children heard before the court in Roscommon last week. I join the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, in welcoming the establishment by the HSE of an independent inquiry into these appalling events. The function of the inquiry is to examine the entire management of the case from a care perspective, to identify shortcomings and deficits in the care management process and to make a report on the findings and learning arising from the investigation.
To properly examine the issue we must be mindful of the work being done by the Government. This includes the work of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the HSE and the many developments of recent years in this area. The Childcare Act 1991 and Children Act 2001 form the backbone of child protection legislation in Ireland. The Childcare Act 1991 places a legal obligation on the HSE to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and attention. The primary emphasis of the Act is to provide services aimed at prevention and early intervention and, where possible, supporting children in their family situations and in the community. In the case of serious problems as judged by professional social workers, appropriate, alternative care services which place children outside of the home are provided. The Act allows for a child at risk to be taken into care on a voluntary basis, or pursuant to a court order. As well as supervision, interim and full care orders, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive, the Act provides for urgent intervention by the Garda under section 12 and by the HSE under section 13. However, in serious cases of neglect or abuse, it may prove necessary to take children out of dysfunctional home environments. Social workers must make these difficult judgments and it is the responsibility of everyone to report concerns so that appropriate responses can be made to reduce risk and address the need. It is important that such reports are dealt with in a timely and effective manner.
There are a range of key child welfare and protection policy documents and related documents. These include the national children strategy, the Children First guidelines, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, most recently, the agenda for children services. That document represents the overarching policy document of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and was launched in December 2007. It requires a focus on outcomes and integrated service delivery.
In recent years there has been a re-balancing and readjustment of child welfare services towards early intervention and support for families to reduce the numbers of children who may become dependent on State care. This reflects the policy of emphasising a preventive and supportive approach to child welfare. In many cases, this is done in partnership with agencies where the focus is on building capacity in vulnerable communities. The springboard family support programme, a specific example of this policy, is designed to improve the well-being of children and families in Ireland. All springboard projects have a general strategy of being openly available to all families, parents and children in their communities in addition to a more specific strategy of working intensively with those who are most vulnerable.
The HSE is aware of the need to work with well-defined information and evidence and not with unconfirmed anecdote. It realises the need to ensure that the evidence used is robust and valid. However, recent instances of social work reform have shown the importance to success of communication and timely flows of commonly understood shared information.
The child care information project, which is initially implementing the standard assessment and referral methods and, thereafter, will progress to improve standardised national child protection procedures is very important in this area. This project and other initiatives, such as the review of the Children First child protection guidelines and the publication by the HSE of the child protection framework, will work with the knowledge management strategy for child welfare and protection. They will ensure availability of better information and improved communication.
I am confident that my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, and the HSE can together significantly improve and better integrate child welfare and protection services for all children who need them. The work I have described indicates how much is being done to realise this objective. However, everyone has a role to play in identifying difficulties and notifying the appropriate authorities in an effective and timely manner to deal with such reports to ensure the protection of all children everywhere.
I am pleased to contribute to this debate. Before discussing the main part of the issue, I wish to state how we abhor what occurred in this rural village in a rural county in Ireland. The depravity which it exhibited is forever etched in our minds. However, I am very much afraid that outrage fades. People may be outraged today, but then a fresh disaster may arise, whether it be something of this nature or something of a more technical nature. If this occurs, then the utter depravity of what we have heard in the courts last week can fade from our minds and, with that, the urgency which should accompany the investigation into those awful acts may fade also.
This was not merely depravity, as every vestige of innocence and dignity was taken from those six children. Professionals who were in the court that day tell me the six children are broken people. What they now face in their lives is terrible and no matter what counselling or help they receive, they forever are injuriously marked by what happened to them.
While there is absolutely no excuse for what happened, life will go on and the outrage will fade. Therefore, it is extremely important that the committee which has been set up to investigate this matter does so expeditiously, professionally and with a clear mandate regarding what it must do. I have every faith in the fine woman who will lead the investigation and have every faith in the professionals. While it is very easy for Members to throw brickbats at the HSE, in this case the personnel who have been selected will do their job. Moreover the chairperson has stated that if she requires further powers, she will revert to the Minister, who presumably then will revert to the Oireachtas, to set up, if required, further powers to investigate the matter fully.
There was much comment over the weekend in various newspapers, journals, as well as on radio and television, about what must be done. I am chair of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, which has been mentioned in the amendment to Deputy Shatter's motion. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Deputy Shatter are aware, it has met 33 times and its members have worked mightily and well. I fully commend each member of the joint committee. They are a remarkable group of people, who bring their professional expertise and knowledge of people. One serves on a committee of this House because one brings to it one's strengths as a public representative, as well as whatever professional experience one might have built up over the years. Last September, the joint committee issued an all-party recommendation on soft information, an issue which heretofore had proved intractable. It has gone to the Government and to the Attorney General for compilation in legislation and the Minister for State, Deputy Barry Andrews, tells me it is in gestation. It will remove an issue that recently has arisen in respect of the church's investigations, namely, a fear expressed by its representatives in respect of some matters to the effect that they cannot exchange information. However, once this proposal is in legislative form, this issue should be rectified and I am glad of that.
At present, the joint committee is finalising the second part of its report and I hope it will be ready within the next few weeks. Thereafter, its members will embark upon its agenda of dealing with the rights of children as individuals. Children have rights within the ambit of their families, which also is correct. While everyone might wish that every child would have a happy family life, no matter what one does, it is not always so. While some things happen occasionally that are not of much import, to subject six children to living in that house in that rural County Roscommon village and to expect they could be left there and that this would be their experience of childhood because they are members of a family, is mind-bogglingly wrong and is no way to treat a family.
Members of the Oireachtas should be aware that the way ahead for bringing forward a constitutional referendum on the rights of the child will be very troubled. Although the wording to be used in the referendum has yet to be decided, no matter how one tries to do this, no matter what words are employed, no matter how the words are used and no matter how fairly they are couched, they will be perceived by many as an attack on the family. There is a belief that what goes on beyond the hall door should remain there, within the privacy of a family and that this is the best place for it. This is not true if children are being abused or being neglected, as they were in this case. While I do not wish to say more, I understand there will be more to follow.
I hope the sense of outrage does not fade. Perhaps, in its summing up, this investigation may find there was a lack of cross-agency interaction or a need for greater resources. I do not know. It may find that methods of work should be further explored in a different fashion. If it is found that there is a lack of cohesion or completeness in how the various monitoring regimes are put into effect, and I am sure this is the case, then this matter must be attended to immediately. This House has done a good job to debate this issue. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is aware, this issue has been debated at the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and the more this issue is discussed and highlighted, the better the chance that such occasions will become fewer in number.
I thank my colleagues for sharing time. I am glad to have this opportunity to offer my thoughts on the issue of child welfare and protection. As a child, it is a basic human right to be protected from hurt. Unfortunately, hurt comes in many forms, both physical and mental, and it is all too common for young innocent children to be harmed, sometimes by family members and sometimes by outsiders.
A horrendous case of abuse came to light in the media in particular last week, in which children were subjected to many forms of abuse by their mother. When such a case hits the headlines, there is a public outcry regarding the disturbing details of the abuse, and rightly so. One should be outraged because it is absolutely unacceptable that any child should be obliged to suffer to that extent. However, I welcome the launching of an independent investigation into the case. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, has taken seriously the issue of the lack of information provided to him. I was glad to learn that he has appointed Ms Norah Gibbons to head that investigation. I believe she has made a highly forthcoming statement in respect of the investigation's terms of reference and her willingness to extend those terms, if necessary. This case also is of great concern to the Minister of State from that constituency, Deputy Finneran. This has not been an easy time for these people.
Many people find it difficult to comprehend that a mother, father, any family member or outsider could subject a child to such horrid abuse. However, this is happening and it is up to everyone in society to realise this and to be prepared to do something about it. While it is easy to point the finger here and there, the solution must come from society upwards. Unfortunately, family breakdown is a common occurrence in modern society, which causes untold hardship for children and the adults involved, not to mention the extended families. Family life is a hugely important factor in the emotional stability of a child. However, family life does not have to be defined by mother, father and children. There are many formats of the family unit in existence and regardless of the format, the important element is that the adult or adults who have responsibility for the children are capable of carrying out their role as carers for those children. Caring is the key word when talking of children. Those in the caring role must be able to take care of the children, thereby meeting the children's physical and emotional needs.
Being a parent or a carer for children is not an easy task and no book provides the answers to all the difficult questions and choices faced. While there will be days when parents or carers will make the wrong decision regarding minor requests from their children, this is what shapes a parent or carer, as it is learning from the wrong decisions that already have been made which is important.
Regrettably, those in the role of parenting or caring are not always capable and that is when responsibility comes to the door of the public service. It is at this point that community, clubs, gardaí, courts and schools must also play their part. There is an onus on everyone to ensure that those children who need help are brought to the attention of the authorities. It is only then that hope is introduced to those children's lives.
There is a negative vibe in society about child protection and, in particular, social workers. There is a belief held by many that if social workers get involved in a child protection case they will take the children away and put them into care. This could not be further from the truth. Social workers are there, first and foremost, to help families in need who cannot cope with their responsibility of rearing children. It is only if children are feared to be in danger that they will be removed from the family home, but this is a last resort.
Social workers are providing a fantastic service all around the country in somewhat difficult circumstances. They need co-operation from the general public in order to carry out their duties as effectively as possible. There has been a call for out-of-hours social working services of late and I believe that there is a very strong case for such a service. I wish to commend the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, who is capable and committed to his role in the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. He fully understands and is aware of the difficulties arising in the area of child protection and no doubt he will continue to ensure that the child is always at the top of the agenda.
I also want to use this opportunity to commend foster carers. The service they provide in their own family surroundings is remarkable. It takes incredible courage and kindness to offer oneself up as a foster carer. I do not believe that they could possibly get enough recognition for the work they do. There are more than 5,000 children in the care of the HSE, more than 4,500 of whom are in foster care.
I also commend those who work in the area of care through the HSE in residential units. These people have great courage and conviction in their efforts to provide a caring role to children in need, and it is a tough job.
The Government first set up the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in 2005, formerly known as the Office of the Minister for Children. That move represented the level of seriousness we believe is necessary for the protection of children and their rights. Under the stewardship of the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, it will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a case like the one in Roscommon of which we heard last week does not occur again.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007, which resulted from extensive consultation and discussion by a former Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, contains a number of proposals to amend the Constitution with regard to children. Much work has been done in the interim in an effort to ensure that child protection is to the fore. I understand the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is working with a view to presenting a final report to both Houses of the Oireachtas by April of this year, and I look forward to seeing that report.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
The details unfolding of the events from Roscommon represent for all of us a case of extreme depravity. Unfortunately, it is not the first case that we have had to endure and deal with in this country but I hope it will be the last. We will recall that during 2008 we got the detail of an extreme case which unfolded in Austria, involving a father and daughter. What should and, I am sure, does unite all of us is a search for the truth and the background of the Roscommon case which will come out in time to ensure that lessons can be learned and that measures can be put in place to ensure that it does not recur.
From my point of view, there are many questions. There are questions for us as legislators, for society as a whole, for the educational authorities, for the church, and, obviously, for the HSE.
There has rightly been a bottom-up approach to child protection adopted by many voluntary groups such as sporting organisations and clubs throughout the country where they have put in place child protection policies and procedures and, indeed, subjected their staff, volunteers and club officers who interact on a real-time basis with children to training on how to behave and interact on a proper basis.
I also acknowledge the work being done by Deputy O'Rourke and her all-party committee on the important area of child protection. She gave us a brief insight into the difficulty the committee is experiencing in trying to come up with an adequate wording. She outlined the difficulty and, hopefully, in time we will have a formula of words which will address the situation.
The question we find ourselves debating is what form an inquiry should take. While a tribunal or a commission of inquiry has many advantages and may get to the truth, it would not be my first favourite option. If one looks at the experience of commissions and, indeed, tribunals over the years in this country, in general there have been many difficulties, although I am not saying all of them were the same. There is often a row about the terms of reference, then there is the issue of who gets representation and, indeed, who pays for that representation, and then there is usually a wrangle about discovery and privilege of documents. Most of it gets overtaken by lawyers and moves from the arena where the commission or tribunal is sitting into the courts where, unfortunately, it remains for a long period of time. This costs a great deal of money, frustrates the process and often hinders the evolution of the full story.
That is why the 2004 Act was introduced.
I favour the option set out by the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, to establish the independent inquiry within the HSE chaired by Ms Norah Gibbons. It is to report within six months and the report will be published. It is a four person inquiry team, with two external and two highly qualified internal persons. With that in mind, the internal inquiry of the HSE will not have any of the difficulties that a tribunal of inquiry or, indeed, a commission of inquiry may have, and that is an important point. It may help to get to the truth in a more timely fashion.
I welcome Ms Gibbons's statement earlier today. It is worth pointing out what she emphasised, that the terms of reference are sufficiently robust in order to conduct a broad and detailed investigation. Should they prove restrictive to the investigation, she said she will review the terms of reference in order to ensure that all necessary aspects of the case are covered and investigated thoroughly.
Ms Gibbons also emphasised the composition of the investigation team provides expertise in child welfare and protection issues and provides the knowledge and experience to navigate a complex system; should supplementary skills be required additional members can be co-opted to the inquiry team. In addition, she stressed that independent legal advice will be available throughout the investigation.
There have been many debates in this House on the HSE and its service delivery. Everything in the HSE should not be painted negatively. We must remember that over the years, during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the health services in this country suffered from a funding deficit, a human resource deficit, an infrastructure deficit and even a strategic deficit. All those areas are being addressed in a catch-up fashion, and rightly so.
There are many improvements which have been delivered within the health service and never get spoken about or highlighted. There are many fine people working within the health service who are doing a good job and often get painted with a generalisation that everything is wrong with and bad in the health service. I want to acknowledge, from my point of view, that there are many fine people delivering that service.
With the agreement of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Enright, Brian Hayes and Feighan.
Agreed.
The case involving the abuse of six children in County Roscommon is an extremely difficult one which every Member of this House hopes will never happen in their constituency. As one of the local TDs, I am deeply concerned by this case and appalled by the abuse that continued for so long without the appropriate action by the authorities. I take this opportunity to praise the bravery of the family members who were prepared to come forward and to expose this abuse, and express gratitude to those who secured the conviction.
This is, first and foremost, a tragedy and our thoughts and prayers must be with the children who lost the opportunity to grow up in a loving home. At the least, we must ensure that all of the State's resources be made available to help the children to come to terms and cope with their terrible experiences.
From media reports, there would seem to have been a failure to comply with the various child protection guidelines in place during the period of the abuse. As articulated by my colleague, Deputy Shatter, it is imperative that this matter be independently investigated to ensure that something similar does not recur. There is no doubt that the children have been failed appallingly. The case first came to the attention of the former western health board in 1989 and the children were placed on the neglect register in 1996, the year in which the report on the Kelly Fitzgerald case made the headlines. The western health board promised to implement the report's recommendations, but it seems that Kelly Fitzgerald's death and the subsequent investigation was all in vain.
We should not be looking for scapegoats. Rather, we need the truth. For this reason and in light of the disclosure of the prolonged period of abuse of those six children by their mother and the gross inadequacies of our child protection services, it is imperative that an independent commission of investigation be appointed under the 2004 legislation. It is my understanding that no such investigation dealing with the cost concerns raised by Members on the Government side has occurred. The commission should be appointed to inquire fully into the case's background and the actions taken by all of the professionals who came into contact with the family. The current investigation is only independently chaired, a fact acknowledged by the Minister of State with responsibility for children in his contribution last night. Half of the investigative team is employed by the HSE, the organisation to be investigated.
Furthermore, the local community has been tarnished by the claims that, while the abuse was clearly evident, nothing was done. Is this the case? The terms of reference are too narrow. Not only must the investigation review the actions of the HSE, the health board and the social workers, but also those of the education and health professionals. There were people who tried to take action and have their concerns pursued, but the system let them down and failed the children.
Last night, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, stated: "It is the responsibility of each and every individual in Ireland to play their part in protecting our children from harm." He went on to state: "Child welfare and protection is a major concern for everyone in society, not only those individuals who work in these services." I acknowledge this point, which has been made by many contributors, but these issues are not being considered in the context of the investigation. People who expressed their concerns have a right to have their claims vindicated and efforts acknowledged. They deserve an explanation as to why their concerns were never followed through by those who should have done so.
After the birth of the sixth child, a voluntary agreement to take the children into care was reached in September 2000. We know an injunction was subsequently granted restraining the health board from acting, but the fundamental question remains, namely, why did the health board not pursue its original intention to take the children into care in 2000. Did it seek to have the injunction lifted or varied? Media reports state that the HSE has refused to reveal whether it challenged the High Court order preventing it from taking the children into care. Were there a need to take the children into care in September 2000, the health board should have challenged the order immediately.
The Children's Rights Alliance, an organisation representing 80 child advocacy NGOs and agencies, has written to the HSE and the Minister stating that the investigation established by the HSE is not independent, its terms of reference are too narrow, it cannot compel witnesses to give evidence and it has no independent legal support. It is imperative that the investigation be given resources. Not only should it be independent, but it should be seen to be so. It should investigate all aspects of the case and highlight where the system fell down, who must be called to account and acknowledge those who advocated on the children's behalf. There is no such role within the current investigation.
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
Statistics revealed this week are troubling, as they highlight the fact that the HSE western area has the fewest children in care, yet the most children on its list of welfare concerns. This seems to be a contradiction in terms.
The circumstances of this case cannot be allowed to be repeated. For this reason, an independent investigation must be conducted without further delay, not in six months time as the Minister of State intimated last night. I commend the motion to the House.
Normally when I begin a contribution on a Private Members' motion, I welcome it, but I regret that we needed to table this motion. However, I thank Deputy Shatter for proposing it and support his call and that of the Fine Gael Party for an independent investigation.
I agree with and support Deputy Naughten, who outlined the concerns of the Children's Rights Alliance. The investigative team is not independent, as its terms of reference are too narrow. Of concern is the fact that it seems to focus on how the health service managed the case from a care perspective and does not extend into wider areas. I want to reiterate my colleagues' comments on the power to compel witnesses. After one report on this matter, I do not want to need to seek another, thereby prolonging the agony and distress of everyone involved, particularly the children, some of whom are now adults and have the wherewithal to understand that they have a right to an adequate response to what happened to them and that the State failed them.
What came to light in Roscommon last week was appalling and horrific. Six young children had their youth, innocence and lives shattered by their own mother and a system that, wherever the responsibility is deemed to lie, failed them completely. I was surprised to hear Government representatives describe what occurred as a watershed and to hear people express shock that a mother could fail her children in this way. Before Christmas, I walked into a book shop on Nassau Street and saw an entire section dedicated to books written by children whose parents, society, church and others had failed, abused and neglected them. Sadly, many of those books were written by Irish children. While this case is appalling and horrific and its facts are shocking, similar situations are still occurring. There have been too many watersheds where we have told the House that we would learn from them and where we passed minor legislation, after which we moved on and sat back to await another watershed when we would repeat the same procedure. This case may be one of the most serious imaginable, but sadly other children in this country have been victims of abuse of varying degrees, with devastating consequences. It is often said that the measure of a civil society is how it treats its most vulnerable, and children are our most vulnerable. Yet, again children have been failed by a system that was unable to protect them.
In 1993 Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness in the Kilkenny incest report recommended that consideration be given to amendment of Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution to include a statement on the rights of children, a recommendation which she reiterated this week, which is hard to believe. It is important to impress upon everyone involved the importance of an amendment to the Constitution. Also, it is important to re-iterate the point made this week by Ms Justice McGuinness that while doing so will not necessarily stop something dreadful happening, it will at least change the approach. She also said: "There would be more of an atmosphere of putting the child's right first, rather than thinking of the parents' rights and the family rights first." I do not believe anyone could in all conscience accept that a family should have greater rights than children who are being neglected and abused.
Deputy Shatter leads the Fine Gael group in respect of matters relating to children. Any amendment will be meaningless unless reform is matched with resources and services. I believe the vast majority of our social workers work extremely hard but that they cannot cope with the workloads they face. Neither the level of training received prior to taking up a position nor the level of in-service training provided is necessarily enough in terms of assisting young people, with no life experiences, in dealing with the complexities of the cases before them.
A foster parent who comes into regular contact with the social work system recently told me that while new staff are enthusiastic and willing to bend over backwards and do all they can, they are often broken by the system and their workloads. She also said that despite this they visit her at all hours of the day and night, often at weekends and on bank holidays and that one of her social workers had offered her a personal loan to help her out while waiting for the HSE to issue her with a cheque.
I have spoken to many foster parents who stress the integrity of social workers but criticise the system. I will give an example of a system that is in crisis, is bureaucratic, cumbersome and full of different agencies. This example involves a young foster child, aged approximately eight or nine years, with extreme behavioural problems, described by social workers as among the worst they have ever seen. The foster mother was seeking a school placement for the child. The school would not accept the child unless the National Education and Psychological Service guaranteed support from the special needs service and so on. Staff at the school were afraid they would not get the help they needed to cope with the child, as had happened in other cases in the past. NEPS would not guarantee support unless the school accepted the child. The child, who is not even ten years old, has since left the foster family concerned and has been placed short term with another foster family with a view to being moved to residential care. His social workers tried their best but neither they nor the foster family could navigate the system.
We are all asking why various groups failed the family in Roscommon. The reality is that it is impossible for people to identify to whom they can turn. I know of a child, again with diagnosed behavioural problems, who was expelled from school last year and whose mother was trying to get him a place in another school. She had to deal with six different agencies, including the Department of Education and Science, the Health Service Executive, special education needs organiser, National Educational and Psychological Service, National Education and Welfare Board and home-school liaison and local politicians to get her child a place in a school, which she eventually did. It is unacceptable that people have to go through such hoops before they get what they need.
If we want to make this the final Irish family to be described as a watershed, we must act now on these issues. I welcome that the Government has finally decided to deal with the issue of soft information following publication of the report of the Oireachtas committee. However, I remind the Government — I thought a great deal about this issue over Christmas when the Cloyne situation was being discussed in the media — that in December 2003 Fine Gael brought before this House a motion, supported by the Labour Party and the Green Party, which is now a partner in Government, dealing with the issue of soft information. I am not suggesting we had all the answers. However, we outlined the criteria in regard to how this could be addressed. The relevant legislation was only published last Monday or Tuesday, some five years later. A lack of action is what is creating the watersheds that young people in this country must face.
I commend Deputy Shatter for bringing this motion before the House. I want to reply to the charges made earlier on the other side of the House that this motion attempts to establish a tribunal system. My understanding of the 2004 legislation, brought forward by former Deputy, Michael McDowell, is that it sought to establish a commission of investigation and to ensure most of the investigative work was done in camera and not in the public domain, involving large numbers of legal representatives on both sides. Effectively, the net issues in any terms of reference set by the House could be adjudicated upon and some conclusions brought in a speedy fashion. We have seen one example of this under the Act. The Act was of some use in the Rossiter case in terms of bringing to a conclusion some of the issues involved. I reject the notion that we are proposing a tribunal; we are proposing a new and more effective device which will bring about accountability in terms of what went so horribly wrong in the case concerned.
In the time available, I would like to deal with education and the role and responsibility of schools throughout the country in dealing with these issues. In many instances, schools are the first port of call. Our response in this area has been lacking. We are lucky to have in this country well qualified and dedicated teachers educating our young. However, if anything has been highlighted by this tragic case in County Roscommon, it is the need to ensure that every precaution is taken to protect children at every step of the process to avoid even the slightest risk of their being exposed to abuse or neglect.
It is extremely worrying that given the amount of time children spend in a school environment during the most vulnerable years of their life, many of those employed in the education system have not undergone the most basic requirement of a background check by the Garda Síochána. There are more than 55,000 teachers working with children. Also ancillary staff work in close proximity with children on a daily basis. However, vetting has only been carried out in respect of teachers and staff appointed since 2006. Those already in the system are being retrospectively vetted on a phased basis. Unfortunately, a loophole in the existing legislation, which to date has not been addressed by the Minister, allows approximately 1,000 untrained substitutes who have not been vetted to teach in our schools. The only limited vetting they receive is from the board of management of schools by whom they are employed.
The Minister suggested as far back as April 2008 that he will bring forward amending legislation to amend section 30 of the Teaching Council Act which would set limitations on a school's capacity to engage other qualified teachers. However, this will not happen for some time as there is not sufficient numbers of qualified substitutes available. Aside from the issue of vetting, a number of issues require to be addressed to ensure teachers are adequately prepared to deal with a situation of suspected abuse and to respond accordingly.
Schools are obliged to appoint a designated liaison person to report allegations of abuse to the HSE or Garda Síochána. This responsibility lies, in the main, with the principal of the school. We all know that principals are busy people. This is another job they are required to take on. Is it appropriate that principals be required to take on this additional responsibility?
The Minister may be aware that in late 2008, the INTO carried out an extensive survey across the State in respect of designated liaison persons. At that stage they reported that less than half of those designated as liaison persons in schools had received formal training. I understand the situation has improved dramatically since then but given that the guidelines have been in operation for some years, it is astonishing that one in two of the persons we charge in our schools to take responsibility for this issue had yet to receive the training that is required. It is also significant from that survey that of those who received training, some 70% found it to be inadequate and 69% believed they needed further training to be able to properly deal with the situation. Even though the training has been rolled out, there is a sense of inadequacy concerning it. That is very worrying.
The survey highlighted the very poor communication and co-ordination between the HSE and our schools. Experience on the ground, dealing with the reporting of cases of abuse suggests that support services available to the designated liaison person and schools are far from adequate. There appears to be a lack of understanding and co-ordination between the agencies involved as to the role of the school and this often amounts to very poor levels of communication. There are also cultural difficulties. We have seen a very large influx of people from other nationalities in the last few years. There are different attitudes when it comes to discipline, within families, and notable differences as between nationalities in this regard. We have not done sufficient to disseminate information between those different groups to ensure people are fully aware of their obligations as what may be termed "Irish parents" under our law, regardless of background.
Other serious criticisms were made in the INTO survey last year. Some 60% of the dedicated liaison persons surveyed suggested that the relevance and effectiveness of supports provided by the HSE was fair to poor, and 71% reported that the follow-up of feedback provided by the Executive was very poor. We need to resource and invest in our school system to ensure that where cases come to the attention of teachers, principals and boards of management, action will be taken.
I commend Deputy Alan Shatter for tabling this motion. As a Deputy for the area, I feel very uncomfortable, unqualified but compelled to highlight this most shocking revelation of neglect and physical and sexual abuse suffered by the six children in Roscommon. I am calling on the Government to appoint an independent commission to investigate this matter. It is completely inappropriate that the HSE essentially investigates itself. Many of those employed by the former Western Health Board now form part of the HSE structure and I believe many of the issues will not be investigated unless an independent commission is appointed.
Last year, when the terrible Joseph Fritzel incest case was uncovered in Austria, many Irish people found it difficult to understand how this abuse could have been allowed to continue. I was in Austria on vacation last summer and I recall sitting in the square of a small village where there were very neat houses in evidence, young children at play, everything organised, traffic calming, schools, churches, etc. People appeared to be extraordinarily friendly and competent, so that one wondered how this could have possibly happened. The village in west Roscommon is exactly the same. People all over the country are wondering how this could have happened in a village such as this.
There was a catalogue as regards serious concern and neglect in 1996. The emotional abuse question was raised with the social services after the birth of the family's fourth child. The health authorities provide periodic family support and home help as well as public help nurse and social worker support. I find it hard to understand the fact that the health authorities unsuccessfully sought to have the restraining order lifted and the High Court, seemingly, made a decision that appears to have run in the face of common sense. One area I have difficulty with is the role of the campaigner, who objected to the health board's approach and said that the mother needed support, not intrusive action. Part of the proposed investigation should examine what is referred to here as an ultra right-wing conservative Catholic campaigner. I do not know, but I find it very difficult to believe. Mr. Gannon, speaking on behalf of the health board, said he believed that this lady's organisation had given financial and other support to the mother of these children. Regardless of whether it is appropriate, I believe this should be investigated.
The local Garda sergeant believes the full truth may never come out, but we have to ensure that it does. He believes that the children, although they have been so courageous, may not be able to deal with the full truth. People are pointing the blame at HSE officials, the school board of management etc. As a politician for the area, I must accept some of the blame because I believe we are all in this together — parents, teachers, the HSE and the Garda. As a politician, I must accept some of the blame for what happened. I believe we have to ensure that an independent commission is set up to investigate all the matters pertaining to these horrible and sickening incidents. I do not want to lay the blame on Government politicians but I am very uneasy speaking on this subject.
The locals, who put their faith in the system, talk about the lovely children and say their heart is broken on their behalf. For members of the community their heart is broken too at not having done anything about the situation. They felt helpless, being reluctant to intrude on the rights of the family. They put their trust in the system, which we all represent, and it not only let down the community but, more importantly, the children in this horrible incident.
I want to say how gratified I am to have an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House, and I express my deep concern over what happened to this unfortunate Roscommon family. Regardless of what side of the House one is on, child abuse is in a league of its own. It appals, disgusts and frustrates us, offending our very sense of humanity. It is significant that the normal human instinct is to nurture, care and love children. Children who are very vulnerable are entitled to expect from those among whom they should be most secure the greatest level of protection and support. We do not know all the facts in relation to this case. We know some. We know that these children have been in care since 2004. In my view it is important to establish the facts.
Sometimes we become obsessed with the route to establishing such facts. Like other Members, I am long enough in the House to remember the Kerry babies tribunal. I recall many Members of this House saying we would never have another tribunal. However, a couple of years pass, there is another controversy and suddenly we want a tribunal. To be fair, if we were to look back now on the matters that were the subject of two tribunals 12 years ago, we would seek a different way to try and establish the facts.
This is not a tribunal issue.
I will come to that in a moment. By their nature, they are expensive and take a long time. I established a commission of inquiry into Leas Cross but only following the report by Professor Des O'Neill. After his report it was clear that there were unanswered questions that could only be dealt with through a commission of inquiry. That inquiry was established 19 months ago. We recently extended the term in which it was to report. Notwithstanding the fact that we have an outstanding sole member who has all the support he would wish, these matters take a considerable length of time. The purpose of the inquiry route that has been established by the HSE, with the support of the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews and me, is to establish the facts within a six month timeframe.
The inquiry team will be chaired by Ms Norah Gibbons, whom I may have met but do not know personally. However, those who know her reputation know her to be a person of the highest integrity. Yesterday, she said: "I will conduct a thorough, open and expeditious investigation into the circumstances surrounding the neglect and abuse of the children involved." She went on to say:
If my terms of reference are not broad enough I have the freedom to expand them. I will have access to independent legal advice and should supplementary skills be required additional members can be co-opted to the inquiry team by me.
We have put in a mechanism that can establish the facts as quickly as possible because we all know medicine is not an exact science, but when we deal with abuse in a family it is an impossibly inexact science.
We know from health care professionals who, unfortunately, deal with child abuse all the time that there are always questions of balance. Should one leave the child in the family or take him or her away? I will contrast a different case. I am not blaming anybody here. A couple of years ago, shortly after I became Minister for Health and Children, a young family was taken into care. I want to quote what was said in this House. The response was "overkill", the family had been "treated brutally through an act of bureaucratic vindictiveness", "these children have unnecessarily been removed from the house" and it was described as a "grossly excessive abuse of authority by social workers". I remember taking those comments seriously and meeting the social work team involved. I cannot but tell the House the passion with which its members felt that in going to court to remove those children they were doing the right thing. Many of them feel they are damned if they do and damned if they do not. That is why decisions about removing children from a family are not made by single individuals but are made in a case conference environment where the expertise of others is brought to the table, and that is as it should be.
This inquiry team will report within six months. Earlier Deputy Brian Hayes mentioned what is broadly called in the media this "right-wing group" which seems to feel that no matter what happens in a family, the children should be left there. We must challenge those who constantly support this point of view, who seem to be more obsessed with unborn children than with those who are born. Health care professionals have to deal with individuals and groups of that kind day in, day out, notwithstanding the unsavoury matters that come in.
The Minister's inquiry cannot identify who they are. That is a fundamental flaw.
I do not accept that this inquiry cannot get the facts.
It cannot identify them.
There are references to legislative deficiencies here and they may exist. The 1908 Act was drafted at a time when it could not be envisaged that a mother could inflict such abuse on her children. This abuse is not ring-fenced according to gender, geography or class. I know from social workers that terrible abuse takes place in some of the best resourced families in the country from time to time. If we are to put in place the appropriate State mechanisms, recognising that no matter how many resources and how much law we have, there will always be the potential in Ireland, as there is in other countries, even those that share our values, for parents in a minority of cases to abuse their children. This mechanism with the people involved will deliver speedy answers so we can get the facts and very quickly learn from them.
The Minister of State with responsibility in this area, Deputy Barry Andrews, has my full confidence. Not only is he a father and the Minister of State with responsibility for children, he is a barrister and before that he was a teacher. He brings to this job a passion for child protection and I have every confidence that working with the authorities, whether the HSE or the other authorities that have responsibility for children, we will have in place in Ireland an appropriate regime that will guarantee our children the safety and protection they deserve.
I wish to share time with Deputy Shatter, whom I thank for affording me the time and for bringing this motion to the House.
Yet again, this country has been shaken to the core by a shocking case of child abuse that took place over a protracted period of time. What makes this case so disturbing is that relevant authorities were made aware of it and that the children were on an at-risk register, yet the terrible abuse inflicted on them was not avoided.
As a GP, I know child abuse can be difficult to detect and very often comes to light when those children become adults, having survived the horror of what they have endured, and manage to build their self-esteem again to the point where they feel that they can complain and seek justice for themselves. The whole point of a child protection programme is to identify people at risk and intervene early to prevent or to at least stop ongoing abuse. We must accept that we failed miserably on this occasion.
The Minister, Deputy Barry Andrews's, acknowledgement that society failed these children conveniently ignores the failure of his Government and the HSE to protect these children and the least I would have expected was an apology from him to these children on behalf of the Government. The awful thing about this is that we have had terrible cases of abuse in the past, to some of which the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, alluded. These have been followed by outpourings of sympathy for the family and the victims. We also had investigations and reports which made recommendations but were then shelved and not acted upon. We had the Kilkenny incest case and the Kelly Fitzgerald case to mention but two, yet we find ourselves here again.
There is a recurring theme here. The health service generally, as well as in this area specifically, has a long history of investigations and reports being compiled and then left to gather dust on a shelf, never to be implemented. I share my colleague, Deputy Shatter's, astonishment at the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews. I remind this Chamber that this very Minister of State told us before Christmas that, as Minister of State with responsibility for children, he did not feel that the vaccination of children against cancer was an issue for him. I remind the Chamber that this is the Minister of State who had presented to him last July the report on the handling of abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne and not alone did not read it, but passed it out of his hands, as quickly as he could, like a hot potato, and on to the Health Service Executive. This is the Minister of State who sits before us here, having admitted that the first he heard of this case or anything about it was in the media a couple of weeks ago.
Strike one was the Minister of State's attitude to vaccination; strike two was his handling of the Diocese of Cloyne report; and strike three is his handling of this case. This pattern of commissioning reports and then ignoring them is replicated throughout the Health Service and we only have to look to the history of reports and recommendations in the north east to verify this. If the Minister of State's job is not to oversee his Department, then what is his function? I will say no more on that — the facts speak for themselves.
The main thrust of this motion is to seek that this inquiry be independent, and clearly it is not. While we have excellent people in appointees such as Ms Norah Gibbons and Ms Leonie Lunny, we have also on the inquiry board two members of the HSE. Therefore, this is not an independent inquiry and cannot be construed as such. The days of the HSE investigating itself are long gone. Nobody will have belief in it. If it is necessary, as the director of the PCC said in his statement, to have members of the HSE to hand to navigate the complexities of the HSE, which is an astonishing admission of the chaos that presides in that organisation, then by all means make these people available to the inquiry but not as an integral part of the board.
Members of the extended family have asked that the HSE should not be on the board of inquiry as they have no faith in it, and the children's alliance today stated clearly that it opposes the presence of HSE members on the board. In a letter to the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, it states that the investigation team is not independent; the terms of reference are too narrow; the team does not have the power to compel individuals to give evidence or to procure documentation; and contrary to the statement of the Minister for Health and Children, the team does not have independent legal support. The parts of the motion outlining the areas where the terms of reference need expansion are self-evident and it is important that all who are involved and engaged with this issue play their roles.
This is not intended to be a blame game but to find out why this happened and why it continued when people had raised concerns. Deputy Naughten mentioned that members of the extended family were among the first to raise concerns about this issue. Why did it go on for so long?
This requires finding the weaknesses in our system and putting in place procedures to prevent their recurrence. It proposes an independent inquiry that will make recommendations resulting in protocols that will be put in place and acted upon. We must not allow this report to be thrown on a shelf like so many others because if that happens we will have failed our children once more and there will be little point in our beating our breasts when the inevitable happens again a year from now.
I commend the motion to the House.
I thank all of those who have contributed to this debate. Like some of my colleagues I regret that we had to have this debate. There have been too many tragedies, too many children in families that were clearly dysfunctional who should have been provided with services that ensured their protection, where there should have been early intervention but this did not occur.
I regret the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews', speech last night. It was particularly crass that he referred to the children being failed "by society". These children were identified at an early stage as being parented within a dysfunctional family. The family was known to the Western Health Board in 1989 when it had only one baby. We are told it was on the at-risk register in 1996. Between 1996 and 2004 social work personnel apparently visited these children extensively. That is what we have been told. When the report is published the case may turn out to have been different.
It is incomprehensible that these children were not taken into care. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, had responsibility particularly for this area, as the senior Minister, until the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs was established three years ago. She had a junior Minister also dealing with children but this fell within her remit. I am shocked that in her speech tonight it was evident that she did not even understand the legislation for which she was responsible.
The Child Care Act 1991, section 8, conferred on the health board all the power it needed to seek to have these children taken into care. If it doubted whether a care application could succeed it could have used a later section and had a supervision order made. Had the supervision order been obtained it would have become evident that a care order was needed. There is no indication that any such procedure was undertaken at any stage.
My concern about the terms of reference derives from something the Minister of State said last night which compounded that concern. He referred to the fact that because care orders are made in camera he could not reveal anything about them. I suspect he does not know whether any care orders are made. I am concerned that because of the type of inquiry he has established we will receive a report with all sorts of information blacked out to preserve in camera rules from children’s proceedings or court applications that may have been made, with names of people blacked out in the interests of natural justice because they are not parties to this case, and with no conclusions on important facts because there is no power to subpoena and people do not have a right to ensure that their names are properly protected as allowed for under the 2004 Act.
There are major defects in the procedure but the Minister of State should have admitted last night not simply that our society but also our child protection services failed these children. He should also have the decency to admit, as should the Minister, that the Government failed these children. I do not say this to score petty political points. I said last night and have said elsewhere outside the House that I am heartily sick of the fact that there have been so many reports about children, who did not have the help to which they were entitled, the recommendations of which are ignored and that we are back in these circumstances with these six tragic children whose position has been so well publicised. I am amazed that the Minister for State knew nothing about this until last week.
The Kelly Fitzgerald report published in 1996 made one simple recommendation, that the Department of Health adopt a proactive approach in monitoring health boards' child care developments in order to ensure consistency on a national scale, both in provision and in respect of procedures and practice. That does not happen. Crucial recommendations relevant to the Western Health Board, and to Government, made in this report, have not been implemented. It was in part the responsibility of the Western Health Board to implement them and later that of the Health Service Executive.
It was the responsibility of the Government of the day.
It was also the responsibility of the Government. The Government parties have been in power for over 12 years. Deputy Brian Cowen was the Minister for Health in June 1997 when the new Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government was established. He remained Minister for Health from June 1997 to 26 January 2000. What did he do to implement this report? He did nothing to ensure that the Department of Health had oversight of our child care services. As Fine Gael spokesperson for health I marked him then. He was just as incompetent a Minister for Health as he proved to be a Minister for Finance and as he is today as Taoiseach. Deputy Micheál Martin replaced him from 26 January 2000 to 29 September 2004 when Deputy Harney took over. Throughout their remit child care was the central responsibility of those Ministers, until Deputy Brian Lenihan became the first Minister of State with responsibility for children in the new super office. They did not meet their responsibilities. This is a roll call of shame. They should have met their responsibilities. The speech of the Minister of State with responsibility for children is quite astonishing for the extent to which it admits the Government's incompetence, his lack of knowledge and the dysfunctional nature of our child care services. He said "far from not learning the lessons spelled out by previous reports into other tragic cases, as has been suggested, these feed into the constant development and updating of policy in this area". They may "feed" but nobody is eating. No one is changing his or her habits. There has been a plethora of reports but very little has happened. The Minister of State admits that the 1999 child care protection guidelines are not uniformly applied across the country. He says there is a knowledge deficit. We have new trendy terms, the Minister for State is engaged in a "knowledge management strategy". He hopes to put in place the information necessary to allow him to know what is going on in the child protection services at some stage this year or next.
Does the Deputy have nothing positive to contribute?
No such information service was put in place for the 12 years of Government led by his party.
After three hours of debate the Deputy has nothing positive to say.
What did Deputy Noonan do?
The Minister of State who was appointed only last May said: "I became acutely aware that communication difficulties, deficits in information and the absence of standardised procedures can impede service responsiveness with potentially serious consequences for some children." Why did none of his predecessors discover that was a problem? How long will it take to put that right?
I greatly regret that this House will divide on this motion and that we have terms of reference that are widely acknowledged to be inadequate. The independent chairperson — she is independent, unlike two of the other people appointed — has said that if the terms of reference do not work out, then she will have them extended. We should have terms of reference that are so comprehensive that the group appointed to conduct this investigation is able to cover all areas and know its remit from the start, and not be inhibited in the work it does. If need be, the group should be able to subpoena people to attend before it to give evidence so that we can ensure the full story of this is known.
That will not happen. The sad reality is that whatever report is produced by this group, there will inevitably be a need for a further investigation. It is unfair to the family and the children involved. It is unfair to children across the country who may be at risk tonight. It is unfair to the general public and it is contrary to the public interest that we have two forms of investigation that go on endlessly.
I urge the Minister to change his mind, to accept the motion before the House and let the commission of investigation proposed by Fine Gael be formulated, so that it can get on with its work.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Question declared carried.