Vol. 787 No. 3
60. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs her response to the Supreme Court judgment that her Department acted in breach of the Constitution during the recent children’s rights referendum; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [56975/12]
I wish to inform Deputies that the High Court is currently hearing an application for leave to petition the court under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1994 to question the validity of the provisional referendum certificate issued by the referendum returning officer in respect of the children's referendum poll held on 10 November. That petition stands adjourned until January 2013. The application relates specifically to the provision of public information by the Government and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding that information.
In light of these matters, it is prudent not to make comment that would be prejudicial to proceedings. As a respondent in the proceedings, I am particularly constrained as regards further comment and, at this stage while proceedings are ongoing, it is necessary and prudent for me to restrict my comments.
I participated fully in a Seanad Éireann debate on the Supreme Court decision on 8 November, the day of the decision. I made a detailed statement as part of that debate. No other proceedings were under way at the time. I refer Deputies to that detailed statement. My statement of 8 November acknowledged the errors that had taken place. I reiterate my acknowledgement and regret that these errors took place.
I explained in the Seanad that the Government's information provision was well intentioned and that in preparing information materials, it was considered that appropriate regard had been paid to the McKenna principles.
The full Supreme Court judgments, which are now available, find that the Government acted at all times in a bona fide manner. All the publications were issued with a view to informing the electorate about the referendum. The McKenna judgment stated that the Government has a duty to give information to the electorate as well as to clarify issues which may arise in the course of the campaign, and must do so without advocating a particular position. Governments have carried out this role in other referenda since the McKenna judgment, including in the Lisbon and stability treaty referenda.
The Supreme Court has unanimously acknowledged that the principle enunciated in the McKenna judgment stands as firm as ever. The Government welcomes the fact the court has, for the first time since the judgment in 1995, set down guidelines on the application of this important principle. The modes through which information is now conveyed are very different to those operating in 1995. The court has found that the Government, in attempting to fulfil this duty to inform the people, strayed beyond the boundary of the provision of information to the electorate.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I readily accept that we have to look at and implement the lessons to be learned from the successful legal challenge to our information campaign. The Government has stated that it is carefully studying the Supreme Court judgment which clarifies how we can make information available to the electorate during a referendum. I have no doubt that at the appropriate time, there will be considerable debate on these matters in the House. I look forward to participating fully in such a debate when the constraints that currently apply are no longer relevant.
It is deplorable that it has taken the Minister six weeks to give a response in this House to queries regarding the Supreme Court ruling. The argument that she has responded in the Seanad is interesting given her party's commitment to abolish that House. It is only now, six weeks after the ruling, that we in this House are being given an opportunity to obtain some measure of feedback on this very serious issue. The court issued a declaration that the respondent, that is, the Government, had acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on a website, booklet and advertisements for the purposes of promoting a particular result in the referendum on the 31st amendment to the Constitution. The Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Denham, and her fellow judges found that on applying the correct test to the material published by the Minister, there was a "clear disregard" by the respondents of the McKenna principles. The Chief Justice found, moreover, that the material "failed the test of being fair, equal and impartial, failed to be neutral, and failed to hold the scale equally between both sides". This is a damning indictment by the most senior judicial figure in the land of the Government's role in the referendum.
I have several relevant and direct questions which I hope the Minister will answer in a similarly direct fashion. Who took the decision to publish the booklet? Who took the decision to hive off the €1.1 million that should have been allocated to the independent referendum commission? Who signed off on the content of the booklet? Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, there was an effort by certain Ministers to dump the responsibility on the Attorney General, but the Supreme Court judgment does not reflect that claim. What are the cost implications for the State, apart from the direct expenditure of €1.1 million, of all of this? Finally, who will take responsibility and be held accountable for this deplorable situation?
I remind the Deputy that the Government is defending a petition in the High Court. Recognising the separation of Parliament and Judiciary, moreover, I have no wish to, and will not, prejudice the upcoming hearings. I am sure my parliamentary colleagues will respect and accept the position I am in.
Ms Justice Denham stated in regard to the case: "In all the circumstances of this case, as have appeared before the court, I am satisfied that the respondents acted in a bona fide manner." Mr. Justice Fennelly observed: "I have no doubt that this was done bona fide and with consciousness that the decision in McKenna had to be respected." Likewise, Mr. Justice O'Donnell stated: "It should be said that the plaintiff made it clear that he was prepared to accept that the Department had acted in good faith in preparing the campaign and did not challenge it on that ground." I refer the Deputy to those aspects of the Supreme Court's findings.
In his verdict, Mr. Justice O'Donnell pointed out that some of the language used in this so-called independent literature was the same language used in the Minister's speech at the launch of the Fine Gael campaign for a "Yes" vote. As a Fine Gael parliamentarian the Minister was entitled, as I was as a Fianna Fáil parliamentarian, to advocate a "Yes" vote, but why was it the same language? If there was bona fides in terms of the wording used in the independent booklet, why did she use the same language in a Fine Gael document? My personal opinion is that this was a political stunt on the Minister's part.
It certainly was not. In fact, the highest court in the land disagrees with what the Deputy said and accepts the bona fides of myself and my Department in this regard. However, I accept that the Government, as the court has found, in attempting to fulfil its duty to inform the people strayed beyond the boundary in the provision of information to the electorate. I readily accept and acknowledge that we must examine and implement the lessons to be learned from the successful legal challenge to the Government's information campaign. The Government has said that it is carefully studying the Supreme Court judgment which clarifies, for the first time since 1995, how the Government can make information available to the electorate during a referendum. At the appropriate time there will be considerable debate on these matters in the House and I look forward to participating in that debate, when the constraints that apply today are no longer relevant.
61. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the reason, despite the recorded concerns of the Referendum Commission chairman in the previous referendum (details supplied), the Government proceeded with the publication of a parallel information guide to that prepared and distributed by the Referendum Commission in the children's rights referendum, running the risk of confusion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [56971/12]
I wish to reiterate the need to be mindful of court proceedings with regard to the referendum result and the particular constraints which I face as a defendant in the High Court application at this stage. I should point out that the activities of the Referendum Commission in respect of the recent referendum were funded by way of an allocation of €1.9 million from the sum of €3 million provided in my Department’s Vote for a referendum on children’s rights. The balance of €1.1 million was used by my Department for the provision of information to the public relating to the referendum.
It is important to be clear on the fact that the report of the Referendum Commission on the stability treaty did not call for a prohibition on the Government providing information to the public in respect of referendums. This is evident in the commission's recommendation to the effect that "where a Government Department or agency produces an information guide to a referendum proposal, its design and content should ensure that it is clearly distinguished from Referendum Commission material. Any such guide should contain full contact details". This was the approach taken to the design and production of the information booklet issued by my Department in the children's referendum.
The approach adopted by the Government to the provision of information to the public in the recent referendum reflected information initiatives used previously on such occasions. As regards learning from past experience about potential confusion with the materials of the commission, specific efforts were made to avoid this happening. The Department’s main information tools were a booklet and a dedicated website. The print and limited broadcast advertising sought to draw attention to these sources of information and to call attention to the Saturday voting day. The booklet identified the Department on its cover and prominently displayed the Department’s contact details in the text; this was done twice in both the English and Irish language versions. At the conclusion of each website page, the Department’s name, logo, address and contact details were carried.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Comments or complaints about distinguishing between the Department’s information initiatives and those of the Referendum Commission were not a feature of the many verbal and written queries my Department received in the period before the referendum polling date.
The Government aimed, through its information materials, to encourage the maximum public debate on, and participation in, the referendum. In doing so, it was conscious of an acknowledged gap in information that can attend referendums. Indeed, in the passage of the Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012 through the House in late September, speakers on all sides identified as a particular challenge the need to engage the general public with the debate, to provide explanation and to encourage turnout to vote. In that context, the House was informed during the debate on 26 September that the Government was committed - as with the European stability referendum earlier this year - to ensuring that people had all the information they needed to make an informed decision on 10 November. It was further informed that to facilitate that situation, an information website, www.childrensreferendum.ie, had been set up by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs which provided information on the constitutional amendment as well as details of the wider reform programme under way in the area of child protection. It was also made known to the House on that occasion that a government information booklet would also be sent to each household in the country.
A significant gap in the public’s information was indicated in opinion polls taken during the course of the referendum campaign. An Ipsos MRBI poll for the Irish Times of 20 October found that in response to the question, "How well do you feel you understand the issues in the children’s referendum?", 10% said they had a good understanding, 28% said they understood some but not all the issues, 37% said they were only vaguely aware of the issues involved and 24% said they did not know what the referendum was about at all. The Government considered that in preparing information materials it was paying appropriate regard to the McKenna principles. All the publications were issued with a view to informing the electorate about the referendum.
The Supreme Court has found that the Government at all times acted in a bona fide manner. As I said, the Government acted in good faith in the preparation of its information materials, which aimed to encourage the maximum public debate on, and participation in, the children’s referendum. The failures identified by the Supreme Court are fully acknowledged and greatly regretted. The Government is committed to working within the parameters of the judgment in the conduct of future referendums, and is carefully studying the conclusions of the court. It will have regard to the Supreme Court’s detailed judgments and the guidelines contained therein as part of its full consideration of the implications of the judgments.
I do not doubt the Minister's intent, and that is clear from the question I tabled. My concern is that if we have not already done so, we must learn from the lessons of the past. Last August, Mr. Justice Kevin Feeney, the former chairman of the Referendum Commission for the fiscal or austerity treaty referendum, depending on one's point of view, cautioned against this approach on the basis that it could cause confusion. It was his experience as chairman of the Referendum Commission in that case that it perhaps had contributed to the creation of confusion.
I note the point about not identifying where it had emanated from and that it did not apply in this instance under the direction of the Minister. We must be mindful in respect of the existing rulings, including the McKenna judgment. I ask the Minister whether the dissemination of independent information and assessment should be left wholly and solely to the Referendum Commission of the day. I strongly recommend the commentary to which reference has been made.
Following the McCrystal judgment, the Minister Deputy Pat Rabbitte said, "the Government seems to be impeded from advocating its convictions in a matter like a referendum". I reject that, it is totally untrue. What is a requirement is that the component parts of the Government, such as opposition voices, must be responsible for funding whatever it produces, either collectively or through independent action by party components. Does the Minister accept there are lessons to be learned and the best practice for the future is to allow the Referendum Commission of the day to take responsibility, wholly and solely, for the dissemination of independent assessment?
While I would like to engage in a long debate on the issues raised, I reiterate that I am constrained in terms of the hearing in January. The issues raised will be considered by the Government. In the conduct of future referendums I am committed to working within the parameters of the judgment delivered. I agree with the Deputy that we must carefully consider the conclusions of the court. The Government will do so. For the first time since 1995, the Supreme Court has provided some important guidelines on the application of the principle in the McKenna judgment. With regard to the recent campaign, it is interesting to note that distinction between the Department's information initiatives and those of the Referendum Commission was not a feature the comments or complaints received from the public. Deputy Ó Caoláin has acknowledged this point and I thank him for doing so. This aspect was not a feature of the many verbal or written queries to the Department. When we initially discussed the referendum on 26 September, all sides were concerned about getting out a great deal of information. There were issues in respect of the complexity of material. People in the House identified the need to engage the public with the debate to provide explanation and encourage turnout to vote. On 26 September, I said we were committed to ensuring people had all the information they needed to make an informed decision on 10 November. I also referred to the website. Much of the research on the referendum shows significant gaps in information. The Government agrees that these matters must be considered and will be considered.
I welcome the Minister's response, which I take as a positive indication that the Government is taking the decision on board. It cannot be more clear and, no pun intended, it is crystal following the recent judgment.
I hope we will arrive at a space where the Referendum Commission is seen as the independent voice for the dissemination of that independent view to the wider public, and anything else that has the imprimatur of Government is seen to be in competition with the role of the Referendum Commission. Better that the component parts of Government - today it is Fine Gael and Labour but it could be any combination of voices - should get it right and know exactly what we can do in the future.
We are all disappointed that there was not a greater turnout for the referendum. There is a range of reasons for that being the case. Is there a question in the Minister's mind or in any of the assessments since that confusion was contributed to by the second information document? I just pose the question.
My reply to that question has to be that there is a hearing in the High Court. To give further comment would not be the right thing to do. I recognise the importance of that case and of not making any comments that might prejudice its outcome.
62. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs her policy for the continuation of family resource centres into the future having regard to the establishment of the Child and Family Support Agency; if she will confirm the continuation and extension of the delivery of community based universal services and early intervention programmes as heretofore; if she will confirm that the ethos and culture of the Family Resource Programme will be maintained through the delivery of family supports in local communities through a community development approach; if she will confirm that the Family Resource Centre National Forum will have representation at board level within the new agency; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [56896/12]
The Government has approved the heads of the child and family support agency Bill and has also agreed to the priority drafting of this Bill. The necessary legislative and organisational preparations are being prioritised in order that the agency can be established early in 2013. From its establishment the child and family support agency will have service responsibility for a range of services, including child welfare and protection services currently operated by the HSE, and domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services. The functions of the Family Support Agency and the National Educational Welfare Board will transfer into the child and family support agency upon its establishment.
The Government's consideration of these matters was informed by the recommendations of the task force on the child and family support agency which I published in July of this year. The task force considered that the agency needs to be as broadly based as possible and should include a range of prevention, early intervention, family support and therapeutic care interventions.
It is my intention that the agency will have a role in supporting families and communities. It will have the benefit in this role of 106 family resource centres which have been developed with funding from the Family Support Agency. I have seen repeatedly at first hand the work of the family resource centres. I assure the Deputy that the new agency will build on the excellent work undertaken by the Family Support Agency over the past decade and that a community-based approach will form an integral part of the new child and family support agency. I have said this repeatedly and we are absolutely committed. The child protection services cannot work properly if we do not have this base of community work and family support. I have said to the workers in the family resource centres that the ethos and the criteria by which they do their work will be maintained in the new agency.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The composition of the board of the child and family support agency is under consideration. While the composition of the board will reflect the component organisations which are being amalgamated into the child and family support agency, the criteria for board membership will be focused on ensuring board members have the requisite mix of experience and competencies needed to steer such a large organisation providing a diverse range of personal services.
The new agency and the wider transformation of children's services represents the largest and most ambitious areas of public sector of reform embarked upon by this Government.
I thank the Minister for her reply. As the Minister said, there are 106 of these centres throughout the country, three of them in my own constituency. They are Millennium Family Resource Centre in Glengoole, Spafield Family Resource Centre in Cashel and Three Drives Family Resource Centre in Tipperary town. They do tremendous work with scarce resources and are providing essential front-line services in deprived communities affected by austerity, poverty and exclusion. Families challenged by poverty are particularly targeted in the centres. They deal with early intervention and prevention if at all possible and provide a range of services.
My reason for asking the question was to seek the Minister's reassurance, which she has given, and to ask her, in the context of the establishment of the child and family support agency, to confirm the continuation of these centres and their central role in the new agency, to confirm her support for the centres and for continued proper and adequate funding for them, and also to seek an assurance that the centres will have a nominee on the board of the new agency.
The composition of the board of the child and family support agency is under consideration. While the composition of the board will reflect the component organisations being amalgamated into the child and family support agency, it is important for such an agency that the criteria for board membership ensure board members have the requisite mix of experience and competence needed to steer such a large organisation. More than 4,000 staff are being transferred to this agency. This is huge public sector reform and we must ensure the members guiding this who are on a small board that is directly accountable to me and the Department have the mix of experience and competence needed to steer such a large organisation. I expect there will be someone on the board representative of the work of the family support agency and the family resource centres, but the essential criteria for me will be the mix of skills needed to take forward an organisation of more than 4,000 people, rather than a broad mix of representative individuals from various organisations. That has not worked as a model for boards, as we saw with FÁS and other agencies.
I repeat my absolute commitment and that of the director of child and family services, Mr. Gordon Jeyes, to supporting the work that goes on in the family resource centres and the work of counselling and supporting voluntary groups, huge numbers of which are supported by the agency. That will continue.
Will the Minister ensure there is a representative of the centres on the board? This is a new situation and these centres provided a range of vital services in local communities. If the reform the Minister talked about is to be successful, every element of the services must be represented at the highest level.
I take the Deputy's point but I hope he accepts what I am saying about the skills level that will be essential to lead such an organisation in terms of human resources, accountancy and standards. We have discussed the findings of the independent child death review group that state we have not had standard models for risk assessment or proper inter-agency work. There has been a huge deficit in management of information across the sector, along with poor budgeting and cost management. That happened throughout the years of the bubble. A lot of work must be done now and that is the primary task of the new agency, to ensure we have a service that is fit for purpose to give the effective services we want to deliver to children and families, given the number of reports that have been published.
63. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if she will provide details of the after school child care scheme announced in the budget for 2013; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [56976/12]
As part of the budget for 2013, together with my colleague the Minister for Social Protection, I was pleased to announce a new after school child care initiative which will be targeted at low-income families and supporting parents availing of employment opportunities. The initiative is expected to receive full year funding of €14 million to provide more than 6,000 quality after school places for children attending primary school, as well as supporting parents to take up employment. Lack of access to affordable, quality child care is a significant barrier to many low-income and disadvantaged families when seeking to avail of work and training or educational opportunities. Today's edition of The Irish Times outlined this again in the findings of the OECD report on Irish women.
By providing more than 6,000 after school child care places, the initiative will provide an important support measure to enable parents to avail of job opportunities.
This is in line with the Government's overall strategy to support parents of low-income families to take up employment and demonstrates how Departments are working together to deliver the Government's agenda on promoting employment and supporting children's development.
The new after-school child care scheme will further augment my Department's programme of child care supports for low income families. These include the CCS, CETS and ECCE schemes, which provide subsidised child care, including for qualifying parents who are on approved VEC and FÁS education and training courses. Almost €71 million will be spent next year on the CCS and CETS programmes, supporting more than 30,000 child care places.
Officials in my Department and the Department of Social Protection are working to finalise the details of the after school scheme and its operational arrangements. As is the case with the CETS scheme, the new scheme will be open to both community and commercial child care providers across the State and it is anticipated that places will become available on an interim basis from early 2013 with the full rollout of the programme commencing in September 2013. As soon as this work has been completed between my Department and the Department of Social Protection, I will correspond with the Deputy to give him further information.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
My Department also implements the universal free pre-school year in early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme, under which all children have equal access to free pre-school education in the year before commencing primary school. Some 65,000 children are currently availing of the ECCE programme at an annual cost of some €175 million.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously I welcome any new service that will help low-income parents back to work or education. I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister does not have more information for us today, but she has acknowledged that once she receives it, it will be forthcoming. The Department keeps referring to this as a pilot scheme and to 6,000 places. Can the Minister give a guarantee that the pilot scheme will consist of those 6,000 places? If we start with a small pilot scheme it could be 2014 before we see the 6,000 in place. Can the Minister confirm that those 6,000 places will become available early next year?
The after school sector is unregulated, as is the childminder sector. I have received calls from people working in the industry who have grave concerns in this regard. What are the Minister's plans to deal with this issue? Does she intend to introduce regulation for this sector? Given the amount of public money that will be spent in this area, it is appropriate to have adequate regulation in place.
Some 500 places will be available on a pilot scheme early in the new year, hopefully around March. The full 6,000 places will be available - that is fully the intention - from September 2013. A new initiative at a time of severe difficulties in our finances must be welcome. I acknowledge that child care provision in this country has not got the attention it has deserved over the years. The ECCE scheme was a very welcome initiative by the Government of the Deputy's party but, of course, it only covers one year. I would like to see a second year of a pre-school initiative launched. This is complementary to what we have at present and is to be welcomed.
The sector is not regulated, as the Deputy rightly said. I will need to examine that and ascertain the appropriate standards and criteria that need to be in place as we establish the service, and I will do that.
In reality the Minister is telling us that it will be the tail end of 2013 before the scheme will be fully operational.
September.
Has the Minister taken on board the additional administrative costs that will be associated with the county child care committees? I am sure the Minister is hearing, as my colleagues and I are hearing, that they are under severe financial pressure at the moment to administer all the schemes they are currently administering.
I appreciate the work of the county child care committees, which carry out excellent work around the country and will be involved in this. An expression of interest form will be circulated in early January to the county child care committees for onward transmission to all the sets providers in each county child care committee area to establish their interest in participating in the extended sets programme.
It must be noted that because of the changing employment situation in the past number of years, there have been vacancies in some services. There has been a change in child care provision of which I am sure the Deputy is aware through visiting centres. I do not intend to increase the administrative support and I believe it can work with existing resources.
64. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if she will outline the position in regard to the introduction of the necessary legislation to facilitate the establishment of the child and family support agency; when she expects to publish this legislation; the date from which she expects the new agency to be functioning under the aegis of her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [56972/12]
The task force on the establishment of the child and family support agency reported in July of this year. The work of the task force informed the development of detailed legislative proposals to Government, covering a range of areas including the function and services to be overseen by the agency, governance structures and implementation arrangements. Arising out of these proposals, the Government approved the heads of the child and family support agency Bill and has also agreed to the priority drafting of this Bill. As the Deputy is aware, the agency will encompass services which are currently the responsibility of three separate agencies, namely, the HSE, the Family Support Agency and the National Educational Welfare Board. The necessary legislative and organisational preparations are being prioritised so that the agency can be established early in 2013. Drafting of the child and family support agency Bill is under way in line with the policy decisions of Government. This legislation will be published and debated by the Oireachtas at the earliest opportunity. I expect that legislation will be available in January. A precise target date for the establishment of the new agency will be set when consideration of the legislation is advanced.
While the legislative process is under way, all necessary organisational preparations are continuing in parallel. It is important that I emphasise this. They are being overseen by a high-level group chaired by the Secretary General of my Department and involving representatives of the Departments of Health and Public Expenditure and Reform, the HSE and the incoming management team of the new agency. I pay tribute to the staff of my Department, including the Secretary General, Gordon Jeyes, and all those involved in this because they have been involved in painstaking work in respect of the budget, transisitional issues and the preparation for the new agency.
The agency will constitute one of the largest public agencies in the State with over 4,000 employees. It is the largest and most ambitious areas of public sector reform underway. The milestones already achieved are considerable. A dedicated management structure for child welfare and protection services has been established under the leadership of Gordon Jeyes, with a reduction in management units and reporting levels; a dedicated budget has been established and publicly reported upon to ensure budgetary transparency and accountability; there has been successful recruitment to five of the six top management posts with candidates now in place; and very significant progress has been made in addressing issues for staff by means of intensive engagement in an agreed industrial relations framework.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
From the outset I set a demanding timetable for the establishment of the new agency. It is important that the pace of change is maintained, while appreciating the nature of this large scale change requires much advance preparation and reliance on the best standards of public administration.
I am satisfied that very considerable progress has already been achieved in the reform of Ireland's child protection and welfare services. I am confident that the establishment of the agency will bring a dedicated focus to child protection, family support and other key children's services for the first time in the history of the State and will in time contribute to the transformation of what are essential services for families and communities.
The purpose of my question is not to trip up the Minister or her Department. I am anxious to see the new agency established as quickly as possible. The hope and expectation of all we have achieved in the course of this year rests largely on the made for purpose Child and Family Support Agency and the hope that it will be properly resourced to give effect to the people's wishes as expressed, especially in the recent referendum.
Is it not now appropriate that the timeline for implementation - an implementation plan - should be furnished before the House? I would commend this because all we have at the moment is the deferred expectation of the presentation of the legislation. We certainly had hoped it would have been presented before the end of this year. The Minister is indicating before the end of the coming month, but there is then a process of work that needs to be under way before we will see the new agency in situ under the aegis of the Department, which is what we are anxious to see. Would it be possible to present a timeline for implementation that would cover all of the key and relevant areas and the situation vis-à-vis the three agencies that are being brought together into the single agency as of the earliest point possible in 2013? Staffing will be the most critical issue. The Minister mentioned senior management appointments but we are all very anxious to know the level of support staff that will be in place, especially social workers.
The Deputy made a very reasonable point on having a timeline and it is being worked on by the high level group. The legislation to be introduced in January is important and the Office of the Attorney General has been doing a substantial amount of work on it. With more than 100 heads, the legislation is long and there is much detail in it. We will have a timeline. As the Deputy knows, there are short, medium and long-term issues with regard to the services in the agency. I hope the next time I speak in the House early in January that we will be in a position to look at a timeline. Effectively much of the work is being done with the high level group with regard to identifying staff who will come within the agency, informing these staff and dealing with various issues which arise inevitably in the course of such a major transition.
I thank all of the staff who have been involved because I know change can be difficult and it is a major transition to move from working within the HSE to a new child and family support agency. I also thank those involved in the industrial relations because clearly issues arise when one makes the type of changes we are making and undertakes such reform. They have been handled very effectively and diligently by all involved. I take the Deputy's point on the timeline and it will be essential to give clarity to all those to whom I referred.
I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the reasonableness of my request. The Minister will understand that in the absence of this information, people, be they political voices or from the non-governmental sector, will have real concerns and these will be fuelled by the absence of critical information. I commend to the Minister at the earliest possible time in the new year to furnish elected voices and the wider public with a clearly outlined timeline for the implementation. The legislation is just a part of all of this, but we want to see when we will get to the end line, which will be a new beginning.
