Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 2013

Vol. 795 No. 3

Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Second and Subsequent Stages

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

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

I thank the spokespersons from the Opposition parties for facilitating the taking of this Bill today.

Section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides that the District Court may grant an interim care order in respect of a child on foot of an application by the Health Service Executive. The order may be made with or without parental consent in accordance with the section. The application may arise in circumstances where a child is being cared for under an emergency care order, often following a decision by An Garda Síochána to remove a child to safety under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. An interim care order may also arise as a result of an application by the Health Service Executive to take a child into its care in circumstances where there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of that child. Before granting an interim care order, the judge must be satisfied that an application for a care order in respect of the child has been or is about to be made.

The HSE recently made a submission to my Department concerning the need to increase the duration of an extension to an interim care order to 29 days. The submission set out the practice rationale for seeking to increase the period of an extension to an interim care order and sets out a strong case for urgent legislative change; hence, the Bill before us. In its submission, the HSE highlighted the difficulties it has been experiencing due to the necessity of having to go back to the District Court every eight days for extensions to interim care orders, including increased stress for all parties arising from the frequency of court appearances; the difficulties for social work staff in forming working relationships with a child and his or her family because of the frequency of adversarial court appearances; the amount of social workers' time taken up by constant court work; and increased legal costs in respect of HSE, families and guardians ad litem. It is a real issue that must be addressed on a variety of fronts.

In essence, the current application of section 17(2) of the Child Care Act 1991 is absorbing considerable court time and resulting in valuable social work time being expended in preparing for court cases and attending court hearings. This is not in the best interest of the child. It is my view that the HSE submission made a comprehensive and convincing case and I am therefore bringing forward the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 to make the amendments that are urgently required to the Child Care Act 1991 in that regard. This is also being supported by many of the legal representatives on both sides who have been in contact about the legislation. In addition, the effect of the proposed amending legislation will be to facilitate, as far as possible, applications for orders or extensions to orders to be heard on the same day each week by the courts, which will facilitate proper planning and use of time. This would assist the courts and the HSE in processing these applications and reduce the number of court appearances for all parties involved.

I will now turn to the principal features of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013. Section 1 amends section 17(2) of the Child Care Act 1991. Section 17(2)(a) of the Child Care Act 1991 currently allows for an interim care order for a period not exceeding 28 days in the absence of parental consent. Section 1(a) of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 will amend section 17(2)(a) by substituting "twenty-nine days" for "twenty-eight days". Section 17(2)(b) currently allows for an interim care order to exceed 28 days with parental consent. Section 1(a) of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 will amend section 17(2)(b) by substituting "twenty-nine days" for twenty-eight days". Section 1(b) of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 will amend section 17(2) of the Child Care Act 1991 by substituting "where an extension is to exceed twenty-nine days" for "where an extension is to exceed eight days" in order to provide that an application to extend an interim care order can be granted for a period of up to 29 days without parental consent. Section 2 is a standard provision providing for the Short Title and collective citation.

I have brought this amending Bill forward as a matter of priority. The effect of this amendment is that on the enactment of the 2013 Bill, an interim care order or an extension to an interim care order, in the absence of parental consent, may be granted for a period not exceeding 29 days. I commend this Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the Deputies' views.

Deputy Robert Troy

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on this short, technical Bill that will ultimately improve the effectiveness of the Child Care Act 1991 and address an oversight in the Children Act 2001. I thank the Minister for offering a briefing from officials in the Department on the Bill. Although I did not accept the offer, it is a positive development and perhaps the Minister might consider going even further and having a more consultative approach with the Opposition when new legislation is brought forward. Those of us on this side of the House have valuable ideas just as the Minister has. I say this as two of the more important pieces of legislation are coming from the Department later this year, these being the Bill to establish the child and family support agency and the Children First Bill. It is only right and proper for this side of the House to have a meaningful input into those pieces of legislation.

In assessing this legislation, our fundamental consideration must be the best interests of the child. I have asked whether these amendments will benefit children currently in care, and I believe they will. Until approximately 12 months ago, the District Court had granted 28-day extensions to interim care orders in cases where necessary consent had not been provided. That was only changed on the direction of the President of the District Court. For the past 12 months, representatives of the HSE had to return to the court every eight days for the extension of an interim care order, resulting in increased stress for all parties, as the Minister indicated, particularly for parents. It also led to insecurity in the children and difficulties for social workers in forming relationships with children and families. A significant amount of time was taken up with court appearances and there is an increased legal cost associated with the process.

The amending legislation will allow for the extension of an interim care order from eight to 29 days where consent has not been obtained from parents or guardians. It also allows for an interim care order granted without consent to be for a period not exceeding 29 days and for an order granted with consent to be for a period exceeding 29 days. These changes should ensure that all periods under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991 will be 29 days. The Bill has the potential to reduce needless bureaucracy and administration by eliminating the need to go to court every eight days to renew interim care orders. That will allow more time to find a solution in the best interests of the child and, as Senator van Turnhout argued in the recent Seanad debate, a "rebalancing in the focus from going to court to managing a positive outcome in individual cases".

We are happy to support the legislation and facilitate all Stages in the Dáil but I will highlight a number of concerns. There has been an unnecessary delay in bringing the Bill before the House. The anomaly was first raised by practitioners involved in court proceedings who felt the current system was having a negative impact on children. I understand it was identified to the Department by the HSE almost 12 months ago. This is short, technical but uncomplicated amending legislation which should have been introduced as a matter of priority as soon as the anomaly was identified. The entire Bill is only half a page so I do not understand why there was an unnecessary delay.

The failure to legislate in recent months has resulted in an unnecessary drain on scarce resources, with representatives of the HSE, social workers and legal teams being dragged to the courts every eight days. The most recent HIQA reports for the Dublin north-west region indicates that 35% of children in foster care had no social link worker. The same report highlights 38 allegations and concerns about foster carers made in the previous 12 months, with a significant number confirmed. Some 34 of the concerns were investigated, with four remaining. Some children remained in placements that were not approved by the foster care committee, despite allegations being made against foster carers. That was supported by documentary evidence. Unfortunately, this is not an old report and it deals with occurrences from two years ago. Serious child care issues remained undetected because of a lack of social workers.

I am sure the Minister will agree it is critical that social workers are not caught up in administrative bureaucracy when they should be out supporting the families and children who need them. The unnecessary delay in bringing forward this legislation has resulted in this. There should not have been a delay. The Government often commends itself – rightly so – on the establishment of a Department to deal exclusively with children. Since the Minister has her own Department, why was there such a delay in bringing forward such a small, technical and uncomplicated Bill?

There is a secondary issue to be addressed, and the Minister referred to it in her contribution. I refer to increased legal fees as a result of the delay in bringing forward this legislation. Only two weeks ago there was an article in The Sunday Business Post, which I am sure the Minister will have read, outlining that approximately €30 million was spent on legal fees in 2012 in respect of child care issues. This leads to a perception that the system is more about keeping lawyers in jobs than anything else. I do not subscribe to that sceptical view but what is occurring leads to the perception. If this legislation had been enacted when first mooted in 2012, what would the savings have been? How much of the €30 million was attributable to legal representatives seeking interim care orders every eight days? I accept that the Minister will not have the answer to hand today but I ask her to find out the answer from her Department. At a time of unbelievably scarce resources, we must seek to ensure that they are made available to front-line services that are most in need of them. It is disappointing that it took so long to rectify the deficiency within the Department.

The time it took to bring this uncomplicated and technical legislation before the House has raised concerns about the Department's capacity to introduce the Children First legislation and the legislation required to put the child and family support agency on a statutory footing. I agree that these Bills are very complicated but they are urgently required to ensure we will have an effective, efficient, transparent and accountable child welfare system in which every citizen can have confidence.

I supported the recent children referendum, as did the Government and 164 other Members of this House. However, a large number of people were unsure and voted "No", thereby implying they did not have confidence in the child care system as it currently stands. The two Bills to be introduced are critical. I draw attention to them because of the long time it took for the Department to bring the short, uncomplicated Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 to the Houses. Perhaps the Minister will update us in her closing remarks on the two forthcoming Bills and allay my fears. The Bills ought to be forthcoming to ensure we will have the efficient, effective, transparent and accountable child welfare system we so richly deserve.

Just as we support the passage of this legislation today and facilitated it in the Seanad, we are prepared to work with the Minister and her officials to ensure that the necessary important legislation to instil confidence in and revamp our child care services will be accorded the priority status it deserves.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I welcome this Bill as a necessary amendment to the Child Care Act 1991. It is a further step in the improvement of legislative and administrative provisions for the care of children. That is a process that I hope we all support. The strengthening of the foundations of legal rights for children was an important milestone of progress. We look forward to further necessary legislation, some of which was referred to by Deputy Robert Troy.

While I acknowledge unreservedly that the Government, not least the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, deserves credit for successfully championing the children's rights referendum, I regret the Government's credit is tarnished by its futile and punitive austerity measures which are increasing child poverty in the State. That is not just a general statement but a fact that I know most definitely from the cases presented to me as a Dáil Deputy week in, week out. It is a real set of circumstances that we cannot and must not ignore.

I look forward to the establishment of the child and family support agency. I have raised this with the Minister repeatedly. I raised it last week with Mr. Gordon Jeyes at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. When the agency is established, it will take over many responsibilities currently residing with the Health Service Executive. We addressed this at this morning's meeting of the committee. The responsibilities include those covered in this Bill.

The Bill provides for the extension of an interim care order from eight days to 29 days where consent has not been obtained from parents or guardians. This will bring the periods in section 17(2) of the parent Act, the Child Care Act 1991, broadly into line as all periods will be 29 days. This period will be a maximum for an interim care order without consent. With parental consent, the period may exceed 29 days.

Part 4 of the Child Care Act 1991, as amended, sets out provisions relating to the making of a care order and a supervision order. Section 16 allows the HSE to make an application for a care order or supervision order in respect of a child residing in its area where it appears the child is in need of care or protection.

A supervision order authorises the HSE to visit a child at specified periods to allow it to ascertain the welfare of the child or to provide advice on the care of the child. Under section 17(1), where an application for a care order has been made or is about to be made and an urgent protection need arises, an interim care order can be made pending the determination of the care order application. Section 17(2)(b) provided that the parent or person acting in loco parentis gave consent, an interim care order could be granted for a period exceeding eight days and, where they did not give consent, for a period not exceeding eight days. This was amended by section 267 of the Children Act 2001, which allowed an interim order with consent for a period exceeding 28 days and limited an order without consent to a period not exceeding 28 days. Section 17(2) of the 1991 Act also allows for an extension of an interim care order.

Until now, this would exceed eight days with the permission of the parents or those acting in loco parentis and cannot exceed eight days without that consent. The legislation before us now would allow that to be extended to 29 days. It also amends section 72(b) of the 1991 Act to allow for the application itself to be for 29 days maximum without consent and for longer where there is consent. This is necessary because running to the courts every eight days to have an interim care order reviewed is understandably regarded as excessive by those who are directly impacted by it. It is not best practice and most certainly, and much to the fore of all our minds, is disruptive for the care of the child in question.

Following the amendment of section 17(2) by the 2001 Act, the practice arose whereby interim care orders without consent were granted for a period of 28 days initially, with extensions of a further 28 days. Due to the President of the District Court, however, directing that a court cannot make such an order without consent concurrently, there is a need to legislate. If the Bill is enacted and all time periods under section 17(2) become 29 days, the proposed amendment from 28 to 29 days will facilitate applications for interim care orders, or extensions to them, being heard on the same day each week by the court.

I mentioned the children's referendum. It was noteworthy that during that campaign some people had genuine concerns about children in State care, something we all touched upon. The valid concerns that were expressed were understandable. Of course, and my memory has not been erased since, there was some deliberate scaremongering also. Those of us who advocated a "yes" vote argued that concern about children in State care was all the more reason to strengthen children's rights in the Constitution. The lesson from all the scandals of children in the horrendous institutions of the past was that their voices were not heard and they were largely invisible or made invisible to society. That must never be repeated. There is, of course, a responsibility on all of us, and most certainly on the Houses of the Oireachtas, for ongoing vigilance.

Today the problems are different, but no less serious for the individual children concerned. The lack of adequate social care for vulnerable children in the State must be put right, irrespective of the challenges of the current economic circumstances and resources. It is absolutely essential and must be corrected very soon. Resourcing of the new child and family support agency is crucial and I hope we will shortly see the publication of the facilitating legislation. I join Deputy Troy in asking the Minister to avail of the opportunity here today to give us an update on its expected presentation, something with which we are all anxious to proceed. I fully support the passage of this Bill and will facilitate its conclusion today.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I thank the Minister for the briefing by the officials, which I attended yesterday. It gave me a better understanding of why this is necessary. Like others, I would prefer more consultation. The officials said they had nothing to do with it but I got the Bill late last Thursday night and amendments had to be in by 10 a.m. on Friday morning. The Minister has been in the House much longer than me so she should know that timeframe leaves very little room. The Bills Office or whatever it is should be changed because that is not an adequate timeframe for anyone to study the Bill and submit amendments.

I echo the comments of Deputy Troy on the promised legislation on the child and family support agency and the Bill to give statutory backing to the Children First guidelines. I am also concerned about resources for the child and family support agency. It was reported this morning that there would be more than 4,000 staff in the agency. I hope we get adequate staff, not the dead wood from the HSE. I am not being disrespectful to any individual in the HSE but we must have consultation and proper examination of this legislation.

I will go back to my hobby horse. It is not a matter about which just I am concerned. The Supreme Court was also concerned. I do not want to attach any personal blame to the Minister, although she must take some of the blame, but it was a Cabinet decision to stonewall the decision of the five Supreme Court judges who were very clear in the judgment that they handed down. They stated they have serious misgivings that the Department stole the money. We voted €3 million in the House to run the referendum and the Minister pilfered, stole and robbed €1.1 million of that money. That is not nice. Reference was made to scaremongering by Deputy Ó Caoláin, and Sinn Féin is well able to scaremonger, has done so for many years and still does in many cases, but people have genuine fears, and we know, from the Dublin north-west report that Deputy Troy mentioned, why they have those fears. I have cases-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

Could I ask Deputy McGrath to reconsider his use of the word "stole" and use another term?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

No, the money was stolen. I have said so before and I will say it again. That is what happened - €3 million was allocated by this House and €1.1 million of it was misappropriated according to the judges of the Supreme Court, a higher power than these Houses. We are the Legislature and the Supreme Court acts on our decisions. I would like to rephrase it but that is the word I have used before. There is no escaping it, that is what happened and there has been no debate on that in this House, in spite of me asking the Ceann Comhairle for special notice questions.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

We have an understanding that misappropriation is different from stealing so we should stay with misappropriation.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

That is not my word; that is the word chosen by the Acting Chairman. That is what happened. I mean no disrespect to the Minister but that is what happened. The money was allocated by the Oireachtas, it did not go to where it was supposed to go, it was not spent fairly or properly and that is wrong. The result could have been biased.

I am not one of those who went out campaigning on that but I made a decision close to the end of the campaign that the HSE and some of these authorities have too much power. We see that when we look at the report from the Dublin north-west region. I hope the Minister will give us an idea of the reaction to that report. Procedures contained in the Children First guidelines were not consistently implemented. There was no formal child protection notification system that complied with the guidelines in 2011. Worryingly, 38 allegations of concerns about foster carers had been made in the previous 12 months and a significant number had been confirmed. I salute the many foster carers, 99.99% of whom do their very best and should be supported, but the supports are not going the right way. I am shocked to see that where investigations took place and concerns were addressed, the child's social worker investigated the concern, not an independent social worker. We have the same problem with the Water Services Bill. An official will make a decision and if a person wants to appeal that, another official from the same office adjudicates.

This is even worse, it is the same person.

We cannot ever talk about the Water Services Bill or any other Bill in the context of child protection because it is so important. Tragically, we have had to learn so many lessons, with the different reports over the years and now with the Magdalen laundries report. This morning I watched an interesting video in the AV room from an organisation that is well up on what is happening to children all over the world, and it is horrific. We are dealing with the State here. We can never equate it with any of those Bills, but this is very serious. HIQA, of which I have been critical on many occasions, exposed this. These children are the most vulnerable members of society and it is imperative that these issues are addressed as a matter of urgency in the forthcoming child and family support agency.

There have been mistakes. I have written to the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health regarding serious long-term issues in my constituency where foster care has not been supported, and I have issues with the HSE which are significant and worrying. That needs to be changed. Yesterday the Joint Committee on Health and Children, of which I am a member, listened to the junior doctors and then to the HSE officials, and they inhabit two different worlds. The HSE is a fairly autocratic organisation. It is not accountable to any Minister. I hope the legislation will encompass that the child and family support agency and any body provided for under the Children First Bill will be accountable to the Minister. We need to bring accountability back to this House. It was given away by the previous Governments over ten years. I condemn that. I accept that the big mistake was the setting up of the HSE but we were promised by this Government that it would take back accountability and we have seen no sign of it. The replies to parliamentary questions still state that it is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the HSE. In many cases, the HSE is not capable of doing the business properly, and the waste and the funding involved is significant.

If we can be guaranteed that it is an effort to streamline this process and give the social workers more time to get an understanding of and feeling for the child and the family and the best possible solution, we must think that this is a good aspect to this Bill, that is, if it is a matter of streamlining it from eight days to 29 to allow for a cyclical approach within the four weeks and to allow for one sitting day. We heard the Chief Justice's recent comments about the chaos in the courts. We cannot have HSE officials, social workers and lawyers in the court every eight days, and that is a good aspect of the Bill. Apart from the cost and frustration of it, and the angst to everybody concerned, the family, and the guardians, foster carer or whoever, and above all the child or children, that must be welcomed. It also reduces the costs. I am glad to hear the Minister state that many legal representatives had agreed with the moves here and believe that what is happening is not right or fair, and that we must deal with it.

I would have concerns as to why this took nearly 12 months to bring to this stage. I accept the Minister has a new Department. I wished her well at the outset and I still wish her well. I believe she and her officials are passionately interested in the well-being of all children, as we all are in this House. Why did this take nearly 12 months, if it is so urgent today? It was in the Seanad a month ago. I accept there are difficulties here, with the Finance Bill and other Bills and the IBRC issues and the so-called promissory notes, but it took a month to be presented here after its passage by the Seanad. Why was there such a delay and how long more will it be delayed if the Bills is passed today?

How long will it take to reach a position where there can be a reasonable period given for these care orders for people to go down to the court so that they can look for a solution? The most important aspect for the child is to get a proper cohesive long-term solution to bring some semblance of stability to the unfortunate children who are in these situations through no fault of their own. That is the saddest part of all. There, but for the grace of God, go I or any of us. I referred to that telling short synopsis of a film that was made about the children in slavery in parts of the world today. We must count our blessing here.

As I stated, if the Bill is necessary to change the process, we all would be happy provided that it is copperfastened and that there cannot be any indefinite orders granted. Those I represent are worried, as am I, about indefinite orders. In that regard, the Bill is fairly watertight - pardon the pun about the earlier Bill debated in the House today - and there cannot be any indefinite orders.

We must tidy up our act. We cannot have situations such as occurred in the north west which HIQA investigated. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is systematic examination of care homes and care centres in the regions as occurs in the private nursing home sector. HIQA is relentless. We cannot condone bad practices but it is ridiculous at times where HIQA tries to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear as regards a building. It is fine where there is a new building where one can do all kinds of things at design stage and afterwards through adaptation, but with buildings that are old, such as this House, one cannot make modern facilities. I have no difficulty with cleanliness, proper care and fire regulations, but I worry when HIQA argues over a few centimetres in the size of a room. In this area, has the Minister a full report from HIQA as to the number of inspections nationwide and abroad? I believe we are paying significant sums for foster care and related matters.

There are a number of houses in my community that are purchased for the purposes of foster care and they are run by the HSE. There are all kinds of issues surrounding them. They would not be for young children but there are all kinds of issues and significant costs associated with them. We need to streamline them.

We look forward to the Children First Bill. We look forward to engaging with the Minister on it and also on the question of family supports. It is overdue, although I accept the Minister is only a short time in the job. This has to be streamlined and must be kept out of the courts as much as possible. Any of us who have been in a court, even if it was only for a summons for a traffic fine or whatever, will be aware that it is a daunting place to be. It is daunting place for foster carers and I am sure it is not easy either for the social workers because they can be cross-examined. However, there must be accountability. We cannot have situations such as have gone on here in the Dublin region, as referred to in the HIQA report, especially where persons are investigating allegations against themselves. That is farcical and it has gone on for far too long. We can be here and make all kinds of passionate speeches about the McAleese report. At the same time we cannot have this situation happening under the care of the HSE.

There are too many issues of lack of accountability in and too much power being wielded by the HSE. That is why so many voted against the referendum. People had to fight the power and sometimes felt that they were wronged by the power of the State and Big Brother. It was not for fun that they voted against it. Many social workers voted against it because they could not see any big change, and they were not happy. Many care staff also voted against it. It was not for selfish reasons. It was in the interests of the children, on whether we were rushing the legislation, and on why, as I asked, were the moneys misappropriated and used for sending out information on the referendum.

The role of the Referendum Commission was also an issue. It should be let do the job on any referendum without citizens having to go to the courts to exercise fairness and straightness. When the Supreme Court made the order, the Minister for Justice and Equality on the 1 o'clock news was still referring back to the High Court. He did the same on the 6 o'clock news, when I was on the programme with him. The Minister is a man who should know better because he is a solicitor of some renown and experience. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and he was referring back to the High Court, which had upheld the action taken by the Minister and her Department. Citizens had to pay their own money to take a case and I commend them. I salute Mr. Mark McCrystal. I salute the lady, whose name eludes me, who is still contesting that decision, not for anarchy or for the reason, but because there must be fair play. We were promised so much of that by this Administration and we have seen very little of it. We have seen a bureaucratic system, a lack of transparency, rushed legislation, voting in the middle of the night and countless guillotines. A guillotine has been mentioned in respect of this legislation even though the Minister did not need it because she had the co-operation of all parties.

I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews for his forbearance and the incoming Acting Chairman, Deputy Ann Phelan.

Deputy Simon Harris

I welcome the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013. I heard Deputies Troy and Mattie McGrath refer to a delay in the legislation. We all want everything to do with child protection passed through this House and in operation as quickly as possible. While everything is urgent, not everything can be delivered at the moment, as we would like it to be. This is another piece in a jigsaw we have been assembling over the past two years to reform and restructure child protection services. We have had the children's rights referendum, to which others have alluded, and the announcement of the new child and family support agency, which is an exciting new departure. We have seen the appointment of more than 200 additional social workers. What is colloquially known as the child death report has been published and adoption legislation has been drafted. An entire veil of secrecy, inefficiency and failure has been pulled back on how this State treats children, particularly vulnerable children.

This is a technical Bill, but attempts to downplay its importance is doing the Bill and those who will depend on its provisions a disservice. When a child is taken into care without his or her parents' consent, it occurs for reasons of child protection. It is done to ensure that a vulnerable child is removed from a potentially dangerous situation. It is done for a child's welfare. The amendment to extend the period of interim care order from eight days to 29 days will allow risk assessment to be carried out. It will enable, empower and most importantly implicitly insist that the State's agencies carry out comprehensive assessments to avoid time running out resulting in people having to waste time running back to the court to seek additional orders.

The need for risk assessment was clearly outlined in the child death report, and this amendment will acknowledge and go some way to address the findings in that report. The President of the District Court has highlighted the deficiency in the current interim care orders and the inability to seek an extension to an order in excess of eight days. This need for State services to return constantly and regularly to court owing to this anomaly is taking up significant time and resources in our courts for social workers. We all know the importance of social work hours and social workers need to be freed up to be directed to where they are needed, working directly with vulnerable children and vulnerable families. More importantly it is completely unfair to a child and against his or her best interests to have such constant adversarial situations in court. Vulnerable children need to be supported and do not need to be put in unnecessary adversarial situations.

In welcoming the legislation I take the opportunity to refer to three issues relating to child care and child protection. I welcome the work the Ministers, Deputies Fitzgerald and Shatter, are doing to reform family courts. An issue that often comes up - it was raised during the children's rights referendum campaign - is that we simply do not know what goes on in these family courts. I understand there are important and sensitive issues of confidentiality relating to the protection of a child's rights and those of a family. However, we need more data and the scheme introduced allowing someone to collate information, report on what is going on and give us a picture of what is happening without breaching that confidentiality will be really exciting and informative. It will help educate us and feed into better policy for our family and child courts. I look forward to further developments in that regard.

I share the views of other speakers that another exciting aspect of the children's referendum is that we have now seen the draft adoption legislation. We look forward to it being implemented to give Irish families the opportunity to adopt children who might have been in their foster care. Many people have gone abroad to adopt and there is no criticism of that and no doubt it will continue. However, it is very welcome that families will have the chance of adopting within this country.

I have discussed the issue of childminders with the Minister previously. I know child minding and childminders are covered by the Child Care Act 1991, which we are obviously amending today. Child minding cannot be excluded from issues relating to child protection and standards. I accept that the area is extremely complex and I have heard the Minister discuss the matter previously in the House. Do we really want to regulate and vet every babysitter, granny and aunt? I understand it gets very complicated. However, approximately 50,000 young children are being cared for by childminders every day. That estimated figure came from a Goodbody report Start Strong commissioned in 2011. There are approximately 19,000 childminders, of whom only 257 notified the HSE of their existence. The Child Care Act 1991 makes exemptions for the relative of a child or the spouse of a relative; anybody who is caring for children from one family in addition to their own children; and anybody caring for three or fewer preschool children of different families. However, Childminding Ireland has advised that 53% of its childminders are caring for three children or fewer.

I do not profess to have the answer to this situation and while I know these issues are always more complex than they first appear, I ask the Minister to look at best international practice. In particular she should look at the model in Scotland where considerably more childminders are registered than is the case here. There are 6,000 registered childminders in Scotland with a very similar population of 5.2 million compared with our 4.6 million. The quality standards for childminders in Scotland are high. Scotland has a system of registration rather than notification. No childminder is exempt - everybody must register and then policy can decide what happens next.

This is a complex issue and we have had a proud tradition of people being minded in the home and by relatives. That tradition is one that people in communities value. However, quality matters everywhere, including where children are being cared for by childminders in what are generally rather informal situations and small numbers. As the Minister continues with her ambitious agenda of reform of child protection, I ask her to explore what is happening in other EU countries and elsewhere. Her officials should look at what is happening in Scotland, a country of comparable size just across the water, and also what is happening just up the road in Northern Ireland where structures are in place. At some point perhaps we can have a broader debate in this House. It is not as clearcut or as easy as people like to make it sound at times, but it certainly merits proper discussion in the House at some point.

I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for bringing it before the House.

Deputy Regina Doherty

The State of the Nation's Children report, published last year, revealed Ireland has more than 1.1 million children, which at 25% of the total population is the highest percentage we have ever had and higher than in any other EU state. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, recently said that these children represent unprecedented potential for Ireland's economic future and that we must look after them. Among the many positive trends noted in the report are that the number of newborn babies visited by a public health nurse within 48 hours of discharge from hospital rose to 84% for the first time. In addition, the number of children on hospital waiting lists dropped by 45% in the four years to the end of 2012. This is all good news. However, for many years we have been appalled and distressed by the findings of various reports into child abuse in our society. There has been a shameful catalogue of 17 major reports on child protection failings in Ireland in recent years. We must not think these horrors just occurred in the distant past. Child protection concerns have not suddenly gone away. The sad reality is they probably never will.

The Government is committed to transparency and honesty about the challenges in getting children's services right. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has kept her pledge to make a series of reforms, including strengthening the entitlement of children in care to aftercare services once they reach 18, establishing a new child and family support agency that will take responsibility for child protection away from the HSE and a nationwide consistency of approach in practice and implementation of guidelines on the handling of child-welfare and child-protection cases. The aim of every reform has been the same - to improve children's chances of growing up strong in every respect. It has become clear from various reports in recent years that have highlighted the scale and seriousness of child abuse in Ireland that there is a need to improve significantly Ireland's child protection and welfare services.

Last year, the Government strengthened children's rights, chose a site for their new hospital and faced up to past failures to care for vulnerable children. It was the year Ireland began to look a little more child centred.

The Bill amends section 17(2) of the Child Care Act 1991 and increases from eight to 29 days the period in respect of which a court may grant extensions of interim care orders in the absence of parental consent. I welcome the clarity this will provide. Currently, the HSE may seek a court order to take a child into its care for a maximum of eight days, without the consent of his or her parents.

Parents are the primary protectors of children and must, and will continue to be, supported in every possible way. In the small minority of cases where parents are struggling and not meeting their children's basic needs, intervention by the State must be such that it is fully confident it will make the child's life better. Protecting children and supporting families are two sides of the same coin.

This Government has consistently been about supporting families by reaffirming and underpinning early intervention and family support services to protect children in their homes. However, when that is not possible, we must step in and protect the child. It is never easy getting the balance right in the battle between parents and the HSE, and often within the HSE in terms of resources and best practice. We must ensure children are listened to and that their welfare is paramount. There are currently approximately 6,000 children in various forms of State care, many of whom have been in care for years. The number of referrals for suspected child abuse or neglect has increased by 50% since 2006, placing the child protection system under significant pressure. While there has been a big leap in this regard over the past two years, if we were to design a new system for children it would look nothing like the current system.

Many children in care are, and will remain, troubled. The publication of the independent child death review group report into the deaths of children in State care shocked the nation. It examined the decade from 2000 to 2010, during which time almost 200 children died in State care, or shortly after leaving it on reaching 18 years of age. Most of these deaths were from unnatural causes such as homicide, suicide and accidents. The report states that most of these children received an inadequate child protection service, that in some cases files were in complete disarray and that there was evidence that social services had closed files on some cases even though children were still at risk. More shocking still were the individual stories of ruined childhoods and preventable deaths.

There is no doubt but that the State failed in the past to adequately care for some of the children in its care. However, it is no solution to this problem to say that these children should have remained at home. They only found themselves in State care in the first instance because they suffered appalling neglect or abuse at home. A small minority of children will always require State intervention to protect them. Their welfare will be served by placing stronger obligations on the State to meet their needs and not by leaving things as they are.

The Garda Síochána and the HSE have powers to intervene if there are reasonable grounds to believe there is an immediate and serious risk to the welfare, safety or health of any child. The independent child death review group report demonstrated that while the short-term needs of the children identified in it had been met, in that they were taken into care because of a problem in their life at the time, this was not enough. Inevitably, many children in care are, and will remain, troubled. Appreciating the long-term difficulties that these children will face requires more action, which action is being taken by the Government through the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. If these young men and women are to navigate the turbulence that awaits them in a world away from State care, there must be a commitment to the provision of a full range of services. According to the annual report of the Courts Service, the number of child care orders sought more than doubled last year. It is a striking statistic that care orders for children at risk more than doubled in 2011, which is a rise of 119% on the 2010 figure. This does not include emergency and interim care orders.

Ireland has fewer children in care per thousand of population than does England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Australia, which indicates the change management within our health and family services is working. We are also fortunate in this country in that more than 91% of children in care are in foster care, in a stable family setting. Almost eight out of ten children placed in care last year were removed from their homes because of abuse, neglect and serious family problems. One in five of the 2,218 children removed from their homes were taken into care because of chronic neglect. According to figures from the State's child protection services, some 736 of admissions were as a result of emergency or non-voluntary care orders. Every call to social workers on the child protection team reveals details of another human catastrophe, family breakdown, drug addiction, mental illness or child abuse. It is normally a hidden world of families living on the edge of society, on the edge of the health system and, in extreme circumstances, on the edge of life.

Child welfare practitioners tell us that they come across two types parents, namely, those who are vulnerable and love their children but cannot care for them and those who do not. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs will spend €260 million on early intervention and child care services this year and every year. However, this is not just about finances. We need to continue with a greater appreciation of the need for collective thinking and collective responsibility and the potential to learn from the other person's perspective. Children get lost when people step into defensive mode. Following publication of the report of the independent child death review group, many people expressed incomprehension at the scale of the tragedies and missed opportunities and questioned how such gross failings could occur in a system designed to protect the welfare of vulnerable children. We are moving forward and there are signs that these reforms are working. Social workers in the area say there are no waiting lists for child protection and that every case brought to their attention is allocated a social worker and responded to. There are many good news stories that will never make headlines but are profoundly benefiting many young people and families.

Protecting children is everyone's business. We will only get this right if the State, non-Government organisations, communities and families work together. There must be greater accountability and better analysis of spending, with brave investment in policies such as early intervention, breakfast clubs, family support and early identification of speech and language difficulties that may not show immediate results, but will yield tenfold in a short space of time. A great many changes have been put in train. The Government is determined to get children's services right. Upon taking up office, this Government immediately made significant inroads to improving Ireland's child welfare and protection systems with the appointment at Government level of a Minister and Department of Children and Young Affairs. These are very important steps.

We have seen momentum in reform of our child protection services, through, for example, the child and family support agency, the children first legislation, the Criminal Justice (Withholding Information on Crimes Against Children and Vulnerable Adults) Bill and the National Vetting Bureau Bill, all of which mark significant progress in the direction of Ireland's commitment to improving child protection and welfare and set Ireland on course to meeting the recommendations set out by UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2006. We need laws that will protect children from harm and give them status as individuals. Childhood is a precious time. It does not last very long. Children must be protected and their rights promoted to ensure that they are consistently treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. As stated by Geoffrey Shannon, no child should suffer to protect an institution or be made to live a life of unspeakable abuse and neglect to protect his or her abusive parents. Children must be respected and the State empowered to adequately protect them.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. There is consensus across the House in relation to the legislation before us, the amendment of which has been long advocated by NGOs and community groups working directly with children. However, I would like to repeat a couple of points which I have raised previously with the Minister in terms of a more broad reform of this legislation. I am disappointed that in introducing amendments to the Bill today the Minister did not take the opportunity to make broader amendments, in particular amendment of section 45 of the Child Care Act 1991 to provide that after care for young people leaving State care is a statutory right. When in opposition, Fine Gael actively supported amendment of this section and tabled amendments in that regard. I am disappointed that this Government, like the previous Administration, is unwilling to adopt a rights-based approach in relation to section 45.

I believe the definition of homelessness in respect of children, as set out in section 5 of the Child Care Act 1991, should also be amended.

Given that we now recognise homelessness is a much more dynamic and complex issue than when the 1991 Act was drafted, there is consensus among non-governmental agencies and advocates that the Act needs to be amended.

There is consensus that it is essential we make every effort to keep families together where we can. The decision to take a child into care is incredibly complex and not taken lightly. That said, all Deputies recognise from their experience the massive pressure put on families at present, particularly those in poverty whose living conditions are being made worse on a daily basis by the decisions taken by the Oireachtas on rent allowance, cuts to payments for family occasions and family income. Although families are being put under massive pressure and strain, under no circumstance is this an excuse for a child to suffer; that is totally unacceptable. However, we must recognise issues regarding children in care and the well-being of children are directly related to the type of society we have. Unfortunately, since the Oireachtas was formed we have been building a more unequal society as a direct consequence of the votes taken in the House. Despite the goodwill which exists with regard to children's rights and making Ireland a fine place in which to be a child, the reality of our economic and social policy is quite different. We must examine the statistics on this. Child poverty and inequality in society are increasing and we cannot decouple the issue of child protection from the broader questions of child poverty and social equality.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister's strong and sincere interest in the area, but we can go much further. The commitment to provide a statutory right to after-care, which was a Fine Gael pre-election pledge, should be honoured. It has not been to date. We cannot hide behind legal advice from the Department as is happening in the case of the mobility allowance. The argument is that if a statutory right is created, it will somehow place an onerous burden on the Exchequer. If we believe in children's rights, then the very minimalist referendum we successfully passed last year goes nowhere near far enough. I hope we can bring forward a more expansive and progressive Bill. I commend the Minister on her commitment in the area and wish her well in her work.

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

I thank all Deputies for their contributions to the debate and for the very constructive approach they have taken to the legislation. As the Deputies opposite have stated, this is in the best interests of the child and is the right thing to do in terms of court procedures. It will allow for proper time and attention for proper risk assessment, which is very important. It is very clear from all of the reports we have received that assessments on best plans for children, making detailed plans to ensure they get the best services and understanding their problems accurately have been missing in some, but not all, cases. All sides agreed that returning to court regularly does not help this. The previous time allowed was 28 days, so this is positive legislation and will lead to better practice and better outcomes for children with regard to court procedures.

Quite a number of Deputies raised the issue of legal costs, and I can only agree. It is a shame we have such an adversarial legal system when it comes to decisions about children. Last year, the total child care legal costs - not total HSE costs - were €31.1 million. The guardian ad litem system has not been regulated properly and we need proper legislation to regulate guardians ad litem. I am in discussion with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on this and we will see action in the course of this year. We will have more regulation and a clear outline of qualifications. Guardian ad litem is a very important role to play in terms of representing the best interests of a child.

Mr. Gordon Jeyes has taken quite a number of initiatives on legal services in the HSE and the approach to attendance in court by social workers. A new template has been provided for social workers with regard to court practice, because we have had inconsistency throughout the country. More training has been given to social workers. A new guidance document has been issued, as has a learning digest to ensure staff throughout the country hear about legal opinions given in other court cases so that they know about the precedents which have been set. This sounds very basic but we have not had it before, and it is aimed at avoiding repeat expenditure on similar legal services.

The number of authorised legal service users has been considerably reduced, and this change is very important. We have not had this type of control in terms of accessing expensive legal services. A new group is working on this in child and family services within the HSE. Mr. Jeyes has established a court working group to oversee all of this. Work is under way to have a better approach. The bottom line is the adversarial legal system, and this needs to change. As Deputy Harris stated, we will move towards this with the referendum in the autumn on the courts. We must develop the model which is most appropriate for Ireland. Some people mentioned Scotland, but we need to change and move more towards a mediation and contact centres type of approach when making decisions on children.

I had to give proper time to considering the issues because there was the question of changing what might be seen as fair procedures and family rights. I received the final report with the views of the HSE on 22 October. I went to Cabinet six weeks later and got agreement to draft legislation, which I did within a month and it went to the Seanad in February. I have a heavy legislative schedule and all Departments have limited resources when it comes to drafting legislation.

With regard to the other legislation about which Deputies have asked, I am happy to have consultation on it. I will have a discussion tomorrow with some groups on the Children First legislation and I would be very happy to have consultations as requested. Work has been developing on this legislation, as it has on the child and family support agency. As Deputy Troy stated, it is significant legislation with well over 100 heads. We have seen agencies being established in a hurry previously, most notably the HSE. I want to do it properly. As Deputy Mattie McGrath stated, it involves the transfer of 4,000 staff. The difference it will make is that it will be a dedicated agency with a sole focus. The managers will be primarily focused on child and family services. Previously, the same managers have had responsibility for accident and emergency services, immunisation, general nursing issues and hospital issues. Now 17 managers will have a total focus on child and family services and there will be greater accountability. There will be closer contact between the front line and management, and this is very important. This is how to have a better service. When we want to establish quality services, we put a key focus on the issues, and this is what we are doing with the establishment of the agency. It is important to remember the High Court and the Supreme Court accepted the bona fides of our approach on the referendum.

A number of points were made on knowing more about what is happening in court. Dr. Carol Coulter will report, probably within the next month, on her initial findings on the court reporting survey. This will be published on a dedicated website and will give us more information on what is happening in our courts with regard to child care, which will be a great help. The Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, will bring forward legislation to change the in camera rule. While respecting the rights of children, privacy issues and ensuring children are not identified, the legislation will mean we will have more information about what happens in courts. Inconsistencies exist throughout the country with regard to children in court and this should not be the case. The first step is to identify the inconsistencies, as a number of Deputies have said, and understand precisely what is happening in the courts.

A number of other points were made in regard to the Health Information and Quality Authority. I reassure Deputies that the HIQA reports are being acted upon. I launched the new standards for child protection. I welcome these HIQA reports and we will have far more of them. We will have six or seven in the coming weeks on fostering. The first report by HIQA on children protection in Carlow and Kilkenny is coming in the next few weeks. I have no doubt those reports will show that there are improvements still to be made. These services will not be changed overnight. I have to look back at the position I inherited in terms of the lack of national systems, national standards, national data and national management. However, we are moving to a situation where they are in place. There are 11 new inspectors inspecting child care facilities. We will have more inspection. That is a key way forward in terms of improving standards. It is the right thing to do and it is right that resources be put into it. However, we must respond to those reports and arrive at a situation where we do not have the same findings as previously but that the position has improved and is improving.

A review group has gone into the north west. The findings in regard to child protection there are unacceptable, some of which is historic but some of which is recent. I put an independent expert in there to monitor what is happening to ensure the next time HIQA reports, we will see the necessary changes, particularly in regard to child protection. It is clear from the HIQA reports on fostering for Louth, Dún Laoghaire and Limerick that there are consistent and good services in place. It is important to highlight the areas where work needs to be done but equally to acknowledge where progress has been made. It is clear that the findings in Dublin north-west are not acceptable and will be dealt with. I have met the management teams. Part of the difficulty was that many of the care situations in which the children were placed were relative foster care. Historically, there was an assumption that the same level of rigorous assessment was not required. That is not the case. Wherever a child is placed, we have to be absolutely certain that child protection is the key issue and concern.

I thank Deputies for raising a range of issues. Deputy Simon Harris mentioned issues in regard to childminders. The early years strategy group which I have initiated will examine the issue. We are going to have a national policy on the early years. Traditionally, Irish parents have taken a decision to recruit childminders themselves and the State has not interfered. I would like to see a situation where childminders get more support. How heavy the regulation needs to be is the question but the Deputy pointed out that at least 50,000 children are in that position. It has traditionally been left to the private sphere. If we got to a situation where childminders got the value of registering and the support from the local child care committees, that would be a good thing. It is disappointing that so few have registered. However, the early years group will examine the issue.

In regard to adoption, the Deputy made a point about the adoption of Irish children and the potential for children to get a second chance. That is an important point. The position on intercountry adoption is changing dramatically with families in many countries from where children were adopted, such as India and Russia, adopting children. There was no practice of adoption within those countries, but that is becoming much more prevalent. Therefore, the number of children available for intercountry adoption is changing. That is a new context for Irish families to become aware of and understand.

Deputy Patrick Nulty asked about after-care. There is a need for a review of the Child Care Acts. I will review those. I did not use the opportunity of the Bill before us to do that because it is a more comprehensive job than I was able to get done in the time available. I hope to bring forward an amendment on child care and, if possible, under the child and family support agency Bill when it comes to the House.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and support for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ann Phelan)

In accordance with the order of the Dáil, we move on to Committee Stage.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ann Phelan)

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.