I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and his officials to discuss the Ferns Report and the report of the Ombudsman for Children on complaints received about child protection in Ireland. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister of State to begin.
Child Protection: Ministerial Presentation.
Before I do so, I had understood we were to deal with the Ferns Report exclusively. However, my officials anticipated the joint committee might want to ask questions arising from the ombudsman's report. Therefore, I will be able to deal with that issue also.
The committee understands that is the position.
Will the Minister of State read his full statement?
What is the practice at the committee?
The Minister of State should tell us what it contains.
I thank the committee for the invitation to brief it on the implementation of the report. I know the ombudsman attended the committee and that colleagues on the Joint Committee on Education and Science met Archbishop Brady and other church representatives. We had an extensive debate on the report in the Dáil and I go over the same ground somewhat in my statement. I do not want to take from the courage of those who gave testimony or the quality of the report. The Government made its views known through its condemnation of what had been established in the report.
There have been a number of significant developments since the publication of the report, including the establishment of my office, the Office of the Minister for Children. On the political side, this office enables me to represent children at the Cabinet table, while in administrative terms it is a welcome development because it has brought together children at risk on all sides. The health and child protection side of the Department of Health and Children and the youth justice side of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be collocated within the office. This morning I am assisted by an official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the youth justice side, as well as by my officials from the Department of Health and Children, all of whom will be collocated in the Office of the Minister for Children. We talk about joined-up government and the need for inter-agency co-operation. The Government must lead by example. I have spoken at other venues about how the various functions have been combined.
The church launched a document entitled, Our Children, Our Church, to which I will return. It is an important issue, about which committee members may wish to ask questions.
The Government has accepted all of the recommendations of the Ferns Report. My office has been working closely with the Health Service Executive and all other relevant bodies in implementing its recommendations. One of my key tasks as Minister of State at the Office of the Minister for Children is to establish satisfactory working relations between my office and the Health Service Executive. I have had a number of meetings with Professor Drumm and his officials and I am satisfied I have satisfactory arrangements in place.
The transition to the Health Service Executive envisaged by the legislation will take time because of the vast amount of functions being transferred from the health boards to the HSE. It is now bedding down and Professor Drumm and his staff have shown a keen awareness of the issues. Immediately the Ferns Report was published, I sought a meeting with Professor Drumm to discuss those issues with him and I have had a subsequent meeting with him about relationships between the Department and the HSE.
My office has been working closely with the HSE in the implementation of the recommendations. One of the key actions after the delivery of the Ferns Report was the announcement of a review of compliance with the existing national guidelines on child protection - entitled, Children First - by State bodies and NGOs. Children First was published in 1999 and consists of overarching national guidelines that apply to all individuals and agencies that come into contact with children.
My office has begun the review of compliance through first examining previous reviews that were conducted in 2002 and 2003. This Sunday, and in the coming week, advertisements will be carried in national and regional newspapers seeking structured submissions on the review. In addition, direct contact is being made with Departments, relevant organisations, academics and other key stakeholders.
The current review differs substantially from the previous reviews in certain respects. The Ombudsman for Children referred to this aspect in her presentation to the committee. It is conducted in a different context in that there is a considerably different climate following the publication of the Ferns Report and this is the first review conducted since the establishment of the HSE.
Previous reviews focused, to a large extent, on child protection services within the HSE, whereas this review covers national compliance in all sectors. Previous reviews also focused on structures and processes. While this will be a major part of the current review, it will also have a much greater focus on outcomes in terms of service delivery and outcomes for children.
In addition to the review, I asked the Health Service Executive to launch a nationwide publicity and awareness campaign on child sexual abuse. This campaign is being managed by the HSE, with support provided by my office. A steering group of service providers, social workers and other relevant HSE personnel has been established to inform the process of developing the campaign. The research unit of the office has conducted an examination of publicity campaigns in other countries that have been evaluated in an evidence-based manner. The HSE has that information.
Immediately following publication of the Ferns Report, I sought confirmation from the bishops' conference that the recommendations of the report would be implemented, collectively and individually. I also requested confirmation that the framework guidelines were in place in all dioceses.
The church has now published the document, Our Children, Our Church. The Ferns Report recommended the model of the inter-agency committee adopted in the Ferns diocese. Following the publication of the report, I welcomed the statement by church authorities that they intended to participate in inter-agency committees throughout the country. The inter-agency committee format allows for close co-operation in the area of child protection between the Church authorities and the relevant statutory agencies, the HSE and the Garda Síochána. The inter-agency committees, which are to be established in every diocese in the State, will be chaired and convened by and will have their minutes recorded by the HSE. The HSE has established a national implementation group to oversee the convening of these committees and is working closely with the church and the Garda Síochána in developing agreed terms of reference for their operation.
The inter-agency committees will have two key roles. The first will be to ensure the church implements the Our Children, Our Church guidelines in every diocese in the State and the second will be to facilitate the exchange of information between the parties to the committees. When those guidelines were published, I indicated my view that they represent a step in the right direction but I did not, as the responsible Minister of State, validate or confirm that these guidelines are totally satisfactory because I did not believe I was in a position to do so. I am arranging for a proper, professional assessment of those guidelines to take place. Arrangements for the commissioning of that assessment will be finalised in a matter of days.
The Government will soon announce the formal approval of the terms of reference of the commission of investigation into the Dublin archdiocese. I presume members are aware of the general issues surrounding this investigation and I will not go into detail because I outlined them on several previous occasions.
It is important to note that, apart from Dublin, the second phase of the commission's work is an audit of the level of compliance with the 1996 framework guidelines and subsequent documents such as Our Children, Our Church and to examine the implementation of the recommendations of the Ferns Report by all dioceses in the State. If the Tánaiste, on my recommendation, considers that any diocese is failing to satisfactorily implement the guidelines, that diocese will be referred to the commission of inquiry. The inter-agency committees will play the key role in assisting the Tánaiste and me in considering the satisfactory implementation of the guidelines and the recommendations.
As the committee will understand - I assure members that Ministers and Ministers of State have been reminded of this - operational responsibility for the delivery of child protection service lies, under the relevant statutory provisions, with the HSE. In response to the report, the HSE established five project teams to address issues arising on foot of it. Many of the projects involved will help to address aspects of the perceived lack of services and responses highlighted by the recent report from the Ombudsman for Children and in the presentation to this committee by One in Four. The projects include the national publicity campaign to which I referred, a national workload management project tasked with developing a caseload management system, a national chid care information project and a national supervision policy for child protection social work staff.
A further task group has been established to examine and assess the need for counselling services for young people and families. Its remit extends to the assessment of the efficacy of counselling services for adult survivors of abuse, including statutory and NGO provision. That assessment will result in an evaluation of existing services and in the submission of recommendations to the HSE that will highlight inadequacies and the service developments necessary to address deficits. Another project team is also addressing treatment services for abusers within the remit of the HSE.
There are a number of recommendations in the Ferns Report that require detailed study and legal advice in respect of their practical implementation. The issues that arise on foot of these recommendations include executive or public interest privilege, civil legal aid and reckless endangerment. The Ferns Report highlighted concerns that the emphasis placed on the recording of complaints and the minuting of highly sensitive meetings created a danger of disclosure of the material in question in subsequent legal proceedings. It recommended, therefore, that privilege similar to executive privilege attach, by law, to all documents relating to allegations, rumours, suspicion or innuendo of child sexual abuse created or maintained in the workings of the inter-agency committees. Executive privilege and the right to withhold evidence in a context of this nature is a long-standing principle of the common law. Ultimately, it is a matter decided by the courts rather than by Members of the Oireachtas, as legislators. Any extension of the right or the recognition of analogous rights in this case would, however, require legislation, in which context the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is currently in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General.
The Ferns Report recommended that in cases where an allegation of child sexual abuse is made against a priest, both the priest and the complainant should, irrespective of their means, be entitled to legal aid under the Civil Legal Aid Act. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is studying the implications of this recommendation carefully. The Ferns Report recommended that consideration be given to the introduction of a new criminal offence of wanton or reckless engagement in conduct that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or of wantonly failing to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk. The Minister for Justice,Equality and Law Reform is preparing an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before the Dáil that will create such an offence. It is hoped that the amendment will be made on Report Stage in the Dáil.
The Ferns Report also raised concerns regarding the powers of the HSE in respect of cases of third party abuse. Before the report was published, I sought the advice of the Attorney General due to the serious character of the issue. He advised me that the HSE has the power to act under current legislative provisions. However, my office, the Office of the Attorney General and the HSE are undertaking an in-depth study of the HSE's powers and this will, if necessary, be followed by the introduction of legislative proposals. We are also examining the recommendation of the report on introducing legislation which would empower the High Court, on the application of the Health Service Executive or other suitable body, to bar or otherwise restrain a person from having unsupervised access to children where there were reasonable grounds for the belief the person had a propensity to abuse children. Difficult legal issues arise with all these proposals.
The Ferns Report made no recommendation on mandatory reporting and it is fair to state it provided no in-depth examination of the issue. A draft White Paper on the subject was prepared in 2000 and circulated to Departments. In view of the comments and observations made and the consultations with the Attorney General, it is clear that complex legal issues were involved in the issue. The Ferns Report has succeeded in opening up discussion in this area.
I would like a culture of mandatory reporting to be established, albeit not necessarily on a legislative basis. It is my view that persons are now more readily prepared to report concerns about child abuse to the relevant authorities and pursue the authorities to ensure the complaint is dealt with effectively and efficiently. I am not convinced of the advantage of criminalising a person for keeping his or her word to an individual who does not wish a complaint to be taken any further. Sufficient damage has already been done to such an individual without giving him or her a concern that the person he or she has entrusted with this information could be the subject of criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, I am interested to hear the views of members of the joint committee on this subject.
I understand that last week, when the Ombudsman for Children attended, questions were raised concerning the implementation of the Children Act. I do not propose to address this matter in detail at this point but if members wish to raise the matter with me, I will report to them on it.
The Ferns Report has had a major effect on the country. My job and that of the Government and Oireachtas is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is also the job of local communities and society in general. There were shortcomings in the system which we are determined to address. With the measures we are undertaking arising from the report and the developments which have occurred under successive Governments in the past 15 years, we have gone a long way towards protecting our children. We must, however, continually strive to ensure the levels of abuse outlined in the report can never occur again.
I thank the Minister of State for outlining the position. The Ferns Report is a significant document, particularly because it offers an outside, independent view on the circumstances surrounding terrible abuse of children and the failure of the system to protect them. Last week, during her appearance before the joint committee, the Ombudsman for Children gave a bird's eye view of a small sample of complaints she had received and the deficiencies evident in the response to complaints or concerns. Her findings were critical.
The background to the Minister of State's presentation is that we do not know the extent of abuse, the type of services available or the nature of the responses to complaints. The inevitable response of any Minister is to establish a review. Does the Minister of State accept that review processes of this type can take place within a sealed system? Since the abolition of health boards the practice of issuing reports to health board members has ceased. Will the reviews be published in the same way that the annual report of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals is published? This would allow members of the public to see what precisely what state services are in, rather than what others would like them to believe.
The Health Service Executive has been established for three years. An interim, shadow arrangement in place for the first year operated on a statutory basis throughout 2005. We are now in the third year of the HSE's existence. The idea that we must wait for it to become established raises a serious concern. Perhaps the Minister of State is not aware that members of the public face a complete block when trying to secure swift access to HSE information and services. I telephoned the HSE yesterday about a psychiatric case and was put through to the secretary of Professor Drumm. The one person who does not need to deal with a psychiatric case in the Dublin region is that secretary. Nobody within the HSE seems to know to whom people should be referred. Will the Minister of State comment on this?
The Minister of State said he is having a professional assessment of church guidelines carried out. If he finds deficiencies, what will he do about them? What powers does he have and what resources is he able to commit to put counselling services in place, especially for adult survivors?
One in Four made a presentation to the committee recently and it was quite clear that demand is far outstripping the capacity to deliver. The Minister of State has said he is considering the need to determine what can be done. Is he aware of the research of One in Four regarding the telephone helpline, in which it was found that only a tiny percentage of those who made complaints or raised issues were dealt with properly? I presume he saw the One in Four submission to this committee. Will he comment on it? It seems we are seeing a little chink of daylight being shed on the reality as opposed to the aspirations and reviews suggesting that everything is really fine and that we should not worry. When these issues are tested according to practical experience, they give cause for alarm. Will the Minister comment on this?
I thank the Minister of State for his contribution and welcome the re-establishment of the Ministry of State at the Department of Health and Children. When Austin Currie was Minister of State nine years ago, he had responsibility for health and children, education and justice. We are pleased that the Government has now recognised that this formula was the most suitable for dealing with children. It is a multidisciplinary area and does not just concern health and children.
When One in Four was before the committee, we were somewhat surprised and shocked by the response regarding the telephone helpline, as mentioned by Deputy McManus. The trauma and difficulties experienced by people making a complaint were outlined in great detail. These are experienced even before people lift the telephone. To receive a response by voicemail or no reply when reporting an incident is an indication of how little has changed. One of the key issues raised in the Ferns Report is that reports of child abuse were not being taken seriously. Additionally, there was a culture of blockage preventing people from making reports. We are now trying to open up this area. It is now accepted that it is open but we must question this. One in Four certainly put great doubts in my mind whether it is ensured that victims of abuse making reports are responded to and taken seriously.
The Minister of State referred to the Children Act 2001, which was in gestation for approximately five years. The original legislation, introduced by Austin Currie and subsequently by Deputy O'Donoghue, when he was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, had many positive provisions pertaining to children in crisis. I mentioned this to the Ombudsman for Children. Mr. Justice Kelly and Mr. Justice Geoghegan had the freedom to highlight difficulties in services for young people in crisis, the availability of institutions for them and the need for the Government to react. In one case, there was a threat of a court injunction against three Ministers. We now do not know what is happening as the information is not as freely available as it was. The Children Act provided for various institutions such as the family conference and others to be established to deal with children who got into difficulties with the law.
We are constantly informed about children involved in anti-social behaviour. A child involved in such behaviour at seven or eight years of age will be involved in more serious matters ten years later. The time to deal with it is at the earliest age. The Children Act went a long way towards tackling this. How far advanced are the plans for the educational establishment as set out in the Children Act?
Difficulties have arisen in the operation of the sex offenders register which only covers those who have a conviction for sexual offences. In most other jurisdictions a register will cover people who are believed by the police and child protection agencies to be a danger to children. Various suggestions have been made to amend the sex offenders register. Has the Minister of State any information on proposals to ensure protection against abuse extends beyond those convicted to those known to the authorities to be a danger to children?
Will the Minister of State explain what he means by "executive privilege"? He spoke of consultations with the Attorney General on new legislation. When will it be introduced?
On accusations of abuse, to be abused is damaging; to be accused of abuse is also damaging. It is an extremely complex area. If an individual is accused of this heinous activity, there is no way back for him or her, even if he or she is proved innocent. Has holding such court cases in camera been considered or is that impossible?
On mandatory reporting, is there not a case to be made for whistleblower legislation? People are often afraid to report and need some protection to do so. This does not only affect sexual abuse offences but others also. The events at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, highlighted how people could be afraid to come forward to report certain actions. Will the Minister of State agree that the Opposition is correct on the urgent need for whistleblower legislation?
I welcome the Minister of State and what he said. I am concerned about the hierarchy's Our Children, Our Church initiative because while I am sure it is well intentioned, I do not know who chose the people who could be approached. The lay people concerned were given certificates at Maynooth stating they could be approached if it was considered there were sexual abuse problems. Who decided to choose the people concerned? Who trained them and to whom can one report if one believes they are not behaving properly or dealing with cases efficiently? I would have preferred if the State system had been promoted more.
The Minister of State has said he will examine, in all dioceses in the State, implementation of the recommendations of the Ferns Report if the Minister for Health and Children considers any diocese is failing to satisfactorily implement the guidelines and the recommendations. I had hoped that would be the system under which we would operate, that is, people could look to the State. While there has been a change of attitude and personnel, there have been failures in the hierarchy. I have reservations about this. It is important to remember that for approximately 10% of the children in the State, their only method of being assured of protection is by the State because they do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
The Minister of State is probably right in the way he is pursuing the issue of mandatory reporting. Members of the medical profession who have spoken to me have said there is a difficulty with regard to professional confidentiality. Will the Minister of State publicise more his feelings on the issue? Will he write to the College of General Practitioners about it, making sure this is what he believes is the best way to go? He should let it know he realises general practitioners have a problem but that he believes that for the moment this is the best way to move forward. I have found they do not possess much knowledge of the Minister of State's views on the issue and are waiting to see what will happen. The whistleblower legislation issue is important and must be addressed.
In the discussion with the Ombudsman for Children last week I said the two doctors involved in community care appeared to have trouble in intervening properly in instances involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by a non-family member. The ombudsman did not want to respond but sent us a written reply stating the Minister of State appeared to be of the view that there was such a statutory power - a view he expressed on the RTE "Prime Time" programme following publication of the Ferns Report. The report seemed to indicate that something needed to be done. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would address this issue.
I welcome the Minister of State. It is essential that he knows we consider this to be extremely important business. I have always taken the view that the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children has an important role to play in this issue. Last week's meeting with the Ombudsman, to which the Minister of State referred, was enlightening. I made the remark to the ombudsman that I hoped in 30 years' time we would not look back on this period and wonder what had gone wrong. We must be seen to give a positive and an effective response. These are important times. There were times in the past where matters were ignored, swept under the carpet or just not taken account of. I hope we are living in different and enlightened times. On behalf of all of us, the Minister of State has a clear responsibility to ensure the systems are in place and everything is being done to keep our children safe.
I stated to the Ombudsman for Children last week that there are two important points on which we need assurances from the Minister of State. One relates to the question of public awareness and the need for ongoing campaigns in that regard to ensure people know the dangers and know what is available.
Second, there is the question of access to services and ensuring such services are in place. I will not seek to save the HSE either. I am on record as saying I have difficulties in accessing information on local issues from the HSE. My colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, who is a practising medical practitioner, made the point, which the ombudsman picked up, that even people at his level often experience difficulty in understanding what is available and how to easily access services on behalf of people. We look to the Minister of State to deal effectively with these issues.
I wish the Minister of State well with his remit. As Deputy Neville stated, it is important that the Minister of State has been given this particular responsibility and has direct access to Cabinet. I certainly wish him well in that regard, but there are issues of concern to us and I hope he can give us assurances.
I will take the queries raised by each Deputy in turn. Deputy McManus made the point that we need outside independent reviews of the operations of the HSE, especially when we do not have the previous accountability mechanisms that were built into the health board structures. In this context, as the Deputy pointed out, we have had the Ferns Inquiry, we have the commission of inquiry now embarking on its work in the Dublin archdiocese with a mandate to look at other dioceses as well and of course we have established the Ombudsman for Children who can conduct independent inquiries. Therefore, there are a number of mechanisms in place to conduct that type of exercise.
Deputy McManus made that point to put in context her request that there be greater publication from within the HSE. Certainly, I am in a position this morning to undertake that the Children First review will be published. It is important because debate and information are important in the context of the subject of child abuse. I am not in a position to say this morning what will be the position about the task force which the HSE has established internally to deal with a number of issues but my preliminary inclination is to encourage publication because anything that can foster debate and discussion about the nature of the service available is welcome.
Deputy McManus then asked about the Our Children, Our Church guidelines which have been promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, noted the fact that I intended to have them assessed in a professional way and asked what would be the outcome if the assessment led to the conclusion that they were not adequate. I noted a newspaper report this week that in Northern Ireland the Our Children, Our Church guidelines have not been promulgated because there is a discrepancy between the guidelines and the legislation in force in Northern Ireland, and the guidelines are being revised accordingly. It has been made clear to me by Archbishop Brady that the church intends to implement the Ferns Report recommendations, individually and collectively, and the various bishops have written to me in a similar sense. I would take it that were any discrepancy established in a professional audit of the guidelines, that would be addressed by the authorities. Clearly, under the Constitution all of the religious denominations are entitled to the free exercise and profession of religious belief. They are in a sense voluntary organisations. I would expect such an organisation to amend the guidelines if they were found not to be conforming with best practice. Great care has been taken to ensure an individual with widespread expertise has been selected to evaluate the guidelines.
Deputy McManus referred to the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman has acknowledged that the report is just that and not an investigation into particular complaints. Some 61 cases are referred to in the ombudsman's report. Of the 12,500 complaints of child abuse and neglect received by the Health Service Executive between April 2004 and December 2005, one third were confirmed.
On accessibility of services, the HSE is mindful of the need to ensure its services are more accessible and better understood. It has established a national information line which begins a process of providing ease of access to information about services such as the publication of numbers and so on as referred to by Deputy Neville. The HSE has begun work on promoting awareness about child protection following publication of the Ferns Report, a matter with which I dealt in my opening remarks. It has acknowledged that levels of therapeutic and family support vary across the country as former health boards separately responded to local needs. The HSE is examining how it can achieve a more equitable distribution of services across the country. I dealt with Children First, the review of child protection guidelines.
On Garda investigations, another matter raised by the ombudsman, it is important to emphasise that complaints of sexual abuse are fully investigated by the Garda Síochána and that all efforts are made to bring the perpetrators to justice. A significant number of clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse have been convicted. Every effort is being made to ensure that anyone engaged in criminal behaviour of this type is brought to justice.
Deputy Neville referred to the appointment of former Deputy Austin Currie as Minister of State with responsibility for children. I acknowledge that it was Deputy John Bruton, as Taoiseach of the new Government in 1994 and following the Fr. Brendan Smith affair, who took the decision to establish a Minister for children. Deputies Fahey, Hanafin and I have been appointed on the same basis as former Deputy Currie.
The Minister of State has been——
No, that is not correct. The Fine Gael Party has been voicing that opinion which is wrong. I am aware the Deputy is a fair-minded man and I wish to put the record straight in that regard.
I was appointed on the same terms as former Deputy Currie, as were former Ministers of State with responsibility for children, Deputies Fahey and Hanafin. There was no change in that regard as is evident from the delegation orders and statutory position. The Government decision of December last introduced a fundamental change, namely, the Office of the Minister for Children was constructed for the first time. Previous Ministers of State with responsibility for children, including me, had statutory functions in three Departments. The Government decision of December brings together the administrative functions of those Departments in one building. It also ensures that for the first time responsibility for child care and child minding are dealt with in one area, an issue on which there was enormous debate last autumn. The Deputy will be aware that a substantial part of the administrative functions in that regard was being administered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
On the political side, the holder of the office of Minister of State with responsibility for children now has a right of regular attendance at Government meetings, something which former Deputy Currie did not have. I do not wish to involve the committee in political issues but I must address the stories being spun by the Fine Gael Party and referred to earlier, though perhaps unintentionally, by Deputy Neville. That is the position in regard to that matter. I have discussed this issue with Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny and hope whatever Government is in place following the next election will continue this good arrangement.
Deputy Neville referred to the importance of the hotline in terms of responses. The HSE has been asked to put in place a single telephone line for contact for children services. The task groups set up by it will address this need. The HSE is considering how best the address the provision of a single point of contact. A great deal of progress has been made in implementation of the Children Act 2001.
Deputy Neville referred to conferencing. An increased number of staff have been allocated to the probation and welfare service to conduct conferences on the justice side, while increased funding has been allocated to the HSE to facilitate family welfare conferences on the health side. Garda training arrangements in Templemore have been revised to prepare greater numbers of gardaí for conferences in the context of the juvenile diversion programme. Conferencing, therefore, has been extended under the Children Act 2001. Several relevant provisions of the Act have been commenced in that regard. I can brief the Deputy on the matter if he wishes to receive further information. I would be delighted to outline for him the progress made in implementation of the Act.
It should be noted that the Government agreed a number of reforms to the youth justice system in December 2005. These include the establishment of a new youth justice service on a non-statutory basis within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to be collocated in the Office of the Minister for Children. A number of amendments have been approved by the Government which will allow for the accelerated implementation of the remainder of the Children Act. These are being drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and will be incorporated into the Criminal Justice Bill on Committee Stage which is due to commence before the end of the month.
In the provinces we do not see these provisions being implemented, for example, those relating to conferences.
Apart from legal implementation, increased resources have been allocated for practical implementation. An increased number of staff have been provided for the probation and welfare service on the justice side, while on the HSE side, increased allocations have been made to facilitate greater numbers of family welfare conferences. However, I agree with the Deputy to some extent. In 2006, for example, €8 million in additional funds was allocated to the HSE for family welfare conferences. However, because of the different practices in different health boards and within community care areas, we do not have the national uniform standard we would like to see. Under Professor Drumm, the HSE has decided that the local health office, the replacement office for the community care area service, is the crucial local area of responsibility for operational purposes. The executive is committed to trying to establish a uniform standard of service across each local health office.
The Deputy has also expressed concern about the cases that came before Mr. Justice Kelly and Mr. Justice Geoghegan. There is still a regular children list, to which I understand Mr. Justice McMenamin is currently assigned. I am happy to advise the Deputy that there has been no attempt to injunct me or have me attached for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court decided it could not be done. Mr. Justice Kelly was silenced.
No, on the contrary the jurisdiction of the courts to intervene to assist children in care was upheld by the Supreme Court. The absence of judicial complaint with regard to the service in the High Court reflects the fact that the State has made a substantial investment in secure and high support units.
The Deputy is correct that the injunction on the Minister, attaching the relevant Ministers for contempt of court, was discharged at the time by the Supreme Court. It took the view that it was not the appropriate way relations between the courts and the Executive should be conducted. In our constitutional system it is not normal for the courts to attach Ministers for contempt of court in the course of court proceedings.
The court felt so strongly about the issue that it took that route.
A particular court took that view, but the Supreme Court took a different one. As in religious matters, Roma locuta est, in legal matters the Supreme Court has the final word. We uphold its judgment and it took the view that the Ministers in question should not have been subject to these orders. That is the final word on the matter.
I was interested in the Deputy's contribution on the issue of the sex offenders register. We must be very careful when examining this issue to consider a number of legal arrangements. First, there is a register which applies to persons convicted of serious sex offences. However, in no sense is this register designed for public information. It is in place as part of the sentencing procedure for the individual offender. In imposing sentence the court has the option of including a particular offender in the register. If the offender is so included, that becomes part of the offender's sentence and the supervision of the probation and welfare service attaches to that offender after the offender's release from a place of custody. Apart from the register, the question arises of the methods for protecting children and for assessing persons who have unsupervised contact with children in the course of their employment. First and foremost, there is a responsibility on every employer to take care and to make appropriate inquiries in this context. The Children First guidelines contain various practical recommendations in that regard.
A significant criticism of our arrangement has been that the vetting unit for criminal checks which is operated by the Garda Síochána, has to date only applied to employees in the health sector. In 2004 I announced the extension of the basic vetting service regarding extant convictions to all occupations which have substantial unsupervised access to children. The Garda Síochána has decentralised the unit to Thurles and additional staff have been recruited. Discussions are ongoing with the various Departments about the rolling out of that service. This is a big operation and it will take a number of years to finally extend the service to all sectors. One of the great benefits of the establishment of the HSE has been a considerable improvement and streamlining through its personnel side in the processing of vetting applications with the Garda Síochána.
As a first priority I am anxious to make an announcement in a matter of weeks about the extension of the vetting arrangements to the education sector for the next school year, beginning with the new entrants into the sector. The system will then need to be extended into other areas.
A third element of registers has entered the debate and was referred to by Deputy Neville. This is the question of whether there should be a register of persons who do not have criminal convictions but have come to the attention of their employers or of investigating and prosecuting authorities as persons who may pose a risk to children. Such a register is not in place in this jurisdiction but a system is in operation in Northern Ireland which is known as the PECS system. The Department is examining this question but there are grave legal difficulties. The views of the Attorney General on the subject are contained in the Garda report on vetting which was published in 2004.
The Department has sought and recently received advice on the issue which advises that there are legal difficulties about such arrangements in this jurisdiction. The question of the jurisdiction of the courts to make determinations about individuals arises as does the issue of the publication of such information to third parties. I have decided that this matter needs to be progressed on a North-South basis. I am very anxious to progress these matters in consultation and co-operation with the authorities in Northern Ireland. My officials are today meeting colleagues from Northern Ireland about the operation of child protection procedures on both sides of the Border and to examine how our arrangements can be harmonised.
I must warn the committee that given the existence of a written Constitution in this part of Ireland and a sovereign Parliament in the other part of Ireland, it is not easy to harmonise these arrangements. The Constitution contains protections for the good name of the individual which are very far-reaching and these must be taken into account in any arrangements arrived at.
I have dealt with most of the queries raised by Deputy Neville.
I asked about the educational establishments.
I was not clear to what the Deputy's question referred. The Children Act 2001 envisaged that the out-of-control children would be the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children through the HSE. We have made a substantial investment of more than €30 million in the physical infrastructure of high support and special care units. The Special Residential Services Board set out information on the use and performance of these services in its annual report. According to the board, €50 million has been invested in the physical infrastructure of these facilities.
Children under 18 years who enter the youth justice system have traditionally been committed to reformatories or industrial schools established under the 1908 Act. The 2001 Act envisaged a new scheme whereby the Department of Education and Science would deal with children under the age of 16 years, while the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would take responsibility for children aged 16 and 17 years. I have reviewed the provisions set out and intend to bring forward legislative amendments.
The legislative scheme envisaged in the 2001 Act is unworkable. The use of the age of 16 years as a differential cannot work where there are a very small number of female offenders aged 16 and 17. The 2001 Act envisaged that the existing educational institutions would become known as child detention schools. In effect, there are such schools at Oberstown and Finglas. The Act envisaged that 16 and 17 year olds would be lodged in child detention centres that would be dedicated, separate facilities within existing adult prison complexes. The scheme is unworkable because the number of offenders under the age of 18 years in custody at any given time rarely exceeds 120.
To provide eight types of institution for a group of offenders of that size would be a legislative absurdity. One must differentiate, first, between those under 16 years and those over that age, second, between males and females and, third, between sentenced offenders and offenders remanded in custody pending the imposition of a sentence. It is in this context that the current scheme is unworkable. I, therefore, proposed to Government that one type of detention centre be provided for all offenders under the age of 18 years and that suggestion was accepted. The centre will be called a "child detention school" and will, in effect, abolish institutions such as St. Patrick's. The child detention school will become the model for all offenders under the age of 18 years. While the administration of such facilities is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the task is carried out through by the youth justice service. Child detention schools are in no sense part of the Prison Service and are not connected in any way with prison facilities. The proposal is progressive because it envisages the phasing out of the use of St. Patrick's or similar institutions that are an intrinsic part of prisons and promotes the development of the child detention school as the model for all youth offenders.
Are there plans to establish the proposed independent body to supervise these institutions?
I take it the Deputy is referring to the Special Residential Services Board. I established the board and it is in operation on a statutory basis under the 2001 Act. Members have been appointed and the board has produced a number of annual reports.
Sanction has been obtained from the Department of Finance for the establishment of a post of head of youth justice and a recruitment process to fill the vacancy is being undertaken. I was concerned, in the context of the HSE, that we had developed a large number of special care and high support units under a fragmented management structure in various health board areas. I raised the issue with the HSE, which has agreed to appoint a national manager for high support and special care to provide clear, national direction of the services. The number of children involved is very small. In that context, one must have a nationally managed service.
I think I have addressed most of the questions Deputy Neville raised but one or two other queries were raised. Am I trespassing on the Chairman's time?
I am conscious that another group is due before us in a few minutes.
Senator Henry referred to the report, Our Children, Our Church. As I indicated, it is my intention to have the document checked out from a professional point of view. This is being finalised. With regard to persons appointed to supervise or work on the implementation of guidelines, that is a matter for the church. As all churches are voluntary bodies and do not come under State direction, it is for them to follow the correct procedures.
The Minister of State referred to extending assessments of those who work with children, for instance, to determine if they feature on a register of sex offenders. It will not be extended to cover voluntary bodies.
Is the Senator referring to vetting?
Yes. It may be a difficult issue but people who abuse children find it easy to get involved in the voluntary sector.
It is intended to extend the vetting arrangements to voluntary bodies.
They will also cover the document Our Children, Our Church.
Yes, the vetting arrangements will be available to voluntary bodies. I mentioned that the education sector was my first priority but voluntary organisations are my other priority. A vast number of such organisations deal with children in the areas of youth work, sport and child welfare and protection, for example, Barnardos, the ISPCC and Children in Hospital Ireland, all of which do marvellous work. Clearly, a selection of these organisations have an urgent vetting requirement and it is proposed to address this in the first instance.
The Senator also touched on the issue of mandatory reporting. In the first press conference I conducted after publication of the Ferns Report I outlined my views on this matter and they received widespread publicity. I am willing to meet any organisations which wish to discuss the issue with me. Perhaps the Senator will revert to me on it. If there is some lingering doubt in the medical profession about my position, I would be delighted to clarify it.
I accept the Minister of State has indicated his position but he must continually repeat it. It is very important that organisations realise that while reporting is not mandatory under legislation, there is a moral onus to take action if one has concerns about an issue. The Minister of State has taken the correct approach.
On the Ombudsman for Children's views on my legal powers, when I saw the Ferns Report prior to publication, I noted that it cast doubt on my legal powers and those of the Health Service Executive. I immediately consulted the Attorney General and was reassured that we had the necessary powers. I understand that is the point the Ombudsman for Children was making.
Is legislation needed?
As I indicated, we are doing an in-depth study to guarantee absolute certainty.
I hope it will be a quick in-depth study.
It will be quick. I ascertained yesterday that a timeframe had been specified. One of the advantages of having a committee inquiry is that one checks out the timeframes for these studies.
Deputy Gormley raised questions about the meaning of executive privilege. It means that certain information which comes to the attention of the working group does not have to be automatically disclosed in court proceedings and the inter-agency group can work without the threat of immediate and automatic disclosure of all the information which comes before its members in the course of the performance of their duties.
The Deputy referred to the problem of false accusations. This is part of the difficult balance the general law must observe. Clearly, the law of libel protects the reputation of individuals, while provisions to protect an accused person against wrongful conviction are built into the criminal legal system. There are procedures are in place, therefore, and the Deputy must consider this issue in the context of these general protections.
A matter referred to by the Deputy and several other members which caused me considerable concern was that of protection for persons reporting child abuse and whistleblowers.
Legislation is in place. The Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 came into operation on 23 January 1999. It provides immunity from civil liability for any person who reports child abuse, reasonably and in good faith, to designated officers of a health board, now the Health Service Executive, HSE, and any member of the Garda Síochána. It provides significant protection against discrimination for employees who report child abuse. It creates an offence of false reporting of child abuse. It was our preliminary response to the issue of mandatory reporting, with the promulgation of Children First - National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children. Although I appreciate there was a recent debate on whistleblowing, such a debate is not needed in this area as legislation is in operation.
Deputy O'Connor referred to accessing community services provided by the HSE. It is important that these are available. Some services are, of necessity, highly specialised, which can lead to delays. I am monitoring the services provided to ensure they are provided as efficiently as possible.
My concerns are similar to those expressed by Deputy Fitzpatrick. He recently stated that even medical practitioners could be faced with challenges in easily accessing information on available community services.
Yes, that view is shared by the HSE. There is a need to make information on community services more widely available, particularly in the Dublin area. One reason community services do not work as well in the Dublin area as in other parts is the lack of information on where they are located. The HSE has decided that local health offices must become more focused in their management to ensure information is made available in the relevant areas.
I praise the work done in society by many priests, as it is often not mentioned. The minority of priests who commit abuse, as highlighted in the Ferns Report, should hang their heads in shame.
In the Seanad I raised with the Minister of State the involvement of priests in primary schools. The Ferns Report raised serious questions about their role, especially when a priest is chairperson of a school's board of management. In one case in County Wexford the principal of the school received a complaint of child abuse by the parish priest who also happened to be chairman of the board of management. The arrogance of the priest was shown in his insistence on taking part in the children's confirmation ceremony. The parents involved showed bravery by walking out. A conflict arises in such instances. A principal is ultimately accountable to the board of management and its chairperson. That person can make life very difficult for a principal. That did not occur in the case to which I referred because the principal handled it very well. Many priests are stepping down as chairpersons of boards of management due to other commitments.
Has the Minister of State a view on church involvement in primary schools? I welcome the recent call by the Irish Primary Prinicpals Network, IPPN, for communion and confirmation preparation activities to be removed from classrooms. It makes sense in today's multi-denominational culture. Although schools should have a Catholic or Protestant ethos, the days of such religious involvement in education should be over. It can lead to awkward situations in schools. It is time we moved on. I am not too sure whether I would go as far as Deputy O'Donnell but what she said was half right.
I understand the Stay Safe programme is not being implemented in every primary school. That problem could be eliminated if the religious orders did not have a veto. Religious orders should have a say in schools but they should not have the power of veto they had in the past. The fact that they sit on interview boards interviewing teachers and many of the questions they ask would not be allowed in respect of any other job needs to be examined as well, given that often the answers to such questions are the deciding factor in whether a person gets the job.
The powers of the Ombudsman for Children are weak and need to be strengthened. The fact that she cannot investigate an area concerning children that is not being serviced is a major weakness. The Ombudsman for Children cannot investigate the area of psychiatric services for children or young adolescents unless such a service is in place. Her role should be expanded to include all areas that affect children regardless of whether they involve legislation or current services.
On the rights of accused persons, it is wrong that their photographs can be used in the media and guilt is automatically assumed. Accused people have rights. If a student makes an allegation against a teacher, that teacher is automatically suspended. Even if the allegation turns out to be false, the teacher's career is ended. Unfortunately, nobody ever waits to hear the final outcome. The story goes around that a teacher has been suspended for alleged sexual abuse and that teacher's life can be ruined for ever. There was a case in Dublin recently where a solicitor's photograph was very prominent in all the newspapers but he was eventually acquitted. There needs to be some balance between the rights of victims and the rights of accused persons. Accused persons should, perhaps, have anonymity until they are convicted.
Senator Browne's questions regarding the primary school system and school system generally should be addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. I have devolved responsibility in that Department for early education, for the National Educational Welfare Board and for the detention of children, but I do not have responsibility for the matters about which the Senator asked, namely, the operations of primary schools. Responsibility for these matters rests with the Minister for Education and Science. Her views on this subject are well known. I do not need to reiterate them here.
There were some implications following the publication of the Ferns Report.
It is important to remember that what was described in the Ferns Report took place in the era preceding the enactment of the Education Act 1998. That Act provides a much clearer framework for the operation of boards of management and the patron in individual primary schools. There has been a change in legal culture since the circumstances outlined in the Ferns Report. We now have delineated in statutory form the precise responsibilities of principals, boards of management and patrons in relation to primary schools. That is a change that had already taken place prior to the Ferns investigation.
There are more than 4,000 primary schools in Ireland. The arrangement under the 1998 Act is that a school has a patron and the patron reflects a particular ethos. There are implications in that which the Senator mentioned, but that is the system which is envisaged in the 1998 Act. The question raised by Senator Browne relates to the position of the chairperson. In quite a number of primary schools the chair of the board of management is no longer necessarily a clergyman. This has become more pronounced within the schools under the patronage of Roman Catholic bishops where an attempt has been made to encourage more people to take on the responsibilities of lay chairperson of a board. It is not always easy to find a person who is fully qualified to do that type of work and willing to do it. While we must criticise and condemn what is shown in the Ferns Report, clergy of all denominations in their work as chairmen of school boards render a service to the State which would cost it a great deal of money to provide otherwise. That must be acknowledged in this context.
Surely lay persons would not charge either.
No, but it is hard to find them to serve on the boards.
I wonder about that sometimes. We have found lay persons to chair and serve on hospital boards. Senator Browne has a good point.
We have a major problem in society in regard to volunteering. I would be surprised if that was not recognised. That is something with which all voluntary organisations have a difficulty. It is a matter primarily for the Minister for Education and Science but it is clear the Roman Catholic Church is anxious to encourage more lay people to take up the positions of chairmen of school boards. A clergyman may often have a great deal of knowledge and experience which makes him suitable for a school board. If he is willing to give his time free of charge for that purpose, the State welcomes it.
Under the 1998 Act, we have a system where the primary school system is administered through more than 4,000 separate units. If one looks at our political system, we do not divide it into more than 4,000 local authorities. The only analogy in the political system is the vocational education committee system in which there is a far smaller number of authorities. There is no doubt that with such a large number of primary schools under individual management - that is recognised in the 1998 Act - there are considerable logistical problems in establishing boards for all these schools. One must remember that in addition to the chair, one must have a board of management with representatives of parents, the community, the patron and so on. Again, the Minister has expressed her view on this matter.
Senator Browne has said it is something which flows from the Ferns Report. However, it is not something about which the Ferns Report made a specific recommendation, although we should revise the Education Act. It is understandable that the report gave rise to a public debate on the subject and it is one which will continue. It is important to note that under the Constitution, parents have the primary right of choice in regard to the religious formation of their children. If parents wish a particular religion or no religion as the principle of the school, that is their constitutional entitlement and the State must facilitate their wishes in that regard. That is the current constitutional position.
Fine judgments must be made in this area. Representing a new suburban area with a large multi-ethnic population, I still encounter substantial demand for Catholic education in the establishment of new schools. I also encounter substantial demand for Educate Together formation, Gaelscoileanna and Church of Ireland provision. There is no easy solution to this problem.
The problem is that from 12 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. each day, primary school teachers are meant to be on a break but in many schools they are working for free for the church teaching religion. The difficulty is that if a teacher has two or three children in his or her class who are not Catholic and are not taking part in, say, a half an hour confirmation preparation class, he or she ignores these two or three children who do other work or are sent to the computer room or the library unsupervised. That is not satisfactory in the long term but it is happening.
We are now wandering into an area which has nothing to do with child protection, that is, the arrangements for religious instruction in schools. As I pointed out, this is a matter for the Minister for Education and Science. I have tried to address the issue in so far as it touches on issues of child protection but it is not my responsibility.
The Minister of State need not explain that part of it.
Senator Browne asked about the Ombudsman for Children. The latter took up duty in March 2004, following her appointment by the President on the advice of the Government in December 2003. On dealing with complaints, the complaints must flow from the exercise of powers by a statutory body and that would be the case with any ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman for Children has an advisory role to the Government, has a function in promoting the welfare and rights of children in acting as a catalyst for change and must also vindicate the rights of children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, her functions in those areas are quite extensive and would allow her at least express opinions on the matters to which the Senator referred.
Is there an obligation on the Government to take on board her concerns or advice?
The Ombudsman for Children is not responsible to Dáil Éireann for the exercise of her functions. I am so responsible. That is why under our system Governments make decisions. It is not the function of ombudsmen to do this.
I also inquired about the publication of photographs of those accused and about anonymity.
That is how we have drawn the balance. If one wants to restrict that, one must restrict the right to free speech and publication in connection with photographs outside courthouses, which would be an encroachment on press freedom.
Surely it is an encroachment on a person's civil rights if he or she is falsely accused and subsequently vindicated and if, in the interim, he or she is photographed or publicly named. That individual's good name would be ruined.
It is a difficulty with the television age that a by-line will indicate that a person has been charged with an offence and that his or her trial is ongoing. The power of the image is what is distressing to individuals. Politicians have had similar experiences in the case of tribunals.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for briefing the joint committee for almost two hours.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.