Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Children First Bill: Discussion with Interdepartmental Implementation Group

I remind members and those in the Gallery to switch off mobile phones for the duration of the meeting. Apologies have been received from Senators Colm Burke and Imelda Henry.

This meeting is part of a series of hearings on the heads of the Children First Bill 2012. I welcome members of the interdepartmental implementation group dealing with the legislation: especially Ms Liz Canavan, assistant secretary at the Department of Children and Youth Affairs; Ms Dolores Moran, Ms Michelle Clarke and Mr. Denis O'Sullivan from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs; Mr. Hubert Loftus from the Department of Education and Skills; Mr. Doncha O'Sullivan and Mr. David Brennan from the Department of Justice and Equality; Mr. Donagh Morgan from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; and Mr. Phil Garland and Mr. Paul Harrison from the Health Service Executive. I thank the delegations for attending this very important meeting. I remind members that we have extended our own deadline for written submissions to next Friday, and any member wishing to seek further information may use the Oireachtas website or speak to the clerk to the committee after the meeting. This is the second meeting, and last week we had a good initial hearing.

I remind those present that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Liz Canavan

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to meet to address this issue. These are the heads of a Bill, drafted for the purpose of submission to this committee, which occurred at the earliest opportunity for the purpose of consultation before finalising the heads of the legislation. We are at a very early stage in the process.

The purpose of child protection policy and legislation is to protect children from abuse and neglect. The aim of the Minister in advancing this legislation is to strengthen the protections already in place and to ensure that, regardless of the setting, there is no doubt as to what to do or who to go to if there is a concern regarding the welfare or protection of a child. Key to the delivery of this policy is ensuring that not only professionals working with children but society in general is aware of the possibility of abuse and neglect of children and the reporting procedures available where concerns are identified.

Child abuse takes place in a variety of settings and international research indicates that most child neglect and physical abuse takes place in the home. Abuse also takes place in other settings, such as school and in recreational activity. Ireland is no different than many jurisdictions as regards the patterns or prevalence of abuse and neglect of children. Recent data on reporting show over 29,000 reports made annually regarding child welfare and protection. Of these, more than 16,000 related to welfare concerns and around 13,000 related to protection concerns. It is worth noting and emphasising that many of these reports were made based on the existing Children First guidance.

The Children First guidelines were first published in 1999. Since then, they have operated as the over-arching national guidelines for all individuals and agencies that come into contact with children. The aim of Children First is to give direction to the identification, investigation, assessment, reporting, treatment and management of child abuse. The guidelines specifically highlight the roles and responsibilities of the HSE and the Garda Síochána as the two agencies with statutory responsibility for child protection. The guidelines are also intended to help organisations to ensure children under their care are safe, staff and volunteers can identify possible abuse within the organisation or elsewhere, and the appropriate structure for reporting to relevant statutory bodies is in place.

A number of reviews of Children First, including reviews undertaken by the then Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, identified that while there were no fundamental issues with the guidelines themselves, there were issues with their consistent implementation. In this context, it was decided to revise the guidelines to reflect the findings of the various reviews and a number of reports into child protection issues generally and to reflect the changed environment for the delivery of services, particularly following the establishment of the HSE.

The key message of the revised Children First guidance is that the safety and welfare of children is everyone's responsibility. Children will have safer lives if everyone is attentive to their well-being and if those who work with children across a range of areas understand their personal responsibility for safe practices and reporting concerns. The revised guidance was published by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in 2010, along with a companion child protection and welfare practice handbook which is generally aimed at professionals working in the area of child protection and welfare.

The publication of the revised guidance was followed by the publication of specific sectoral guidance. Given the important role of the education sector, it is worth noting particular developments in that sector. In September 2011, the Department of Education and Skills published updated child protection procedures for primary and post-primary schools based on the updated Children First guidance. This was done following a consultation process with all the relevant stakeholders in the education sector, the HSE and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The updated procedures incorporate significant improvements to the previous school guidelines, including strengthening of the local oversight arrangements, all of which are intended to better ensure consistent and uniform implementation of Children First across all schools.

The updated procedures recognise that child protection and welfare considerations permeate all aspects of school life and should be reflected in all school policies, practices and activities. The procedures specifically require a school's child protection policy to confirm all school policies, practices and activities will adhere to certain principles of best practice in child protection and welfare. The feedback from schools on the updated child protection procedures has been very positive. I understand the committee will hear from our colleagues in the Irish Sports Council later in the week. They have taken a strong lead in developments to support the implementation of Children First within the sports sector since the introduction of Children First in 1999. They have also taken measures to embed further the revised guidance published last year. I will some more about some of the other areas in due course

To address issues around the consistent implementation of the revised guidance, the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has committed to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee, chaired by her Department, to monitor the implementation of the guidance. There is a need for each sector to have appropriate systems of support and assurance in place to ensure the guidance is being implemented in practice by organisations in that sector which are involved with children. Therefore, the support of individual Departments is key to promoting greater awareness of Children First and consistent implementation of the provisions of the guidance across sectors.

The work of the interdepartmental group has focused initially on identifying the structures in place across Departments and their agencies to facilitate the safeguarding and protection of children, having regard to the provisions of Children First. Each Department has identified the agencies operating in its sector which will be covered by Children First and has described the existing structures in place in this regard which may be of use in progressing consistent implementation of the guidance. This phase of the work has been largely completed. The next phase requires the preparation of a Children First implementation plan in each sector, setting out the mechanisms in place or to be put in place to support the guidance at sectoral level. This work is now beginning in Departments.

Notwithstanding these developments, there has been a commitment to further strengthen the place of the policy by giving explicit statutory expression to key elements of the guidance. The commitment to legislate for the Children First national guidance for the welfare and protection of children has its genesis in the implementation plan that was prepared following the publication of the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2009. Action 85 of the implementation plan provided, inter alia, that legislation would be drafted to provide that all staff employed by the State and in agencies in receipt of funding from the Exchequer would have a duty to comply with Children First. The implementation plan also provided that a revised edition of Children First itself would be published.

In this context, the Government recently published the draft heads and general scheme for the Children First Bill 2012. As the members of the committee are aware, the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 was also published recently. The Minister for Justice and Equality is preparing legislation to provide that people working with children will be legally required to be vetted. When taken together, the suite of new legislation will serve to strengthen significantly the legislative base on which child welfare and protection services in Ireland are delivered.

The objectives of the policy of providing a statutory basis to underpin Children First are to provide an improved and safer environment for children within organisations, to underpin the guidance regarding safe practices within organisations and in respect of the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect, to provide for appropriate structures for the reporting of child abuse regardless of where it occurs, and to provide for improvement of the management of child safety concerns. To emphasise that everyone has a responsibility to report child welfare and protection concerns to the HSE, the proposed legislation will make it clear nothing in the Children First Bill shall preclude a person from his or her existing obligations under the Children First national guidelines.

I wish to go through the main provisions of the Bill. I understand copies of the heads of the Bill have been circulated. I will skip over some of the more administrative heads to discuss the more relevant ones. Head 5 provides that the welfare and protection of the child is to be the first and paramount concern. This head covers the policy intention, which is that obligations arising under Children First are to operate in conjunction with the proposed Bill. A further objective of this head is to confirm and affirm that the principles and guidelines set out in Children First remain operative and are to be implemented in conjunction with the Bill's provisions. In particular, it is intended that this head would ensure the reporting principles and guidelines set out in Children First would continue to apply.

Head 6 provides for those organisations coming within the meaning of the Bill that will have a statutory obligation to report a concern or allegation of child abuse to the HSE. This head lists the types of services provided by those organisations as services where children would attend, including services under Part VII of the Child Care Act 1991, recreational, educational, cultural, religious, spiritual or charitable pursuits, health care, therapeutic or disability services, services with a residential component and transport services provided specifically for children. State, community, voluntary and private services for children are included in the head.

Head 6 also lists services which are excluded from the meaning of the Bill, including those which have general public access, such as shops and cinemas; services provided to a child by a person directly employed by the child's parent or guardian; services provided by a person employed in the child's own home; services provided by an organisation which employs children, such as an organisation employing apprentices, unless it is an organisation included under the legislation; and services provided by gyms, beauty and leisure facilities which cater for adults but allow children to use their facilities. The principle of a parent providing the best protection for his or her child, and in so doing supervising the service his or her child receives, underpins these exclusions.

Head 7 provides for the responsibilities of organisations which come under the Bill, including the appointment of a designated officer, the publication of the Keeping Children Safe plan and, in general, the promotion of awareness of best practice in child welfare and protection. Head 7 provides that an organisation coming under the legislation is one that provides services which may be attended by a child, without the attendance of that child's parent or guardian or other adult to whom the parent or guardian has entrusted the child, and where a person working in the organisation has access to a child or works directly with a child availing of the organisation's service.

Head 8 provides for the arrangements for an organisation which comes under the Bill to notify the HSE of its existence, the service to be provided by it to children, and sets out details of information an organisation is required to hold and make available to the HSE on request.

Head 9 provides that an organisation which comes under head 6 must appoint a designated officer who is to be the most senior person in the organisation. The head provides for the functions of the designated officer, which include receiving from employees or volunteers concerns or allegations of child abuse and reporting any such concerns to the HSE. In doing so, the designated officer must act in accordance with the guidance for the reporting of abuse provided for under head 15. It is intended that concerns or allegations of child abuse will relate to abuse a child may have encountered while in the organisation and also to abuse which may have happened in other circumstances outside the organisation but where the information has come to the employee's or volunteer's attention while involved in the work of the organisation. The designated officer's functions may be delegated to one or more employees or volunteers of senior management rank with the authority and competence to undertake the role. It is intended, however, that the designated officer would remain the person responsible for ensuring cases of child abuse or neglect are reported and compliance generally with the proposed legislation. If the designated officer decides not to report a concern or allegation of child abuse which has been brought to his or her attention, he or she must record, at the time of making the decision not to report, the reasons for not reporting and any action he or she takes in relation to the case.

Head 9 also emphasises the wider role of the designated officer in ensuring the implementation of the Keeping Children Safe plan for the organisation. These are wider safeguarding duties related to recruitment, vetting, training and other internal processes for good safe practice within organisations. It also provides for the designated officer to assist the Health Service Executive and participate, on request, in the assessment of risk, the investigation of concerns or allegations of child abuse undertaken by the HSE and any related matter.

Head 10 provides for the duties of employees or volunteers working in organisations to report concerns and allegations of child abuse to the designated officer in accordance with criteria set out in the Keeping Children Safe plan. It also provides for concerns or allegations of abuse to be reported directly to the HSE by employees or volunteers rather than to the designated officer if to do so would be in the child's best interest.

Head 11 sets out that certain persons and professionals are to be statutorily required to report to the designated officer concerns or allegations of child abuse if working in an organisation coming under the proposed legislation. The designated officer is to be statutorily required to report any such concerns or allegations of abuse to the HSE. The reporting of concerns or allegations of abuse is to be made in accordance with criteria and the head sets out that persons or professionals who work outside of such organisations and are sole practitioners or self-employed are to be statutorily required to report concerns and allegations of abuse to the HSE. Head 11 provides that persons who are statutorily required to report and who fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply are guilty of an offence and the liabilities arising are set out in head 20.

Head 12 sets out the HSE's responsibilities under the Bill to promote awareness and best practice in the area of child welfare and protection for organisations and persons coming under the Bill. It also provides for the HSE to examine organisations when non-compliance with the Bill is brought to its attention.

Head 13 sets out the responsibilities of the HSE in relation to monitoring and dealing with reports of concerns or allegations of abuse it receives. The Child Care Act 1991 provides that the HSE shall take such steps as it considers requisite to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and ensure any reported cases of abuse received are assessed.

Head 14 provides for the HSE to have the power to examine whether an organisation is complying with the provisions of the Bill and to determine whether there is or may be a failure on the part of the organisation to implement the legislation. While I do not propose to discuss this issue in detail, the HSE has available to it an escalating series of opportunities to issue a range of improvement notices. It also has options to apply to the District Court for a prohibition notice to have services suspended or to ask an organisation to cease providing such services if they are not safe.

Head 15 provides for the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to publish guidance entitled Guidance for the Reporting of Abuse. The guidance will provide advice on all aspects of the reporting of concerns and allegations of child abuse by persons statutorily charged with reporting child abuse, and it will be provided to all relevant organisations and made available to the public.

Head 16 provides for criteria to be used by a designated officer or person statutorily required to report child abuse in deciding if he or she should make a report on a concern or allegation of child abuse to the HSE. While the report must be made to the HSE, if the case has been reported to the Garda Síochána, there is no requirement to report to the HSE. This measure is to avoid reporting to both the HSE and Garda Síochána unless that is what is required in the circumstances. The head also provides for reports to be made by the Garda Síochána in respect of relevant reports it receives of child abuse or concerns for the safety of a child.

Head 17 provides for the HSE to inform a designated officer or any person statutorily charged with reporting child abuse, who has made a report of a concern or allegation of child abuse to the HSE, if the report is being referred for attention by the HSE to the Garda Síochána. Head 17 provides that the HSE and Garda Síochána will co-operate to ensure the best interests of the child are upheld and provides that the HSE and Garda Síochána will agree protocols and procedures for the implementation of this head.

Head 18 provides for the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 to apply to data collected, processed, kept and used in accordance with the Bill but that the Data Protection Acts are not to prevent the exchange of information under this Bill which is exchanged for the purpose of protecting a child.

Head 19 provides that the Minister for Education and Skills, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport are to provide, at the request of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, information on the implementation of the proposed legislation by their Departments and in respect of agencies under their remit.

Head 20 provides for offences under the Bill and the liabilities attaching. A person is guilty of an offence if he or she is required to report concerns or allegations of abuse under the proposed Bill to the HSE and fails to do so. A person guilty of an offence will be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

This legislation is a key priority of the Government. The Minister is, however, especially mindful of the complexity of the issue. The societal shift being sought in ensuring greater public awareness of the risks of abuse and neglect and a more clearly articulated and widely shared responsibility to report abuse to secure the protection of all children presents particular challenges in framing this legislation.

Giving statutory effect to key elements in the existing Children First national guidance is an important step. It is also one, however, which will bring with it a level of concern across stakeholders as to the impact of the legislation on their day-to-day work and practice as well as on their volunteering activities. For this reason, the Minister has selected to provide the heads of Bill to the committee as early as possible as part of the vital process of early consultation on legislation which will have such a wide reach. In this context, I stress that the Children First legislation is at heads of Bill stage. The Minister is of the view it is beneficial to have the legislation examined by this committee at an early stage to assist in identifying specific areas which will require examination as the process continues. Following the committee's consideration and further inputs from departmental colleagues, the heads will be finalised for the purposes of drafting of the Bill.

A number of issues are worth specific mention as they present particular challenges. These include the roles to be played under the legislation by organisations and designated persons within organisations. In this regard, further detailed consultations are ongoing to ensure clarity and to emphasise properly the most appropriate focal point for responsibilities under the legislation. The challenge is to ensure appropriate accountability at designated person or named professional level and at corporate level, while balancing this in the context of a wide range of organisations and individuals potentially covered by the legislation. In this context, it is critical to note the legislation is an adjunct to existing responsibilities contained in the Children First national guidance.

The purpose of the legislation is, in part, to give stronger statutory emphasis to the responsibilities on designated persons, professionals and organisations corporately to ensure there is no ambivalence or ambiguity regarding the importance of safeguarding and reporting responsibilities. It is acknowledged that central to these provisions will be the guidance for the reporting of abuse to be published by the Department which will provide advice to designated persons and organisations as to the criteria that should be applied in assessing concerns brought to their attention. The Department is working on this guidance and it is acknowledged this guidance, alongside training, will be important to persons having the confidence and competence to perform the role of a designated person effectively.

In addition, the Keeping Children Safe plan, the guidance for reporting of abuse and the safeguarding guidance for organisations, which are all documents referenced in the heads but not yet published, will need to be assessed to determine their potential impacts for the various sectors. The Department is committed to consulting other Departments and relevant parties in seeking to resolve these and other issues as they arise.

It is worth referring to the role that will be undertaken by child and family services within the HSE and in the new child and family support agency. I am joined by colleagues from the Health Service Executive who will be pleased to take specific questions.

Providing consistency of practice within the HSE has been the first starting point in respect of the new Children First guidance. The launch of Children First in 2011 was accompanied by the HSE child protection and welfare practice handbook which provides clarity for all social work services and organisations. I have some additional copies of the handbook with me if members wish to have a copy. The HSE acknowledges it is important parents who seek help can access services and take the lead responsibility. It is the desire of the HSE that this change will produce better outcomes for children and families, deliver greater transparency and accountability for the organisation and instil greater public confidence.

In terms of specific responsibilities set out in the draft heads of Bill, under head 12, the Health Service Executive will promote awareness and publish best practice guidance entitled Safeguarding Guidance for Organisations. This document will replace the existing support document entitled Our Duty to Care, which has been utilised by many voluntary and community organisations since its creation in 2002 to support the Children First document of 1999. HSE personnel have assisted and supported organisations since that time. The new safeguarding guidance document with dedicated personnel will support and assist all designated officers in organisations who are required to develop and implement a Keeping Children Safe plan.

In head 13, the Bill lays out the clear responsibilities of the HSE to ensure effective management of all reports and concerns. There is a requirement to appoint a person who will be responsible for monitoring and dealing with reports and allegations. The HSE children and family services have restructured its services from 32 community care areas to 17 children and family areas. Each area is managed by an area manager who has full accountability. Each area manager reports directly to a regional service director who reports to Gordon Jeyes, national director, who is the chief executive designate of the new child and family support agency.

The new agency will prioritise children in care and protection of children at significant risk. As the shadow agency is developed there is a clear focus on the new agency's role and the relationship with key partner agencies in the voluntary and community sector. Work on the development of the new agency is advancing well with the assistance of the task force on the establishment of the child and family support agency. There is a clear understanding of the need to construct an organisation which has the capacity and competence to support and protect children and their families. Its organisational structure, governance arrangements and statutory powers and responsibilities must be such that it is responsive to and adaptable to the changing pressures for families in modern Irish society. At its core it must also be equipped and organised to protect children. Work is also ongoing on a new model of service delivery. The intentions to ensure readily accessible services with a dedicated intake team to assess risk and make consistent decisions on the need for and type of interventions children and their families may need. There will be a strong emphasis on prevention and early intervention through family support and a richer but structured input of community and voluntary inputs which all support families in their parenting responsibilities. In this regard, the agency will include in its scope of services family support as provided by the existing Family Support Agency which will be subsumed within its remit.

The Children First Bill is one part of a suite of legislation to strengthen child protection. Of particular relevance is the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information) Bill published in recent weeks. That legislation places a responsibility to provide information to the Garda where a person has knowledge of a serious sexual offence against a child as part of the investigation and prosecution of that crime.

The Children First Bill is concerned with the protection of children - this is the key policy imperative. Reports under Children First are to the Health Service Executive, or its successor, not to the Garda. The purpose of reports is threefold: to protect an individual child; to assess that child's needs; and to assess any risk to any other children in a family or community. It aims to make organisations where children spend their time safe places for children. It is intended to ensure that key designated persons in those organisations, and named professionals, are clear on their role and are supported in protecting children from risks within organisations as well as in the wider community.

Although the two pieces of legislation are closely related they are complementary. We have been working closely with our colleagues in the Department of Justice and Equality to ensure that continues to be the case as both pieces of legislation proceed through the legislative process.

The Minister is aware that some of the complex issues raised in these heads may inform and anticipate some of the issues that may arise in the debate in respect of the children's referendum to be advanced later in the year. An early understand of views on some of these complex issues will be helpful. In addition, clear progress on the strengthening of the legal framework for the protection of children will be an important context for the referendum.

I thank the committee for its time. I emphasise that the legislation as proposed builds on more than ten years of practice and training in respect of a national approach to the safeguarding of children in Children First. For many professionals and employees working in children's services what is proposed will reflect current practice and existing requirements of the national policy guidance. The legislation will copperfasten these requirements. I hope the foregoing has been helpful. My colleagues and I will take any questions which may arise from my statement or on any other matter relating to the draft heads of the Bill.

I thank Ms Canavan for her comprehensive and thorough presentation to the committee.

I welcome Ms Canavan and her colleagues for thank them for appearing before the committee and taking the time to answer questions on a Bill to strengthen child protection measures. There are a few points I wish to raise. In respect of the witnesses' work on the interdepartmental group, I invite them to give us more information in terms of their operation to date, what their input has been into the development of the Bill, the main core of its work up to now and how the group plans to continue. In regard to the organisations included in the Bill and some of those which are not, I raise the issue of those in the child minding sector. Evidence shows that the majority of child abuse takes place within families and homes. How does one reconcile that reality with the plan provided for in the Bill to remove from the legislation an obligation on those who play a central role in looking after children or who are employed directly by a parent or guardian? The unfortunate reality is that although the primary role of care is that of the parent, where that duty of care is not carried out is what leads to the majority of child abuse cases. Will the witnesses explain why the Bill takes that approach because it does not add up that in legislation such as this, there is not an obligation on those who in many ways are most likely to encounter potential child abuse?

I ask the witnesses to comment on the role of the HSE in the Bill and the fact that the HSE is given the role of adviser of practitioners in terms of investigating complaints and also the role of monitoring child abuse protection. If there is a failure in regard to the role of the HSE, experience in many other areas in recent years would indicate it is important that its role as monitor would not match with previous experience. What is the rationale behind that and why did the Department not decide on a different safeguard in terms of monitoring? In respect of health services, HIQA monitors the actual provision of the health service by the HSE. In respect of ensuring child protection practices are dealt with property, why is there not a separate watch guard? Experience has shown, given the failures by the HSE in the past in respect of child protection practices, that it is not desirable to give the entire remit from advice to investigation to monitoring to the one organisation.

In regard to the key component of an effective child protection system, that is, those at the coalface and social workers particularly, what assessment has the Department conducted of the impact of the enhanced measures included in the Bill on the HSE and its ability to deal on the ground with the reports coming in? Ms Canavan indicated there would be a dedicated front door service whereby reports will come in, the idea being that it will filter reports of concerns. That role is being carried out by social workers and it takes time and resources whether it is done by dedicated persons at the front door. The experience in other jurisdictions where penalties have been imposed on those who have an obligation to report is that their default mode becomes one to report.

Moving outside the ambit of organisations and professionals whose day-to-day job is child protection, voluntary organisations will have designated officers who will have this role. This role will be voluntary, regardless of how much training they are given. They are expected to report several types of abuse, including physical abuse where they see it. The default mode for many people will be to report that. This will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the need for resources in the HSE to deal with it. Throughout this process, there does not seem to have been an appraisal of the impact on an already overstretched child protection system and social work service. Has there been any appraisal? What are the parallel proposals to deal with it?

In respect of head 25, Ms Canavan mentioned that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is currently looking at developing the guidelines by which designated officers and professionals will be required to report. What advice does she have about the legality or otherwise of that guidance forming part of the legislation? The intention seems to be that the guidance will be outside of the Bill and will be subject to updates on a regular basis. We need to ensure that our guidelines continue to be updated, but if they are not part of the Bill, then what is the advice on their implementation?

Again I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come before us today.

I welcome Ms Canavan and all her colleagues. I welcome the publication of the draft heads of this Bill and I look forward to the legislation when presented in due course. We have all campaigned for some considerable time that all statutory and non-State bodies would be held fully accountable in the child care area.

I do not want to repeat some of what Deputy McConalogue said or some of the issues that we addressed in last week's meeting. I note that this is an interdepartmental group and I would like to ask a couple of questions. Can the witnesses give us any confidence that there is a cross-departmental realisation that this Bill will not be able to deliver without the additional resources that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs will require in order to provide properly for services right across the board? It is critically important in these straitened economic times that there is a realisation across Departments of what is involved here. The enactment of the legislation without additional resources may actually herald difficult times, and that is something we want to avoid.

I want to go back to the word "confidence" again. On page 9 of her statement, Ms Canavan refers to greater transparency, accountability and to instilling greater public confidence. I have been exposed to the real hurt, pain and confusion of a number of families who have gone quite properly through all the reporting procedures that applied heretofore, but who ultimately have received no explanation or engagement on the part of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of a failure or unwillingness, for whatever reason, to proceed against a named abuser. We will easily unravel much of what can be achieved if the office of the DPP under the Department of Justice and Equality issues a letter stating, "We are sorry in the circumstances, but practice is that we do not explain our reasons for not proceeding in any specific case". That is the end of the line for families and it offers them no confidence. It leaves them with their pain compounded by the refusal of the system to explain properly or to engage. Some mechanism has to be found to change that practice. I am not drawing ideas down from the clouds here. I am talking about real cases which have had harrowing results, yet for which no explanation was offered years later, with no understanding of the plight of the parents and families concerned. Is there a means within this Bill to address that? Perhaps this is not the appropriate legislation to ensure it, but I would like to hear Ms Canavan's comments. For me, it is a very serious flaw in current practice.

I thank the delegation. This is a very timely presentation which will set us on our work, and I welcome the process whereby we get the heads of the Bill at this early stage. It is important that it comes before the committee because it is very complex, but it is also a priority of ours to strengthen the protections for children. Ms Canavan mentioned the role of the designated officer in her presentation, and I am still trying to work out where that sits, having read through the heads of the Bill. I am thinking of specific organisations and the practicalities of it. We often know that on paper it can sound like a perfect mechanism, but how do we ensure the accountability of the individuals, the organisation and other individuals within the organisation? How do we balance that out? I am looking forward to talking to the groups that come in over the coming weeks, and we might be able to tease out how they are working with this in practice. Many organisations already have really good systems in place, as Ms Canavan has already said. I am not comfortable with the way this is laid out in the heads of the Bill, but I have not quite pinpointed why I am not comfortable with it.

I do not want to repeat what Deputy McConalogue has said about the role of the HSE, but I am uncomfortable with head 12 of the Bill, which states that the role is to provide information, an advisory service and guidance, but states that this is also the role of the regulator. Who monitors the HSE? Who regulates the HSE? Should HIQA be used? There is an issue with confidence, as Deputy Ó Caoláin said. How do we ensure that there is confidence in the system. If I make a report, who ensures that there is consistency of practice? Where does the buck stop? We saw the report of the Ombudsman for Children, which clearly outlined the lack of consistency in practice. We knew it anecdotally but we needed the report to articulate it clearly for us. That shows me the need for an outside body to be looking in.

At our presentation last week, representatives from One in Four spoke to us about retrospective reporting. They said that only 10% of cases that they report are investigated. I am very concerned about that figure. Just because it is a retrospective case does not mean that the abuser is not a potential threat to any other person. That goes back to this issue of confidence.

Deputy McConalogue mentioned child minders so I will not repeat that, but why has emotional abuse been omitted from the definition in head 2. It is in the Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998 and in the Children First guidelines. Perhaps the witnesses can help understand why it is omitted in the legislation. The presentation refers to the Children First implementation plan in each of the sectors and notes that work is beginning in each of the Departments. Will the outcome of this work be published? Who will scrutinise it and ensure there is linkage between the various sectors? I ask for more detail on this.

The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 has been published and the Seanad commenced Second Stage on Thursday last. I am concerned that this Bill and the Children First Bill include differing definitions of the organisations and individuals which fall within their scope. It is proposed in the Children First and National Vetting Bureau Bills that organisations will be asked to register with two different statutory bodies, namely, the Health Service Executive and National Vetting Bureau, and nominate a contact person to each of the bodies, one of whom will be a designated officer while the second will be a liaison officer. Should we not use this opportunity to align legislation in this area? Is it not likely that the same person will be responsible for child protection in the various organisations?

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill and thank everyone present for taking time to attend this meeting. The publication of the heads of the Children First Bill is not before time. While the legislation has been progressed relatively quickly by the current Government, it was kicked down the road for many years. I am pleased, therefore, that we have reached this point and members have been given an opportunity to engage with the interdepartmental implementation group.

On the establishment of the interdepartmental group, Ms Canavan indicated the Departments which will have a responsibility to explain to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs how they will ensure the Children First policy will be implemented. I note the omission of the Department with responsibility for local government. Does the interdepartmental implementation group include a representative of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government?

Ms Liz Canavan

Yes, but the representative is not present.

That clarifies the matter. I will put this issue into context by referring to the Victoria Climbié case in the United Kingdom which arose in 2000. This unfortunate case resulted in one of the first child death inquiries in Britain and had the effect of transforming UK child protection services. I am sure everyone present will be familiar with the horrendous circumstances of the case. The organisations that failed Victoria Climbié were named as the local authority, the churches, social services, the police, the National Health Service and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty against Children. The agencies that failed the child were both statutory and non-statutory. It is imperative, therefore, that the sole responsibility for ensuring a child is protected does not lie either with one Department or solely with statutory as opposed to non-statutory agencies. That Victoria Climbié was brought to hospital by a taxi driver demonstrates that all of us, as citizens, have an obligation to be aware of and report child abuse. Discussions such as this meeting places on the public radar the message that we all have responsibility to look out for the signs of suspected child abuse.

I have a number of specific questions for the representatives of the Health Service Executive. I worked in child protection in the HSE for several years. The fear factor experienced by those employed in child protection work causes them to develop what can only be described as an elaborate means to avoid contact with difficult families. How will this practice be challenged? My question returns us to the issue of how child protection will be implemented in the Health Service Executive. I have first-hand experience of entering the system as a new, bright-eyed social worker and being handed a case that had been known to the Department for 25 years. We need only recall the Roscommon case to see how children were let down by the HSE, their local community, local authority and the Department of Education and Skills. I am sure local authority staff called to the home of the family in question to check leaking pipework or other problems in the house. The local authority had a responsibility to check what was happening in the home, as did the school attended by the children concerned. I ask the representatives of the HSE to respond.

I am pleased to note that a representative of the Department of Education and Skills is present. The two agencies that immediately occur to most people when the issue of child protection arises are the Garda Síochána and Health Service Executive. However, if one considers where children spend their day, a large part of it is spent in school. Having experience of working closely with schools in different schools, I am aware that teachers are reluctant to report suspicions because they are fearful. How will this fear be tackled? Addressing this issue is a practical step the Department must take to ensure that, irrespective of what the HSE and the Departments of Justice and Equality and the Environment, Community and Local Government are saying, we must all say the same thing. In the past, teachers have on occasion been reluctant to report and have instead telephoned a voluntary organisation to request that it make the referral. This is because they fear the ramifications of making such a report. What work will be done in the Departments to ensure people feel secure about their authority to make reports?

To return to an issue raised by the previous speakers, namely, the confidence people will have that action will be taken, what responsibility does the HSE have to contact those who make reports? When an individual, whether a teacher or taxi driver, takes the brave step and picks up a telephone or walks into a HSE office to make a report, the anxiety he or she experiences is compounded when they do not hear anything about the case subsequently. What obligation do the HSE or social work departments have to contact those who make referrals, including professionals from other sectors? Time and again, one hears that people who made a telephone call did not hear anything about the case afterwards. What will be different this time around?

I thank Deputy Conway. Ms Canavan may pass questions to other members of her panel, if she wishes.

Ms Liz Canavan

I thank the members for their contributions. To respond first to Deputy McConalogue, one of his first questions he asked related to the interdepartmental group. The group was established initially to support the implementation of the Children First guidance following the publication of the new guidance. Its work has been running in parallel with work on the development of the heads of Bill. The group's focus has been on the point Deputy Conway raised about ensuring that all Departments realise that getting this right is not only the responsibility of the Health Service Executive but one which extends much wider. It is fair to state that this is much more evident in the case of some Departments than others. While some sectors jump out, in the case of other sectors one must think carefully and ask what is their responsibility. We have been going through this process for some time. First, we identified all the areas under the Departments and within their sectors where children are receiving services provided for children. This is a wide ranging area. Of the Departments that are not represented at this meeting, the Departments of Social Protection, the Environment, Community and Local Government and Health are also represented on the interdepartmental group, as is the Garda Síochána.

Our efforts have been on trying to bring everybody up to the same level of understanding and knowledge of Children First guidance generally and ensuring they know what they need to do in their respective sectors. We have done what amounts to an audit of the various sectors. The plans are in place and the guidance has been issued. We need to bear in mind that Children First has been in place since 1999. Some Departments have updated their policies, taking account of the new guidance while others have very clear mechanisms and structures in place because they have responsibility for large sectors which have a significant impact in terms of services for children. This work has been proceeding in parallel with the work on the development of the heads of Bill and we have been briefing the relevant Departments and agencies as the work has progressed. The two parallel processes are now coming together as we move closer to the finalisation of the heads of Bill. We have been preparing Departments for the development of an implementation plan. The position differs among Departments. They have different work to do because they are engaged in different sectors. They need to start the process of identifying what they need to do in their respective sectors to bring them up to the standard they need to reach.

For some Departments, this will mean taking on board the new guidance - some have done this already - while for others it will mean ensuring they are driving down to some of the agencies they are funding or which are under their remit. That is the process in which we are engaged. The Departments are clear that Children First is about to be implemented on a statutory basis. That is part of the ongoing process and we have met probably every second month to put it in place. We will be meeting again in June to see where we are at in terms of the first cut and what implementation issues are arising.

Has ownership been taken by Departments? Is there joined-up thinking?

Ms Liz Canavan

I think it is fair to say that is so. Some are at a different place from others. This is meat and drink to the Department of Education and Skills officials, for example, who have been at it for years. The Irish Sports Council has very good systems in place. In many areas this is clear cut. The Department of Social Protection, on the other hand, is looking very much at people who are providing frontline services such as social welfare and community welfare officers. That is very different from a sports council looking at affiliated bodies. There is a range of sectors involved and there are individuals involved within these sectors. It is fair to say, however, that it has become clear at interdepartmental level that a whole of government and society response is required. That is coming through and the work we have been doing in the last month has helped in this regard. The suite of legislation coming through, apart from this Bill, is making that clear. People are happy that there is clear guidance and a clear mechanism for putting structures and the infrastructure needed in place to support their organisations in reaching the level they need to be at. This is being done on the back of much good work that has been ongoing for ten years. All the important sectors such as sport, youth and education services are well up to speed.

In considering the impact of the legislation we have been looking at what is already in place. There is a considerable resource. People are trained and there is guidance available. Part of the implementation process will identify what more needs to be done. In the course of development of the legislation we will be undertaking a regulatory impact assessment of the additional resources required for implementation.

We need to be clear on the role of the HSE. Its existing statutory responsibilities under the Child Care Act are to make sure children are safe and protected. It is the best to assist people in making decisions about reporting and to give them some guidance. It is the right body to assess risk and make decisions on interventions that may be required. We are not giving it an inspectoral role; it will not be an inspector of services. It will follow up on concerns about organisations not having adequate plans in place. In a variety of sectors there are existing inspection regimes which we expect will kick in. We expect to see Children First being implemented as part of other inspection regimes. The HSE is not being given an inspectoral role, but if it is alerted to the fact that an organisation providing services for children does not have the requisite arrangements in place to protect children, it can step in and assist that organisation to put its plan in place and get up to speed or, if that is not happening, to make sure the service ceases. There will not be inspection; there is a delineation. There are several inspection regimes for various sectors.

With regard to inspecting the HSE, HIQA recently published the child protection standards. Part of these standards which are out for consultation will be looking at how the HSE is dealing with the receipt of reports, referrals and assessments. The standards will form a new suite of pointers as to how it will be inspected in its provision of services.

I have alerted committee members to some of the changes being made. Apart from the setting up of the new agency, a considerable programme of change is under way within the child and family services area of the HSE. As of today, 17 integrated children's services managers have been appointed and they will be reporting through a direct line of accountability to the head of children's services. That is a change and an improvement in terms of having a direct line of responsibility and will help governance, accountability and the introduction of standardised processes. Work on the standardisation of business processes is well under way and part of the service plan for this year. It is to ensure the service, response and mechanisms are the same in every part of the country. When a complaint is made or a person presents for a service, the response and the referral pathways will be the same in every part of the country and the decision making trees for individual practitioners will be shared and understood. That work is ongoing. The task force on the new agency is looking at the issue to make sure it is fit for purpose and can effectively and efficiently deal with referrals. That new prioritisation system is coming into play. It is important to emphasise that all reports are reviewed, graded, risk assessed and prioritised.

The information systems available to the HSE until now were not as good as they might have been. That does not help to achieve efficiencies of practice or ensure consistency. A new information system for children's services has gone out to tender and will be a critical part of managing internal accountability and governance of performance, as well as our own oversight of the HSE.

Deputy McConalogue asked about head 15 on guidance in the reporting of abuse. He is correct in saying we are looking at a number of options for incorporating this. It may be a scheduled piece, or it may be separate entirely from the Bill and not on a statutory basis. We may place key elements of the guidance on a statutory basis, as we want to give it statutory expression. On the other hand, we want to leave it flexible enough in order that we change it. We are examining this issue. If we are asking someone to report on the basis of the guidance provided and that person would be criminally responsible if he or she did not do so, it is important that some statutory expression be given to the core criteria in the guidance provided within the Bill. There are a number of legal options as to how we might do this.

Two Deputies mentioned the concept of providing more feedback. Even in initial comments from some sectors we have heard that people sometimes feel that having made a report they hear nothing back, do not know what has happened and wonder if it was worth their while reporting or if they were overreacting. I am not sure if we can put this on a statutory basis, but we want to have it in the system. This is important in improving reporting practice and giving people assurances. There are situations where it is not appropriate or possible to give people detailed feedback on what is happening to a complaint or an expression of concern, in the best interests of a child and avoid putting him or her at risk. It may not always be possible to give such feedback. We accept that designated persons need to receive some feedback on whether the reports they are making are good and valid and being followed up on. That is a valid concern and already part of the practice guidance provided. I have brought copies of an accompanying handbook which refers specifically to the need to give feedback to those who make referrals.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout referred to the designated officer. The draft Bill is a one-size-fits-all document. We know we need to probe that more deeply across the different sectors. We are determined there would be accountability and the legislation would have teeth because this is supposed to be in addition to policy. It is a question of getting the balance right. We are interested in hearing feedback from the individual sectors on how they manage that currently, and we are getting such feedback through Departments already. We are anxious to ensure designated officers have that strong responsibility. The guidance should be helpful in that role, in order that, although the role is onerous, designated officers would be well supported in it.

We are conscious within individual organisations or, depending on how they are organised, within large federated bodies, for example, there would be scope for examination of the appointment of a designated officer across the organisation or federation and how that function might be delegated. We are open to examining this, but we are anxious to ensure there is a clear responsibility for designated officers.

Retrospective reporting was mentioned. Certainly, retrospective reporting is provided for under Children First and in the heads of the Bill. We always consider not only the impact on an individual child, even one who may now be an adult, but also the ongoing risk to any other children in the wider family or community. That is part of the Children First policy as it is.

With regard to the implementation plans, we are only at the beginning. Departments will organise this differently because the demands in their sectors will be quite different, but we expect that in at least some Departments there will be an internal implementation committee to consider their own sectors. For example, my Department's responsibility is to assist and co-ordinate the wider Departments, but we also have responsibility for the child care sector and the youth sector, which are important, as well as the HSE's child safeguarding practices. We are expecting a number of Departments will set up sectoral committees to tease this out. This is a lot more developed in some Departments than others. We will be expecting some Departments to report back in June. The HSE has agreed to support and guide committees that come together in a cross-sectoral fashion.

With regard to the other legislation, in conjunction with our colleagues in the Department of Justice and Equality, our primary focus was on the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill because it was so close. These Bills are moving very closely together. We are satisfied, at the moment, that the Bills are complementary and do not overlap, but we do acknowledge there will be a certain communication challenge in getting ordinary front-line workers to understand the different requirements. We are very conscious of this and are working together on it. Our effort is to ensure there is no conflict, the Bills complement one another and there is no duplication. Certainly, there are things we have not inserted in our Bill because they are better dealt with in other legislation. We now need to carry out the same process in the context of the national vetting bureau Bill, and those discussions are ongoing with the Department of Justice and Equality. As far as we can, we want to make people's lives easier by using similar definitions and approaches, but there are times, because there are different policy imperatives behind the legislation, when for a good reason we must adopt a slightly different approach. Where that arises, however, we should be able to explain why.

Deputy Conway mentioned the fear factor among staff of the HSE. It is important to acknowledge there have been many reports and issues raised regarding social work competence and confidence. That is something on which my colleagues may want to comment. A number of specific requirements included in the Ryan report implementation plan are being followed up. There will be a further report on implementation of the Ryan report, probably in the middle of this year, included in which will be a number of issues with regard to improving practice, induction training and supervision. In addition, the measures in the change programme for business processes include better practice standards and more clear guidance from a central authority, all of which are linked with the governance arrangements that are changing. They also include internal audits of practice, ongoing supervision of training, and recommendations regarding the role of HIQA in examining how these practices are holding up from the outside in terms of standards set for the sector. Mr. Harrison may wish to add to that.

Mr. Paul Harrison

Arising from the Roscommon case specifically, a number of quality assurance measures were implemented. In the first instance, we undertook an audit of a number of areas in the country and, arising from that, we established a sampling mechanism under which, every quarter, 10% of cases are examined from front-line staff right through to management. In this way, we get a cross-section or variable sample of cases. That procedure is in place and we are currently sifting through the data that came to us from the first quarter. There are also improvements in the general areas of workforce development and good supervision, the latter of which is terribly important in terms of both recognising abuse and being able to use authority where that is appropriate. There is also the issue of continuous professional development, which is part of our workforce development strategy. I hope that in combination with the initiative from HIQA on child protection standards, this will bring a whole new package of assurances to the system.

I wanted to ask about case management. How are those cases actually being managed, not only in terms of quality of supervision but also in terms of the pathway after referral and risk assessment and the actual work carried out? There is always a lot of emphasis on assessment and the effort to obtain a number in terms of risk, but what about how the cases are managed and the quality of the interaction among families, children and workers? How is that being managed? That is what will make a difference.

Mr. Paul Harrison

That is relevant to the supervision aspect, in terms of the provision of better supervision for frontline staff, but there is also a role for management from a governance point of view with regard to having oversight of cases. The management restructuring we have undertaken in anticipation of the new agency is a strong measure. There is management oversight not only of what is coming in the door but also of what is being managed.

Ms Liz Canavan

I mentioned the development of the model of service delivery, which is examining exactly those issues: the spectrum from light-touch family support to serious cases. We are also considering how that works in reality, from the HSE's perspective. A family support-type intervention may escalate. It is a question of how to manage that, making sure the case is escalated and de-escalated appropriately. That is something that is being considered by the task force as well as by the HSE itself, and that work is coming together now.

I will ask Ms Clarke to pick up on a couple of specific issues that were mentioned, including exclusions and emotional abuse.

Ms Michelle Clarke

Deputy McConalogue asked about the exclusion of early years childminding, as crèches and preschools are included in the legislation. Organisations that provide child care in leisure facilities, supermarkets or hotels are included. Individuals directly employed by parents are excluded, however. These would be individual childminders in the parents' own homes or childminders' own homes. The thinking behind this is that the actions of parents in choosing the person to mind their child and in the supervision of that relationship provide the best protection for the child. It is not organisations that are excluded; it is individuals. It is important to remember that Children First stands as the primary policy document in terms of reporting, so there is no difficulty with reporting a category that is not named in the legislation. It is on the basis of the relationship between the parent and the childminder.

I can understand why the question on emotional abuse was asked. We did consider the evidence internationally. The current exclusion in respect of emotional abuse is not based in any way on the understanding of the impact such abuse can have on, or the damage it can cause to, children. It is based on the notion of establishing a sufficient level of proof or evidence that the designated officer or the relevant professional would have in order to - if one wants to put it in negative terms - be prosecuted for not reporting should this prove to be an issue. With regard to trying to ensure there would be sufficient hard evidence to the effect that somebody knew a child was emotionally abused and in the context of providing this in a court of law, we suggested we would be including something in the legislation in respect of which it would be impossible to follow up. In the context of the other areas at which we are looking, there would be clear and definite proofs the person involved would know. Having said that, however, there is nothing to prevent this type of abuse from being reported.

Ms Liz Canavan

The challenge and difficulty we face is whether we can legislate in respect of this matter. That is what we are considering. I should emphasise that we have not absolutely ruled it out at this stage. Having spoken to a number of people with international experience, however, the feeling is that this is going to be extremely difficult to define - in a real way - in the context of someone being sanctioned for not reporting such abuse. This matter is still covered in the context of the Children First guidelines and the relevant policy remains in place. This is a difficult issue with which to deal and we would certainly be interested in hearing any further thoughts on it.

I am still not clear on why it is proposed to exclude abuse of this nature. There is an onus on people to report abuse in situations where children are outside the home. However, international research shows that most abuse actually occurs within families. Childminders in paid employment are being excluded from reporting such abuse. In a situation where a child is not safe in his or her home, then the parent is obviously not the best guardian. In many such instances, it is the parent who could be at fault. However, there is no obligation on childminders employed by private individuals to report. If a child is in danger, then the employer - in this instance, the parent - is going to be careful with regard to that fact being reported. Perhaps our guests could elaborate further on that particular aspect.

I wish to return to the points I made earlier and in respect of which I did not receive a response. We are concerned here with creating a system of mandatory reporting. The two areas I addressed are very simple and the question I posed was: "What then?" There is nothing in what has been presented which provides certainty with regard to whether we will be able to cope when the new system comes into play. Neither is there anything which indicates there is a realisation across the relevant Departments with regard to the supports and resources that will be required to give real effect to the legislation once it is enacted.

I referred earlier to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are making it an offence not to report abuse but we are not addressing the position in respect of offenders. I return to the issue of current practice and I am not referring here to a person alerting the health service or the Garda to a suspicion of abuse. I am, rather, referring to actual cases of predatory paedophile behaviour in respect of which there have been terrible outcomes and where there has been a failure on the part of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against not only known and suspected offenders but also against individuals who have already acknowledged and admitted guilt. The families concerned will never have closure in their lifetimes. I refer to a number of cases in this regard but there is one in particular where a young person in the very early stages of adulthood took their own life as a result of years of interference and abuse.

This matter cannot be dealt with in isolation and I am of the view it must be reflected in the context of the steps we take to address it. There is a serious inadequacy in the current arrangement. Families are entitled to an explanation if one can, in any way, be offered. I do not believe it is sufficient merely to issue a letter stating the cold facts in the aftermath of all the suffering, pain and loss a family may have experienced. I would like our guests to address that in some way.

Ms Liz Canavan

I appreciate fully the points the Deputies are making. In general terms, we would be aware of the need for that general feedback, especially in the context of these very difficult and traumatic cases. What the DPP does is not a matter for this Bill. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is independent in its functions. I do not know whether my colleagues from the Department of Justice and Equality wish to comment further on this matter.

Mr. Donncha O’Sullivan

To clarify, the DPP does not come under the direction or aegis of the Department of Justice and Equality. The DPP is entirely independent in the context of how she arrives at decisions. I am aware the DPP has a scheme in place for elaborating reasons in certain categories of serious cases. The scheme constructed by the DPP in this regard is entirely hers. I should mention there are a good range of support arrangements in place for victims of serious crime, including the appointment of liaison officers by An Garda Síochána to guide families through the serious circumstances in which they find themselves. The Garda is in a position to point families in the direction of various types of support services, many of which are funded by the State and some of which are voluntary in nature. These support services are in place to assist people in the circumstances under discussion. The position taken by the DPP in respect of particular cases is a matter on which we cannot comment.

Does Ms Canavan wish to comment further?

Ms Liz Canavan

I think I have covered all the points raised.

How is the proposed amalgamation that will lead to the establishment of the new child and family support agency progressing?

Ms Liz Canavan

That is another top priority for the Department this year. Our work on that matter is being done alongside that which relates to the matter under discussion. The task force on the establishment of the new agency has been sitting since last September. It will probably supply the Minister with an interim report shortly. It will also produce a full report in or around mid-year. The Minister and the relevant officials are exerting a fair bit of pressure on the task force because we obviously want to draft the relevant heads of the Bill.

So the two are being done in tandem.

Ms Liz Canavan

Absolutely.

There is a concern among those who work at the coalface in respect of this matter regarding the existence of a gap or deficit. Members referred to resources and supports in this regard. There is a real fear among those involved in child protection to the effect that resources are inadequate as matters stand and that, in view of what is envisaged in the context of the proposed legislation, they will not be able to meet the demand in the future. I hope that as part of the process in which we are engaged, we might allay those fears. I met some people in Cork last week who are committed professionals and who have real concerns. These individuals informed me about the deficits and gaps they see emerging in the future.

Ms Liz Canavan

In the context of the work of the task force and also that involving the Department of Health, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and our counterparts in the HSE, starting this year there has been, for the first time ever, a dedicated budget for children and families. That was the beginning of clarity around a dedicated function on budgets. As my colleagues and I have outlined, we have put in place a much stronger and clearer governance structure, which incorporates a top-to-bottom chain of command, in respect of children and family services. At the same time, there is a process ongoing between both Departments and the HSE in respect of the disaggregation of budgets and staffing.

There is a concern that this is becoming an exercise in empire building. In my opinion, we must resist the latter.

Ms Liz Canavan

That is right. One of the matters on which the Departments and the HSE have agreed relates to the requirement for due diligence in this regard which will assure those on both sides that there will be a fair and equitable disaggregation of services. In the work it is doing the task force is very anxious to ensure the agency will get off to a good start. In addition, the resources of the Family Support Agency will be subsumed into the new agency. The task force is also examining the full scope of services in the context of what might be included in the agency's work. There is a job to be done in this regard and there is an acknowledged need for due diligence in order to ensure there will be a fair carve-up of resources and that this will reflect the work people on the ground are doing for children and families.

I am concerned about childminding being specifically excluded. While it is possible to have a one-to-one contract with a parent on a local basis, the likelihood is that parents will go through agencies in order to seek childminders. When I speak to the organisations involved, I discover it is usually the case that a parent will know a childminder who lives down the road and that he or she will seek to have that person mind his or her child. There is an employment contract in place and I am concerned that specific reference is made to childminders, particularly as they spend such a defined amount of time with children. My concern also relates to the fact that childminders can, like parents, reasonably chastise children. We are placing childminders in a different category by specifically excluding them. I support Deputy McConalogue in-----

I wish to make a suggestion which may be of assistance. The county child care committees publish lists of registered childminders. When childminders register with them, they have a responsibility to provide them with training in respect of the Children First guidelines. Perhaps that might clarify the position.

Ms Liz Canavan

That is a process which is ongoing. We are trying to ensure there are certain standards among childminders. The sector has been unregulated and those who care for fewer than three children are not required to register. In fairness, however, many of them are registering and receiving support from the county child care committees. This is of assistance in improving the quality of child care available, which is important in the context of the outcomes for children.

It is vital to emphasise that the Children First guidelines are still in place. There is still, therefore, a requirement to report concerns which might emerge. I accept what is being said about the different types of arrangements in place. What we do not want to include, for example, are instances where a person might ask his or her mother to look after his or her children. A person's mother would not become a childminder for the purposes of the legislation in such circumstances.

She would not have an employment contract.

Ms Liz Canavan

The position would be the same in respect of a person's neighbour. I might even pay him or her for minding my children, but it would not be a formal arrangement. We will examine this matter in the context of whether it might be possible to have some nuance within it. However, the difficulty is that we do not want to drag in individuals who might be giving someone a dig-out or who might be minding children for a small payment. The position of such individuals would not be the same as that of fully employed individuals. We will consider this matter and certainly investigate the position of those employed by agencies.

My second point relates to emotional abuse. I can understand one aspect of what our guests stated in this regard. I am aware of a specific child who suffered purely emotional abuse and ended up being hospitalised. The proposed legislation would have no relevance in that instance. If one considers the definition of abuse, one will rarely state it falls solidly into one category or another. Normally, it is an interplay and there is more than one form of abuse involved. I am concerned that while physical and sexual abuse and neglect will be covered by the legislation, emotional abuse will not be contemplated by it. We need to examine this matter further.

Ms Liz Canavan

As we tease out the guidance for mandatory reporting, we can re-examine the issue. If we are criminalising people for not making reports, we must ensure we develop criteria which are fair to such individuals and allow them to defend themselves in the context of why they failed to make such reports in good faith. There is a need to ensure the criteria in this regard will be good. We are not ruling out emotional abuse, but that is where we feel matters stand. This reflects the advice we have received from a number of people who have considered international practice. If, however, members have specific inputs they wish to make on this matter, we would be delighted to receive them.

What is the current position on businesses operating in the childminding sector actually notifying their local county child care committees of particular issues?

Ms Liz Canavan

If they are caring for three or more children, they must be registered. There is a preschool inspection system in place-----

Is the requirement to register mandatory?

Ms Liz Canavan

Yes, they are required to register under the provisions of the Child Care Act 1991.

Therefore, anyone caring for more than three children is excluded from the requirement.

Ms Liz Canavan

No, they are not.

Not from the Children First guidelines.

Ms Liz Canavan

They are not excluded from the requirement under the legislation either. Those whom we are discussing are childminders who come to people's homes to look after their children. They are the only ones who are excluded.

Therefore, those minding more than three children will be obliged to meet the mandatory reporting requirement under the legislation.

Ms Liz Canavan

There is probably a gap between them and the larger providers. That is the group at which we must look.

Ms Michelle Clarke

I think they are included under the 1991 Act, but we need to check the position.

Ms Liz Canavan

Yes. The 1991 Act brings in all of those who are registered, but we need to parse the different elements of the sector. What we intend to exclude are the more informal arrangements. They are not quite ad hoc in nature; they are on a more informal basis and relate to one child-----

They would be excluded under the proposed legislation. Would au pairs be excluded?

Ms Liz Canavan

Yes, if they are living and working in the homes of their employers.

On resources, a great deal of work has been done in trying to improve the levels of consistency in the implementation of the Children First guidelines across various Departments. Further work has also been done on placing these guidelines on a statutory footing. Part of the work of the interdepartmental group, the members of which are appearing before us today, is to ensure this will happen when the legislation is introduced. There is no evidence, however, of an assessment being carried out of the resource implications of what is envisaged for the child protection system. Real efforts are being made to improve the system of reporting. In recent years the trend has been towards an increase in the number of child protection reports being made. This has put pressure on the existing system. If one considers the objectives of the proposed legislation, one will realise that what is envisaged will lead to an even further increase in the number of reports. This, in turn, will increase the burden on the child protection system which is already overstretched and which in many parts of the country is struggling and perhaps not coping.

The Department has not produced any evidence thus far to indicate that either a scoping exercise or an assessment has been carried out of what might be the increase in the number of reports received. There is a serious gap in this regard. In other jurisdictions the imposition of penalties for a failure to report has led to an increase in the number of reports being made. Not all reports being received in this country are being acted on. If one considers the main failings of the system in recent years, one will realise reporting has not been the problem. In many ways, incidents have been reported, but such reports have not been acted on properly or followed up in the correct matter. In some cases, this has been caused by the system being under too much pressure and the fact that there are not enough people working at the coalface. Has an assessment been carried out of the likely projected increase in the number of reports that will be received? If the answer is in the affirmative, has a projection been carried out of what might be the requirement with regard to additional resources? It is not acceptable that we should follow our current path without carrying out such assessments and projections.

Ms Liz Canavan

At the risk of being boring, I emphasise the fact that this policy has been in place for ten years. There are considerable resources in the system for training, reporting and supporting people to fulfil the obligations that have been in place since 1999 under the Children First guidelines. The bulk of what is involved is in place in all of the key sectors; this has been the case for a considerable period. We are aware, from international experience, that there is potential, at least initially, for additional reporting to occur. We have anticipated this happening. Part of what we are trying to do is strengthening the role of the designated officer. That will, unquestionably, assist in filtering some of the reports. At the same time, we are working with the HSE to examine the existing intake as part of the process of assessment. Taken together, all of measures are intended to ensure the resource is used more effectively and efficiently and is more standardised.

It is important for me to emphasise that all reports are examined. They might not all result in a visit or full assessment, if they are not prioritised, but they are all assessed to make sure they are graded according to risk. We are in the process of developing a regulatory impact assessment, as part of which we will look at the implications for all Departments and the HSE of additional requirements that might emerge from what is set out in the Bill. That is part of the process we will be undertaking and it will be ongoing, as we are mindful of the potential. A number of aspects of the heads of the Bill are intended to obviate the worst impacts of this.

When the Department decided to proceed with a mandatory reporting Bill, did it make a projection of what it might mean in terms of an increased number of reports?

Ms Liz Canavan

We cannot do that until we settle on the scheme. We have the draft heads, but we do not yet have a draft Bill. That is part of the process we are undertaking. It will depend on what ends up in the final Bill after the process of filtering and looking at the scope of the Bill. We will consider all of the reporting provisions included in the Bill, including the sanctions for designated officers. If any of this shifts, we anticipate that it will have a different impact. To a degree it will depend on what ends up in the finalised scheme and the final heads of the Bill. At this early stage, we are still working on this aspect as part of the process.

I thank the officials from the various Departments and the HSE for attending. We appreciate the time they have given us and the contributions they have made. I refer to Ms Canavan, in particular. As part of our continuing examination of the proposed legislation, representatives of the Irish Sports Council, the Football Association of Ireland, the Gaelic Athletic Association, Swim Ireland, the National Youth Council of Ireland, Foróige and Catholic Youth Care will attend the next meeting of the committee on Thursday morning.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 May 2012.
Top
Share