I welcome the Minister to the House. I had the impression that she was heading towards her former position as Leader of the Opposition, but I somehow do not believe that she will swap.
Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013: Second and Subsequent Stages
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides that the District Court may grant an interim care order in respect of a child on foot of an application by the HSE. The order may be made with or without parental consent in accordance with the section. The application may arise in circumstances where a child is being cared for under an emergency care order, often following a decision by the Garda to remove a child to safety under section 12 of the 1991 Act. An interim care order may also arise as a result of an application by the HSE to take a child into its care in circumstances where there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of that child. Before granting an interim care order, the judge must be satisfied that an application for a care order in respect of the child has been or is about to be made.
The HSE recently made a submission to my Department concerning the need to increase the duration of an extension to an interim care order to 29 days. The submission set out the practical rationale for seeking to increase the period of an extension to an interim care order. It also set out a strong case for urgent legislative change. In its submission, the HSE highlighted the difficulties it had been experiencing due to the necessity of having to return to the District Court every eight days for extensions to interim care orders, including increased stress for all parties arising from the frequency of court appearances, the difficulties for social work staff in forming working relationships with children and their families because of the frequency of adversarial court appearances, the amount of social workers' time taken up by court work, and increased legal costs for the HSE, families and guardians ad litem. In essence, the current application of section 17(2) of the 1991 Act is absorbing considerable court time and resulting in valuable social work time being expended in preparing for court cases and in attending court hearings.
The HSE's submission made a comprehensive and convincing case and I am, therefore, introducing the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2013 to make the amendments that are urgently required to the 1991 Act in that regard. In addition, the effect of the proposed amending legislation will be to facilitate, as far as possible, applications for orders or extensions to orders to be heard on the same day each week by the courts. This would assist the courts and the HSE in processing these applications and reduce the number of court appearances for all parties involved.
I will turn to the principal provisions of the Bill. Section 1 amends section 17(2) of the 1991 Act. Section 17(2)(a) of that Act allows for an interim care order for a period not exceeding 28 days in the absence of parental consent. Section 1(a) of the Bill will amend section 17(2)(a) by substituting "twenty-nine days" for "twenty-eight days".
Section 17(2)(b) of the Act allows for an interim care order to exceed 28 days with parental consent. Section 1(a) of the Bill will amend that section by substituting "twenty-nine days" for twenty-eight days". Section 1(b) of the Bill will amend section 17(2) of the Act by substituting "where an extension is to exceed twenty-nine days" for "where an extension is to exceed eight days" in order to provide that an application to extend an interim care order can be granted for a period of up to 29 days without parental consent.
Section 2 of the Bill is a standard provision providing for the Short Title and collective citation.
I have introduced this amending Bill as a matter of priority. Its effect is that, on enactment, an interim care order or an extension to an interim care order, in the absence of parental consent, may be granted for a period not exceeding 29 days.
I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the Senators' opinions.
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank her for attending. We fully support this short Bill. It is a technical requirement that will streamline the order process.
The Minister mentioned that she was introducing this legislation as a matter of urgency following matters being brought to her attention. Did she mean issues arising in the courts, the HSE or elsewhere? Sometimes, amendments to original Acts are important, and this Act dates from 1991 and may not be as workable as it used to be.
I wish to address the Minister's Department. What position is it taking on the implementation of the recent referendum? When a referendum passes, there is a great deal of follow-up legislation. Without going into too great a level of detail, what changes have occurred since the people voted on the children referendum and will further legislation need to be laid before the House in terms of the referendum decision's implementation? It was an important issue and I compliment the Minister on seeing it through. Her appointment as the first full Minister for children at Cabinet has had a great impact on young people.
Today is a good opportunity to ask these questions. Perhaps the Minister might respond to them at the end of her contribution. What developments have there been since the people voted, how has the referendum affected the work of the Department and will further legislation be introduced? I am delighted that, as a former Leader of the Opposition, the Minister has availed of the Seanad to introduce her legislation. She will always receive a good welcome in this House. I commend her on this Bill, which I accept fully. I wish the Minister well in her Ministry.
I warmly welcome the Minister to the House. I take the opportunity to commend her for her 18 to 19 months of work on the children referendum, which had been sought and requested for many years. It was vital, not just to get the issue over the line, but in terms of public discussion on the matter. It was great to see children's interests so focused in the minds of the media, politicians and others. The Seanad is lucky to have Members of the calibre of Senator van Turnhout who have dedicated their lives to working for children's rights. Organising that referendum in 18 months was a significant achievement.
As a student in UCD nearly 18 or 19 years ago, I discussed the importance of children with the Minister, who was then just Deputy Fitzgerald. It is good to see someone travel this distance. She has had her political battles and is doing a fantastic job.
The Bill could be described as technical legislation, but it is more than that. When enacted, it will impact on children's lives and the HSE's resources, which would be better spent looking after children's welfare instead of going to court every week. That an interim care order can only last for a maximum of eight days is unrealistic. HSE officials using up court time every week seeking extensions to such orders is not a good way to do business. As such, the Minister has made the right decision. The Bill ensures that the 1991 legislation is better enacted so that the welfare of children can become even more paramount. I have not even mentioned the effect on families and children of needing to attend court every week. We need to minimise people's court attendances, especially children's.
It is not the type of environment that is conducive to a better quality of life for anyone, particularly children, and it can have, as I am sure others will comment on, a profound effect.
This legislation tidies up something that probably should have been done a long time ago. Now that there is a full Cabinet Minister with responsibility for children and there is that ranking, children are given a far higher priority. There is a mandate from the people to ensure measures, which might seem simple or technical to the Members and to people outside these Houses following these proceedings, are taken but when one is in the throes of dealing with something like this it is a different situation. It can have profound emotional and psychological effects. Furthermore, resources are tight enough and there have been enough cutbacks. It would be beneficial if we could redeploy resources in a way that matters to people and that helps the lives of children, as opposed to having HSE officials go in and out of court every week. The arrangements, to which the Minister referred, whereby the court sitting will be on a specific day of the week is a factor in terms of the proper channelling of resources and that must be welcomed.
I have no doubt that as the Minister comes to terms with her Ministry and brings forward many more items of legislation such as this that it will have a cumulative effect to ensure that children are at the centre of this society in a real and meaningful way. I view this legislation as incremental progress in the right direction. I commend the Bill to the House.
The Minister is welcome, as always, to the House. Having regard to the children's rights referendum, as I have said here previously, I applaud, commend and congratulate the Minister on delivering on the Government's promise. When I was on the referendum trail, as many of us were, I listened to the concerns of many parents on the doorsteps, on the streets and at public meetings. We cannot ignore that some of the "No" voters spoke of concerns about how they have been treated or how they perceive they would have been treated in past, would be treated now or in the future and some of those concerns were based on reality and some were based on perception. In addressing these concerns, I stress the significance of the Department's decision to improve the social services system by removing child welfare and protection from the remit of the HSE and moving it into a dedicated new agency, the Child and Family Support Agency. I assure parents that the new agency will focus on early and accountable intervention that supports better outcomes for children and families and that will work to keep families together, which is something we all want to do where possible.
The Minister's Department published the report of the task force on the child and family support agency in July last year. I have asked the Leader of the House on a number of occasions if we could debate that. The Bill will be produced shortly and I ask the Minister to outline when it will be produced but I am also cognisant of the fact that the agency will have 4,000 staff and that it has a budget of €545 million. Many of us could make an impromptu speech about the failings of the system at present and we all want to get it right. We should have a debate on the remit, resources and vision for the new agency to help frame that Bill. I ask the Minister to give consideration to having a debate on it in the House perhaps prior to the publication of the Bill because this is an issue on which we could have a consensus in the House in that we that we all want to work together on it.
I wholeheatedly support the Bill and welcome the initiative the Minister has taken in bringing it forward. The making of care orders under the Child Care Act 1991 is a very important function of the District Court in the interests of the child welfare and protection. Care orders are made where the District Court, upon the application of the Health Service Executive, is of the opinion that a child has been or is being assaulted, ill treated, neglected or sexually abused, or where a child's health, development or welfare have been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected or the child's health development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected. A care order allows the child to be placed or maintained in the care of the executive pending the making of a full care order. Ordinarily the first step in the process, as the Minister said, is an emergency care order, which can last up to eight days, followed by an interim care order, which, under the current arrangements, is only extended by a maximum of eight days in the absence of parental consent. We know that, in the interests of logic and practicality, District Court judges have recently - I believe it was the beginning of last year, under the recent direction of the President of the District Court- stopped granting 28-day extensions of interim care orders in cases where the necessary consent has not been provided. I welcome that the Government has put forward the amendments in order to give the clarity that is necessary because I believe this was always the intention. These amendments are urgently required to remedy the impractical and counter-productive nature of the maximum eight-day extension without consent in terms of finding and working towards an appropriate solution for children in the cases in question.
The current system of returning to court every eight days to extend an interim care order - especially since extensions are practically always granted, I have talked to many solicitors working in the area about this - is not in the best interests of children and their families. The reality is that it creates insecurity for the child who knows he or she is being discussed in the court every week. One is over one court case and into the next one. It places an increased burden on parents that these cases are before the District Court every week and no time is given for consideration to work towards a solution. It means that social workers, team leaders and solicitors are in court waiting around all day to justify the continuation of the order only to return one week later again and again for the same case. This seriously undermines the time and resources available to social workers and team leaders who need to focus on the care and best interests of the child. It incurs an excessive and unnecessary cost for the HSE and the Courts Service. It creates unmanageable court lists and there are considerable blockages in the system.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill. The benefits of it are that it will move the focus to the best interests of the child because it will free up the time of social workers who are most important in this process and also other people involved in the HSE towards looking at the best interests of the child. There will be significant cost savings. It will mean that the courts will be able to deal with the cases that are necessary to be dealt with. It will also mean that there will be certainty and security for the child concerned and that he or she will know that this is what will happen. The emergency care orders are there for a reason but here we are talking about interim care orders. It will move the focus to working to find a solution that is in the best interests of the child and it will rebalance the focus from going to court to managing a positive outcome in the case. That is where the focus should be.
I support the Minister bringing into line the 28-day extension to 29-days because it makes sense to have one day and one could say this is the day in question and it also ensures there is clarity and consistency which will greatly benefit the management of court lists. I thank the Minister for this. It is excellent that she has brought forward the Bill. Many people are waiting for it to come through and hopefully it will relieve a lot of time for those involved.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the Bill and it provides for a sensible change. From my contact with people working in the area of social work, I know there is a clear advantage from is proposed in the Bill. It will provide more certainty for a child and he or she will be more likely to know what is happening. The idea of an eight-day period seems to be more of a stopgap and it could potentially be unsettling for the children involved. A practice had grown up whereby the extension was made for a period of 28 days and the President of the District Court rightly directed that correct procedures would be followed and that unless the necessary consent had been provided the court could not make an order for an extension of an interim care order in excess of eight days. It seems that what is proposed in the Bill is straightforward and sensible. It will assist the good administration of cases and it is in everybody interests that matters would be seen to happen in a consistent and coherent fashion.
I take the opportunity to express a concern, which everybody shares, about the extent of challenges facing us as a society in regard to child protection. I read of startling figures in the Roscommon Herald in recent days and if that is true for Roscommon it is true for other areas. The HSE in Roscommon alone dealt with 754 reports concerning welfare, physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect of children in 2010. It is interesting that the percentage of welfare reports that related to children was 67% in Roscommon, which is higher than the national average of 56%. While these may seem to be simply figures underlining them is a very distressing reality.
I take the opportunity to ask the Minister about the EU hotline for missing children.
I discussed the EU hotline with Senator van Turnhout yesterday. Significant progress has been made since December 2012. The hotline will allow the reporting of missing juveniles to relevant authorities, accept tips about missing children and their location, and provide emotional support to parents. It is available in 20 EU countries. The hotline is not yet available to the extent hoped for. It is currently available from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. every day, but it is hoped to have it available on a 24-hour basis from March 2013.
Can I ask the Minister about progress in that regard? Having debated this issue with her and others in this House, I know she shares the concerns expressed. I also pay tribute to people outside the Oireachtas who have informed us on this issue from time to time. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister about this. It is crucial that everything necessary be done to ensure the safety and welfare of children and that support needs to be on a constant basis, and more than 18 hours a day. It needs to be clearly visible to people that the hotline is there and fully operational.
I welcome the Minister to the Seanad and congratulate her on the Trojan work she is doing in the area of children and young people.
As the Minister said in her opening statement, the Bill is of a technical nature and provides clarity for those in the legal system and, more importantly, for those working in the child care sector in situations where an interim care order has been granted and where consent has not been obtained from parents or guardians and will extend the period of orders from eight days to 29 days.
Interim care orders are granted where an urgent need for protection of a child arises, pending the determination of a care order application by the HSE in the District Court. It is important to stress that the interim care order is granted pending the determination of a care order in the District Court. Under section 17(2)(b) of the Child Care Act 1991, where there was no parental consent to an application for an interim order that order could only be granted for a period not exceeding eight days. Where the consent of a parent or guardian was given, the period could exceed eight days. There was an amendment to the 1991 Act in the Children Act 2001 which changed the wording from eight days to 28 days. Therefore, where consent was not forthcoming or could not be obtained, the period of the interim order could not exceed 28 days.
The 1991 Act also allowed for an extension to an interim care order. It is on the extension that we are focusing today. The 2001 Act did not change the time period for the extension of an interim order under the 1991 Act, which remained at eight days. Therefore, although the practice arose of granting extensions for a further 28 days, consistent with the other provisions made by the 2001 Act, the President of the District Court rightly determined that unless there was the necessary consent the court could not extend the period of an interim care order for more than eight days. On the face of it, this made sense. Not only could the court not exceed its jurisdiction but in the absence of consent we would all accept that we must be careful to ensure that any committal of a child into care should be for no longer than is necessary. However, as has been carefully put to us by the Minister, the evidence from practice is that a change to bring about clarity and consistency was necessary. The change sought was to remedy a possible defect or omission in the 2001 Act by synchronising the two time periods.
The HSE has sought this change in the best interests of children and their families. Frequent applications, as the Minister has pointed out, to the court to extend an interim care order are not helpful to the child, the State or the services provided in the interest of the child. Moreover, these applications are taking up court time and valuable child protection resources in staff having to be available for court appearances. There is an understandable concern that this practice is wasteful for the HSE, the Courts Service and those acting for children, such as parents and guardians ad litem, and that the practice is unnecessary and wasteful.
The change sought is interesting. The application for an extension of an interim care order is not to 28 days but to 29 days. This is to allow for housekeeping, as the Minister has pointed out, and is eminently sensible in that it allows cases to be heard on the same day each week in court.
I am supportive of what is being done. There is, however, always public concern where the power of the State to remove a child without the consent of his or her parents or legal guardian is extended, and it must be shown to be necessary. With that in mind, I have two questions for the Minister. The first is on a point of clarification. In her opinion, was the retention of the original time period for the granting of extensions to an interim care order under the 2001 Act an omission by the Legislature or was it intended to retain the period of eight days? Does the Minister have a view as to why the Legislature did not extend the period to 28 days, as it did in the granting of interim orders where the consent of the parent or guardian was not given?
Second, given that an interim care order is intended to protect a child until the HSE can proceed with a full application and that the interim order itself is for a duration of 28 days and intended to be temporary, why are successive extensions of interim care orders necessary and why are full applications not proceeded with by the HSE?
I welcome the Minister back to the House to debate this important issue. I will be supporting the Bill because it is important that we continue to improve areas of child protection. Although the Bill is largely technical, it does tidy up some areas of child care policy, which I support.
The Bill which amends the Child Care Act 1991 seeks to allow for the extension of an interim care order, where consent has not been obtained from parents or guardians, from eight days to 29 days. This will bring the time periods in section 17(2) of the parent Act, the Child Care Act 1991, broadly into line, as all time periods will be 29 days, and 29 days will be a maximum for an interim care order without consent. With parental consent it can exceed 29 days.
The Bill seeks to improve the operation of the 1991 Act, an aim with which we are in accordance and support. Part 4 of the Child Care Act 1991, as amended, sets out provisions relating to the making of a care order and a supervision order. The responsibility for making such an order is with the HSE. While this is a significant responsibility it is clearly a necessary power if children are at risk. While it should exercise its responsibility with care and in a balanced way, there is no question but that it is necessary for it to carry out such a role. It is interesting that this was one of the issues that arose in the children referendum and was often used by opponents of the amendment in a very negative way.
Section 16 of the 1991 Act allows the HSE to make an application for a care order or supervision order in respect of a child residing in its area where it appears the child is in need of care or protection. A supervision order authorises the HSE to visit a child at specified periods to allow the HSE to ascertain the welfare of the child or to provide advice on the care of the child. Under section 17(1), where an application for a care order has been made or is about to be made and an urgent protection need arises, an interim care order can be made pending the determination of the care order application. Section 17(2)(b) provided that where the parent or person acting in loco parentis gave consent, an interim care order could be granted for a period exceeding eight days and where they did not give consent, for a period not exceeding eight days. This was amended by section 267 of the Children Act 2001, which allowed an interim order with consent for a period exceeding 28 days and limited an order without consent to a period not exceeding 28 days. Section 17(2) of the 1991 Act also allows for an extension of an interim care order. Until now, this would exceed eight days with the permission of the parents or persons acting in loco parentis and cannot exceed eight days without that consent.
The legislation will allow that to be extended to 29 days and it also amends section 17(2)(b) of the 1991 Act to allow for the application itself to be for 29 days maximum without consent and for longer where there is consent. This is necessary because it is believed that running to the courts every eight days to have the interim care order reviewed is excessive, not best practice and disruptive for the child in question. We agree this is not desirable. I understand from the Bills digest that following the amendment of section 17(2) by the 2001 Act, the practice arose whereby interim care orders without consent were granted for a period of 28 days initially with extensions of a further 28 days, which was mentioned by a previous Senator. However, due to the President of the District Court directing that a court cannot make such an order without consent concurrently, there is a need to legislate. If the Bill is enacted and all the time periods under section 17(2) become 29 days, the proposed amendment from 28 to 29 days will facilitate applications for interim care orders or for extensions to them to be heard on the same day each week by the court, which is sensible.
I watched the discussion on the Magdalen laundries report on the "Tonight with Vincent Browne" television programmes last week and the issue of children of care came up. While there were serious problems in the past and mistakes were made by the HSE, the State must face up to its responsibilities and the Minister has sought to improve the care of children. In any attempt to do that, she will have my support and my party's full support because it is such an important area. It was one of the issues that was, unfortunately, used against all of us who were campaigning in favour of the children's right referendum. People said the State had failed children and asked why we were proposing the constitutional amendment. However, they missed the point of the referendum in the first place.
I fully support the Bill and will not table amendments to it.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I will not regurgitate what previous speakers said because they have laid out clearly what the Bill entails. As Senator Conway said, we are lucky to have in our midst someone who has fought long and hard for children's rights as a Member, but we are also lucky to have someone at the helm in the Minister who has the same commitment and wants to protect the rights of children. With someone like her in office, we will not go wrong when it comes to the care of children. It was her commitment that got the children's rights referendum over the line, as people respect her authority when it comes to children's rights.
The Bill is a reflection of someone thinking on her feet and using common sense and joined-up thinking to reduce bureaucracy and administration by eliminating the need to run to court every eight days to renew interim care orders. This is important legislation for children and their families. It is my understanding that if the social services believe the welfare of the child is secure and he or she is not in danger, they can return him or her to the family within the 29 day period and, therefore, they are not obliged to keep the child in care for the duration if everything is in order. Will the Minister clarify this? I commend her for her work, which we all support.
I welcome the Minister to the House. She is an ornament to her Department, as she was to this House when she was Leader of the Opposition. This is a simple, technical, one-page Bill. The first amending section provides for the substitution of 28 days with 29 days as the maximum duration for an interim care order. I read the Minister's speech but I was not completely clear about why this is necessary. That has been clarified in subsequent contributions, although I am sure the Minister clarified it. I apologise for not being present when she made her contribution but I had to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The principal Act, the Child Care Act 1991, is being amended by this legislation. I recall the debate on that Act well. I take a certain proprietary interest in some aspects of it because I was involved centrally in advocating for the guardian ad litem service. The second amending section provides for the extension of interim care order renewals from eight to 29 days, for which there are clear, technical reasons. There are also human reasons, by which I am rather impressed. It is being done because of the time wasted, the stress on all those involved and, in particular, the impact on the relationship between the child and the social worker. Those three points are well made.
I am concerned at a reference to the increased legal costs in respect of the guardian ad litem scheme. I thought it was an excellent idea. I was briefed by Barnardos when the original Bill was introduced. I contacted its representatives about this Bill and they are pleased with it. They feel an extension is very necessary. However, I am concerned about the situation regarding the funding of the guardian ad litem scheme and perhaps the Minister could give the House some information about this. It has been suggested that the scheme is not adequately funded. I acknowledge we are in a greatly difficult financial situation but if we look back to the Roscommon incest case, there were suggestions that if the scheme had been adequately implemented, the suffering of those children might have been abrogated at a much earlier point. I was appalled at some fundamentalist Christians who intervened in the process and encouraged and incited the family to take the matter to court. That was profoundly shocking, given, subsequently, both parents were convicted of sexual offences against their own children. In general, the guardian ad litem scheme is a good one. It may have some flaws that may need to be ironed out. Given the Minister has raised the issue of costs, perhaps she could clarify the issue. If the House can encourage the Government and support the Minister to ensure the adequate funding of this mechanism, we will have done a good day's work.
I thank all Senators for their contributions to the debate. I welcome the response the Bill has received from them and thank them for their support. The legislation is in the interests of the children. A number of general points were made by Members regarding the protection of children. We have an appalling legacy but we are taking actions that will make a difference to children. The total number of children in care is 6,160. Senator Mullen referred to highlighting particular counties but it often brings it home a little more when one considers the number of children from particular areas. I have done that recently and this is something that needs to be shared more at local and regional level in order that people are aware of how many children are in care in their county and can examine the support mechanisms that could be developed at county level to make a difference to vulnerable children. We should do more of this.
A question was raised about child protection generally and the development of the child and family support agency. I will be happy to come to the House for a debate prior to the legislation that will put the agency on a statutory footing. It will be available this term and a great deal of work is being done on it. The agency's management team has been put in place and the segregation from the HSE has been completed. Mr. Gordon Jeyes is the chief executive officer of the agency and new management structures are in place. There will be much less management, more accountability from the front line to the centre and greater access for front-line social workers to managers, which is important. The legislation is being worked on and we are also working on having a separate financial system in order that the agency can operate independently. It is probably one of the biggest pubic sector reform initiatives we are undertaking as a Government. There are 4,000 staff involved and a budget of €550 million. It is, therefore, a substantial reform Bill and it is a priority for the Government.
This raised a number of other points. There is a suite of legislation that follows on from the referendum when all processes are completed. I published the adoption legislation before the referendum and that will need to be implemented in due course.
Legislation will also arise in relation to the best interests of the child and the views of the child. The child care legislation will have to be examined as a whole to see what other amendments are necessary. That point was raised by Senator Leyden. He also asked when the matter first came to attention - it was in the latter half of 2012. It was raised first, not by the HSE, but by practitioners and in the court who felt that what was happening was not in the interests of children. It was then raised with me by the HSE and I gathered the type of information which I have put before the House today.
A number of other points were raised which I would like to go through. I thank all the Senators for their commitment in this area. We are working collectively in terms of improving the services. I thank Senator Conway for his comments in respect of putting the best interests of the child centre stage.
Senator van Turnhout mentioned the pressures on everyone - parents, children and the courts - given the current situation. I agree with the Senator but primarily it is not in the interests of children to have this constant quick return to court before a proper assessment can be done, before proper care plans are made, before proper contact is made with the parents, where that is possible, and before proper discussions have taken place with the child. There is no question that it has become somewhat unmanageable and the Bill is intended to correct that.
Senator Hayden referred to the rationale when the original issue was raised. Senator Rónán Mullen supports the legislation and asked about the EU hotline. The ISPCC has taken over the hotline for which funding has been provided by my Department and we have also sourced EU funding. Senators played a role in ensuring this matter received high priority and it has been established. It started in December 2012 on a phased basis, 16 hours per day. I am pleased to announce the hotline will operate on a 24-hour basis by May 2013.
Senator Cullinane spoke about the Magdalen laundries report and what has emerged. We have to be conscious today that we do the best for those 6,000 children who are in care, particularly those young people who need aftercare. We spent €17 million last year on aftercare, which is a huge increase from previous years. Some of these young people who leave care need huge supports. I want to focus particularly on the group of young people who have been in residential care and who move on, some of whom have very complex needs. Yesterday I met Focus Ireland and many of organisations which work with the homeless to discuss how we can best co-ordinate services for that group. The Senator's point is well made that we need to be sensitive in the here and now to the challenges and the supports we need to give to more vulnerable children, so that the situation that emerged, due to a lack of supports and aftercare from which those women and young girls in the Magdalen laundries suffered, will not re-emerge. We have to examine current issues and children who are vulnerable today and ensure we do the right thing by them.
I thank Senator Marie Moloney for the points she raised. Senator Hayden asked about the rationale when the legislation was introduced. An immediate issue she has raised for consideration was the policy intent at the time of amending the Child Care Act 1991. I am informed that based on an exhaustive review of all available files and discussions with relevant officials, where available, it can be concluded that there was no policy consideration given to the extension of interim care orders at that time. All available documentation relates solely to the extension of initial care orders. In this regard it is assumed there was no policy imperative at the time of the amendment either for or against increasing the period of extension to 28 days, in the absence of consent. That is the background information as to how the issue was approached at the time.
I am not aware that it has been suggested that it was a mistake but equally the files do not show that a positive policy decision was made but the eight days would not be changed. That is as much background information as I have on the issue.
Senator Norris raised the issue of costs and guardian ad litem among other points. The guardian ad litem system has been developed hugely. At this point it needs to be reviewed. We need to put a national structure in place because the costs at this time are very high. It is a really good system and I recognise the Senator's role in ensuring we have a guardian ad litem system. It has been ad hoc and is very expensive. A proper system must be put in place outlining clear standards and criteria and qualifications of those who do the job. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and I intend to address that issue.
He will be very welcome here.
I thank the Senator. Last year the legal costs of the child and family support agency were €31 million, a very large amount of money. We need to examine these costs. It is a huge part of the budget. In that regard I welcome the move by the Minister for Justice and Equality to establish family courts. I believe the system is far too adversarial and is not in the interests of children. We need to move towards mediation and family supports rather than the current adversarial system which I do not believe serves children very well. Certainly we must examine the guardian ad litem which is in need of development and reform into a proper structure.
All the costs are too high in the State.
The HSE paid out €31 million last year in legal costs.
I thank all Senators for their contributions and support for the legislation. I appreciate their support for the reform agenda which is being carried out in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
That is the way to bring Bills through.
Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.