asked the Minister for Health the steps, if any, he has taken since taking office to advance the implementation of the Task Force Report on Child Care Services; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Child Care Services Report.
5.
The principal recommendation of the Task Force on Child Care Services was that new legislation should be introduced to update and extend the law in relation to children.
The Deputy will be aware that the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, 1985, which was one of a number of measures intended to give effect to that recommendation, was being examined by a special committee of this House when the general election intervened.
As I indicated in reply to the question on 30 April last, that Bill would have required substantial changes involving as many as 150 amendments. Rather than re-introducing the Bill and re-writing it on the floor of the House, I am convinced that it would be more expeditious to allow the 1985 Bill to lapse and to introduce a new Children Bill. Much of the work on this has already been completed by my Department and I hope to introduce a new Children Bill during the summer.
The supplementary report of the Task Force recommended that the law should be changed to permit the adoption of children whose parents are married to each other. Within the next day or two, I expect to circulate an Adoption Bill which will enable the adoption in certain circumstances of legitimate children with a parent or parents alive.
I might also mention that there have been widespread improvements in child care services since the publication of the Task Force report in 1980. I am committed to maintaining and, where possible, building on the advances which have been made in this area. Towards this end, I have directed health boards in the 1987 letters of allocation to protect the child care services from the effects of any necessary spending reductions and to maintain expenditure on these services at least at 1986 approved levels in real terms.
I am amazed at the Minister saying that the situation has improved dramatically since the report was published in 1980. Would he not be honest today and admit that the organisations dealing with child care are in crisis at present, being inadequately funded to deal with the problems of teenage drinking, teenage drug abuse, teenage homelessness and the whole area of glue sniffing and lawlessness amongst teenagers? The present statutory bodies are inadequately funded to deal with these problems at present. There is a crying need for the Bill to be published immediately. We were promised legislation before the summer recess. It is obvious now that we will not have it before the autumn.
The legislation is well advanced at this stage. As I said, we thought it would be more expeditious to bring forward a new Bill because of the number of amendments that were necessary to the 1985 Child (Care and Protection) Bill. The Bill will be circulated to the House as early as possible. It will not be debated in the House before the summer recess but it was never intended, as I understand it, that it should be.
Would the Minister not agree that the Bill circulated in 1985 was a substantial Bill? Apart from four amendments for consequence, the other 150 amendments are purely consequential changes in the numbering and resectioning of the Bill. In view of the fact that that Bill was before a special committee of the House and had completed Second Stage debate, there should be no delay in the publication of the new Bill. Would the Minister not agree that after 30 years we really must publish this Bill and get it through now because it will not be enacted before the middle of 1988 at the earliest?
I agree with Deputy Desmond about the need to expedite publication of the Bill. As the Deputy knows, it is important that the Bill should be correct when it comes to the House so that it will not be necessary to withdraw it from the House. When I was in Opposition, at the first meeting of the committee to discuss that Bill I suggested that it would be more expeditious for the then Minister to withdraw the Bill and bring forward a new Bill. I believe we have taken the correct course. Certainly, there will be no delay on my part in bringing the Bill before the House.
There is at present a free-for-all with regard to pre-schools and creches. Will the Bill have provisions to control these institutions?
It is not the practice to disclose what might be in the Bill; certainly as Minister I would always take into account any suggestions from my colleagues in this House.
There will be brief supplementary questions from Deputies Shatter, Flaherty and Colley.
My first question is to ask the Minister to confirm that the Bill will be circulated for First and then for Second reading in this House. Secondly, is there any major subject matter which was included in the withdrawn Bill which is being excluded from the new Bill the Minister intends to publish?
Is this question on the Adoption Bill?
No, it is on the Child (Care and Protection) Bill.
No decision has been made to date on which House the Bill will be introduced in. Obviously, I am very anxious that when the Bill is introduced it will pass through both Houses of the Oireachtas as expeditiously as possible. Before the Bill is published we shall decide which House would be the more appropriate to have a debate in first.
My question perhaps includes that element of Deputy Shatter's question in that he was interested to know whether there will be any major areas of omission. Is the Minister including a strengthening of the Bill in any way, or is it simply a redrafting procedure based on decisions existing at the time the Bill was withdrawn? In that redrafting or additional reconsideration, will the Minister be paying attention to the recent report of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children which saw need for a stronger Bill?
As I say, it is not usual to debate impending legislation before it is circulated.
How can the Minister reconcile the answer he has just given — that there will be no real reduction in the level of care of children who are in need of care and protection — with the fact that in community care services there is a real reduction in care? Many social workers have been let go and those who are left are working under such constant pressure that they are suffering from burn out. Those social workers also will be forced to leave. The service is being rapidly run down. Would the Minister not agree that children who are being neglected, children in foster care and those in need of foster care or adoption are very much at risk in terms of care?
I do not accept what the Deputy says. I have asked senior officials of my Department to visit each health board area and they will report back to me on the implications of any savings that have to be made on all the services.