Deputy Flaherty has been given permission to raise the question of the statistics on child abuse presented to the women's rights organisations and also the withdrawal of moneys from voluntary organisations. The Deputy does not have permission to speak about matters dealing with legislation that does not exist.
Adjournment Debate. - Child Abuse.
I was not aware that I would not be given such permission. It is an important area. The reason I raised this question is the recent publication by the Minister of the statistics of child abuse in 1986.
These statistics indicate that there has been what was described in newspaper coverage as a shocking and alarming increase in the level of child abuse, especially in the Eastern Health Board area. However, throughout the country as a whole there has been a significant increase in the incidence of child abuse in general which has gone up by two thirds in one year. In the area of sexually abused children, the increase has been even more significant. It was in that context I asked for the opportunity to debate this on the Adjournment because I am seriously concerned that current departmental policy is totally failing to tackle this problem on two fronts. I am not allowed to refer to the fact that the Minister has failed to produce his redraft of the Children (Care and Protection) Bill——
It would not be a basis on which you would get permission to raise that matter on the Adjournment but a reference thereto will not be regarded as terribly out of order.
Since we resumed after the summer recess — and prior to it — I have been asking the Minister to indicate when legislation would be before the House. It is important and very relevant in the context of the statistics because they indicate that a relatively small number of cases give rise to proceedings under the Children's Act. I am perfectly aware that that may not necessarily be the most advantageous and sensitive way to deal with this very difficult area of coping with families, vulnerable children and families who have many other problems. However, there has been concern that the powers to intervene are inadequate and the promised Bill is intended to redress this. The Minister withdrew the Bill in February-March when it was on Committee Stage in the House. Therefore, there was an obligation on him to move quickly and I hope he will respond in the very near future to have this legislation brought before the House so that, at least on the legislative side, every support is given to the agencies, health boards and other forces of the State and concerned persons to protect the increasing number of children who have been confirmed as being at risk in the published statistics.
The second area of concern is the level of cutback in funds to voluntary bodies engaged in this area. There has been a total abolition of the funds which were available to the Minister of State for Women's Affairs. The sum involved, £52,000, was spread around the country in small amounts but was given to many organisations who carry out preventive work and counselling for children who have been abused. It also prevented families from deteriorating into this situation. I appreciate that the groups to which I referred are not directly the responsibility of the Minister but, taken in conjunction with funds for the social services, it is relevant to mention it. It is also relevant to mention that the health boards, the other major source of funding for these organisations, have also been under extreme pressure and have cut back on funds to these agencies. They have also been forced to spend more and more of their precious time raising money rather than engaging in the work for which they were trained. I refer to the Limerick Rape Crisis Centre, the Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents and their Children and Gingerbread, who work with a particularly vulnerable group, unmarried mothers.
There was a very tragic incident in my constituency recently which resulted in the death of a child. Gingerbread have been anxious to set up a service in this area and in many other suburbs where the problem is increasing. However, they are not getting the support to do so by State bodies. It is regrettable that at a time when the demands on these organisations are greater, as the published statistics show, they are hampered by inadequate legislation and by lack of funding. Other organisations losing funds are the Waterford Rape Crisis Centre, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and a number of groups who offered women alternative development opportunities outside the home which might have made them better able to cope and which would perhaps have reduced, perhaps not directly the figures for abuse, but the figures of children coming into care for neglect. These relatively small amounts of money should not have been withdrawn, it is a very shortsighted policy. The specific figures do not relate to the Minister's Department but a similar picture would emerge from an examination of the funding to these and other organisations involved in either counselling, in family resource centres or in preventive work in the community with groups at risk. They are all being further and further cut back and have been forced to spend time, which should be spent in providing direct services, in raising money.
I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to both these elements as they go hand in hand. Legislation is needed and I hope that the Minister will urgently review his Department's response to this sensitive and worrying development.
As you allowed Deputy Flaherty to mention the new Children Bill I should like to tell her that the Minister indicated to the Dáil last week that the Government had approved the heads of the Bill. It is now with the parliamentary draftsman and it is the Government's intention to publish the Bill in the current Dáil session.
Deputy Flaherty is critical of the funding for the Council for the Status of Women. This is not my area of responsibility. I have been informed by the Department dealing with that section that the position in relation to Government financing is that the amount allocated was £88,000 in 1986 when Senator Fennell of the Deputy's party was Minister of State for Womens' Affairs. It was £88,000 in 1987 and is £90,000 in the Estimates for Public Services for 1988.
The figures relate to other organisations. The figure is nil for this year.
In fact there has been no reduction in that grant——
The economic reality is that the money allocated has been reduced.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
——despite the fact that economic realities constrain the Government to reduce public expenditure wherever possible——
When the Minister is finished the Deputy may make a request.
I did not refer to the grant for the Council for the Status of Women. I was talking about the grants to the other organisations and £86,000 entirely has been taken away.
There has been no reduction in that grant despite the fact that economic realities constrain the Government to reduce public expenditure wherever possible and that there have, of necessity, been substantial reductions in expenditure in other area. The position for 1988 must be set in the context of the overall reductions of £485 million that have had to be made in the 1988 Estimates.
The position as regards 1987 is interesting. By the time this Government assumed office on 10 March 1987 the expenditure already incurred by Senator Fennell as Minister of State under the appropriate subhead amounted to just under £28,000. If spending had continued for the remainder of 1987 at the same rate as in this brief period of months approximately £150,000 would have gone on promotion and on information to support development activities and grants other than to the Council for the Status of Women. This would have led to a very small amount being available to the council had the Minister of State been returned to office.
You are missing the whole point.
I am just dealing with the point made by the Deputy.
I have the figures here. I am not dealing with the Council for the Status of Women. That is irrelevant to this debate. We are talking about grants to other organisations which are being cut entirely.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Flaherty will have to realise that the Minister of State——
He is replying to a different issue. I do not know what he is replying to.
The level of expenditure——
Deputy Flaherty should realise that in the mind of the listener a person invariably speaks irrelevantly but we all have to put up with that. Even if the Deputy feels it is irrelevant she will have to be patient while the Minister of State makes his point.
On a point of order, the topic——
That is not a point of order. Will the Deputy resume her seat. There is no point of order on the Adjournment debate.
I do not know whether it is or not, but the topic that I raised——
The topic the Deputy raised is being replied to by the Minister of State in his fashion and the Deputy must take his answer.
(Interruptions).
The Council for the Status of Women is not a voluntary body.
If you will be patient, I am coming to the points covered in the Deputy's question.
You are missing the whole point.
Deputy Flaherty is long enough in the House to know that she must listen and behave herself.
I am getting used to Deputy Leyden's style, but it is totally irrelevant.
As Deputy Flaherty feels so strongly that the council is underfunded, it is only reasonable to ask why the council did not get a larger share of the total provision in the appropriate subhead for each of the years in which her party colleague, Senator Fennell, was Minister of State for Women's Affairs and had considerable discretionary control of the money in the subhead for her office. For example, the position for 1986 is that Senator Fennell as Minister of State for Women's Affairs decided that the council should have £88,000 of the total provision of £189,000——
What about the children?
——and that she herself would decide on the allocation of the remaining £101,000——
I do not think the Minister understands. Is he afraid to deal with the issues?
I am coming to every point raised by Deputy Flaherty. Will the Deputy please give me an opportunity to come to the points.
I do not know if the Minister listened to what I said.
The Chair cannot listen for much longer to Deputy Flaherty interrupting. Will you allow the Minister of State to proceed?
The Minister was to decide on the allocation of the remaining of the £101,000 to support development projects and activities she chose to assist.
On any objective criteria some of the causes and activities she chose to assist deserved support if the means were available but what I cannot understand is that if she felt that the council with a grant level of £88,000 was seriously underfunded why did she not raise the grant significantly, indeed double it, when it was in her power to do so.
On the question of grants to organisations, other than the council, active in the area of women's affairs, the position is that such organisations will no longer be in receipt of public funds through the Department of the Taoiseach. I would like to make it quite clear, however, that those organisations carrying out particularly important work will still be eligible to apply for assistance to the health boards, to the Department of Social Welfare under their grants to voluntary bodies scheme, and to the Combat Poverty Agency.
I accept that the council and a number of its member organisations could use additional funds productively. The fact is that the Government simply do not have the option of generally increasing the levels of funding available to interest groups, however important their aims and however worthwhile the work they do.
As regards my support and the support of Dr. O'Hanlon, Minister for Health, for specialised services for sexually abused children and their families, I make no apologies for the initiatives we have taken in the short period since we came to office. We are deeply conscious of the need to improve the present range of health and social services available. As Deputy O'Hanlon, Minister for Health, has already announced he is providing the necessary additional resources to enable two special units to be established at Crumlin and Temple Street children's hospitals for the investigation of alleged cases of child sexual abuse. The Minister has approved the appointment of eight additional Heads of Staff for each hospital for these new units. The work to be undertaken in these two units will replace the work which is currently undertaken with children at the Rotunda Hospital Sexual Assault Treatment Unit. The new units are expected to be operational in the coming months.
In July last my Department issued a revised set of detailed guidelines on child abuse which includes a special section on child sexual abuse. In circulating the new guidelines formally to the health boards, my Department have requested the boards to review urgently their present procedures and services for dealing with reported cases of child abuse. This review process is now underway and my Department will be discussing the outcome of the different reviews with the health boards with a view to improving present arrangements for the investigation of cases of alleged child sexual abuse and also the treatment and support services required for abused children and their families.
As regards the statistics for the increase in the number of cases of child abuse reported in 1986 over 1985, I should state that these figures were made public by Deputy O'Hanlon, Minister for Health, in a detailed press statement which he issued in July last in connection with the launching of his Department's new child abuse guidelines. These figures received much media and other comment at the time and the actions the Minister has taken to date demonstrate clearly the intention of the Government to treat this whole area of child abuse as one which merits special priority attention in terms of special resource allocation.
I would like to reassure the Deputy that we are deeply concerned about this area. The increases were published by our Government to indicate publicly our concern in this area. We are monitoring the situation regularly because of the seriousness of child sex abuse.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 November 1987.