Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 2009

Vol. 672 No. 2

Child Protection: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Alan Shatter on Tuesday, 27 January 2009:
"That Dáil Éireann:
expressing its serious concern at:
the shocking and disturbing revelations of neglect and physical and sexual abuse suffered by six children in Roscommon; and
the failure of the Western Health Board to appropriately intervene at an early stage;
calls on the Government to:
appoint an independent commission pursuant to the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 to examine all of the family circumstances relating to the six Roscommon children whose mother was convicted of incest and other offences of child abuse and neglect in Roscommon Circuit Court on Wednesday, 19th January, 2009;
ensure that such investigation has specific regard to the actions and child protection practices and procedures of:
the former Western Health Board and the Health Service Executive;
all school and religious authorities and personnel who had contact with the children;
doctors and nurses who had contact with the children; and in addition
has regard to the actions, if any, of other relevant persons and organisations which affected the approach taken by the Western Health Board or who were in a position to report child neglect or abuse;
ensure that the terms of reference of the commission also require it to investigate the action taken by Government and more particularly by successive Ministers for Health and Children and Ministers for Children to ensure the effective implementation of the Children First Child Protection Guidelines of 1999, and to implement the outstanding relevant recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald, published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Family in April 1996; and
ensure that the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Children both take all necessary and immediate action to ensure that all children at risk receive the protection to which they are entitled under our current law and that our Child Protection Guidelines are effectively and uniformly implemented throughout the State."

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"in expressing its deepest concern at the circumstances surrounding the case of incest, severe child abuse and neglect involving six children heard before Roscommon Circuit Court last week:

welcomes the HSE's setting up of an independent inquiry into these appalling events to:

examine the entire management of the case from a care perspective;

identify any shortcomings-deficits in the care management process; and

make a report on the findings and learning arising from the investigation;

acknowledges the extremely difficult and complex work carried out by HSE staff in the area of child protection in particular;

recognises the HSE's work to reform child and family services which includes commitments to:

put in place national standards relating to social work and its practice; and

work with the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to advance social work practice and organisational reform in the context of the Government's overall policy for children's services — the ‘Agenda for Children Services';

acknowledges the steps being taken by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in co-ordinating and leading policy development and actions to bring about improvements in the delivery of services for children within its specific policy remit and across the public service;

commends investments in the provision of services for children which have been made by recent Governments since 1997; and

commends the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, chaired by Mrs. Mary O'Rourke, T.D., and, in particular, the recommendation included in the committee's interim report of 11 September 2008 with regard to the preparation and publication of legislation to give legal authority for the collection and exchange of information concerning the risk or the occurrence of endangerment, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children."

I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on the very important issue of child welfare and protection services, which is a subject of concern not only to the House, but to the whole country.

In the first instance, I put on record that the provision of appropriate, robust and responsive child welfare and protection services is a key priority for both me, as Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, and the Government. The substantial media coverage of this area in the past year, most recently in the case of the recent appalling case heard before Roscommon Circuit Court last week, has provoked a public debate concerning these important issues during which voice has been given to a number of legitimate concerns, especially in the area of service provision. It would, however, be remiss to isolate the issue of service provision in this regard. While I would not suggest that the State can absolve itself of responsibility in any circumstances, an equally key consideration in the area of child welfare and protection is that of wider societal responsibility. It is the responsibility of each and every individual in Ireland to play their part in protecting our children from harm. Without such vigilance on the part of every sector of society, we risk placing all responsibility on our child welfare and protection services. Child welfare and protection is a major concern for everyone in society, not only those individuals who work in these services. This message must be sent out clearly from all sides of this House.

I wish to share time with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Máire Hoctor.

Everyone in the House will be familiar with the horrific case of incest, sexual abuse and child abuse heard before Roscommon Circuit Court last week. I wish to express my absolute shock and revulsion at the circumstances surrounding this case, which involved perhaps the most serious form of any abuse, that of a mother against her own children. It is critical that we move quickly to find out what exactly happened in this case and why it happened. The children at the centre of this case were undoubtedly failed by society on this occasion and the lessons of what went wrong must be learnt. The sentence handed down in the case by Judge Miriam Reynolds was the maximum that could be imposed under the act. It was thought inconceivable in 1908 that a mother could inflict such suffering on her own child and hence the difference in sentencing between a mother and father.

Immediately upon becoming aware of this case, I contacted the Health Service Executive which undertook to provide me with a report on the matter within 48 hours. In particular, I asked the HSE to provide a chronology of contact and interventions with the family and a full account of the approach taken in pursuance of the child care order and the legal issues surrounding the High Court injunction. The HSE informed me that this particular case was extremely complex and difficult in nature. The Western Health Board and, in more recent times, the HSE had been, and continues to be, directly involved with the family and that support remains in place. The members of the family who are under 18 years of age have been in the care of the HSE since late 2004 under care orders granted by the courts. Notwithstanding this ongoing contact with the family involved, the HSE further informed me that a preliminary investigation was under way, the results of which I received last Saturday afternoon.

The review was carried out by a senior HSE manager from outside County Roscommon and on the basis of the findings of the review the HSE, on Saturday last, 24 January 2009, confirmed that it is to undertake a detailed investigation into the events surrounding this case. The investigation team will be independently chaired by Ms Norah Gibbons, director of advocacy with Barnardos. The other members of the investigation team are Ms Leonie Lunny, the former chief executive of the Citizens Information Board, Mr. Paul Harrison, a national child care specialist with the HSE, and Mr. Gerry O'Neill, the HSE's national manager with specialist child care responsibility.

The independently chaired investigation team will examine the entire management of the case from a care perspective with a view to identifying any shortcomings or deficits in the care management process and to make a report on the findings and learning arising from their investigation. The investigation is expected to be complete within six months and the HSE has stated its intention to publish the report in full, taking into consideration important issues around natural justice and the sensitivities of the case. The HSE has informed me that it is fully committed to ensuring that all learning and all actions considered necessary following the completion of this investigation will happen in an expedient and appropriate manner.

The comments by the HSE's national director of primary, continuing and community care to the media have indicated that the HSE is determined to fully establish what "we did not do, how were we wrong and where things should have been done better". In this regard, far from not learning the lessons spelt out by previous reports into other tragic cases, as has been suggested, these feed into the constant development and updating of policy in this area. That will also be the case with the findings of this new investigation. This learning has been given practical effect through the publication of the children first guidelines, the establishment of both the Office of the Ombudsman for Children and the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and the implementation of the Children's Act 2001.

Several questions have been raised in recent days about the independence of the investigating team. I have had the opportunity to meet with Ms Gibbons, the independent chair of the investigating team, on several occasions since becoming the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, and I can state without reservation that I have every confidence in her professionalism and integrity to deliver a comprehensive report which will point out the learning that is required. In carrying out the investigation, I am certain that she will ensure that no stone is left unturned in the team's search for the full facts in this matter. As regards the HSE representation on the group, I note and welcome the public comments by Mr. Fergus Finlay of Barnardos, who stated his view on RTE radio last Friday that he did not believe there could be any possible vested interest in covering up the truth, and that he would be astonished if either of the HSE's representatives on the group had the remotest interest in any kind of cover up. Having met Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Harrison on several occasions since taking up office, I fully endorse these remarks.

I welcome the announcement today by the Irish Association of Young People in Care of its support of the investigation and its independence. I look forward to reviewing the findings of the review group. I reiterate that it is a HSE-commissioned review and that I, as the Minister with responsibility in this matter, and the Government, retain the right to carry out any further investigations deemed necessary in this case. I will keep this position under review.

To conclude my remarks on this case, under the Childcare Act 1991, one must protect the details relating to children arising from a case involving a care order. In terms of public debate, this constraint means that the circumstances surrounding the criminal trial are known, but nothing can be revealed about HSE care orders. I also understand that further criminal charges in respect of the family circumstances surrounding this case are pending and therefore sub judice.

One cannot, however, consider an individual child welfare case outside the wider context of child welfare and protection issues. In this regard, I take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on some of the important steps driving reform in this area. In recent years, we have seen a period of major investment in child care and family support services to enable an appropriate response to child welfare concerns. To this end, more than €240 million of Government funds have been added to the annual investment in child care services since 1997.

In addition, a significant number of additional social work posts have been created since 2004, culminating in the recent recruitment process undertaken by the HSE, which was the first social work recruitment process undertaken on a national basis. There has also been an increase in funding of family support services of 79%, from €45.7 million in 2003 to €81.8 million in 2008. As regards the issue of emergency cases arising outside normal working hours, the HSE has recently put a system in place which provides for access by the Garda to strategically placed foster carers nationwide, where emergency placement is required for children out of hours. Foster families are currently being recruited for this service. Initiatives such as those I have mentioned, as well as others such as the prevention and early intervention programme for children and the establishment of the children's services committees, reflect the commitment of the Government and the HSE to the ongoing implementation of the national children's strategy and, most recently, the agenda for children's services.

The HSE has made and continues to make significant advances in many areas of children's services. For example, in respect of special care and high support, that is, dealing with the neediest children in HSE care, there now is a well-managed national approach in operation. Further initiatives are under way in the HSE to make residential care services more efficient and effective and to enhance foster care services available by way of highly supported multidimensional foster care. This will enable more difficult cases to be maintained in the community, which is where I wish to see the delivery of more services with the appropriate supports.

The core principle underpinning all of these reforms and additional funding is to provide children and young people with the highest possible quality of care and to provide services to protect them, as far as possible, from all forms of harm. Since taking up office as Minister of State, in all my contacts I have stressed the priority which both the Government and I place on the need to provide appropriate services to some of the most vulnerable young members of our society. In this regard, my aim is improvements in child welfare and protection services based on appropriate standards for Ireland. I realise this goal will present many significant challenges in areas such as resources and service reform. To further advance this aim, I have initiated a series of regular meetings on child welfare and protection issues between senior officials of the HSE and my office at which issues such as service reform and modernisation, including out of hours service provision, as well as any necessary legislative reform, are and will be discussed to drive change and monitor actions for the improvement of child welfare and protection services.

With the recent transition from the historical organisation boundaries of the health boards to the new HSE structure and with the establishment three years ago of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, inadequacies have been highlighted with the flow of information and knowledge within and across organisational boundaries and particularly in respect of the complex area of child welfare and protection.

In other words, the Minister of State has no clue what is happening with regard to welfare services

Please refrain, the Minister of State——

Nor has he had a clue since becoming a Minister of State. Moreover, nor had his predecessors.

The Deputy should refrain. The Minister of State did not intervene when he made his contribution.

This is outrageous rubbish.

Deputy Shatter would know all about that.

Deputy Shatter has offered his views on several occasions. If he listens, I will come to them.

Twelve years ago, the need for proper monitoring information systems——

Deputy Shatter, please.

——was recommended in the report on the death of Kelly Fitzgerald.

Nothing was done and the Minister of State now refers to knowledge information systems.

Deputy Shatter, please.

This is bureaucratic computer speak

Deputy Shatter, please.

If I may continue, I note that as Deputy Shatter had no objection to anything I said thus far, I therefore assume he agreed with everything I have said heretofore.

No, I contained myself with great difficulty.

Perhaps he will listen to the rest of my contribution. Other Members are entitled, as are those who may be listening, to hear my views, as well as those of Deputy Shatter, and they may wish to listen to the remainder of what I have to say.

Against this background, together with demands for child welfare and protection services, there was an urgent need to take action. The development of a knowledge management strategy for child welfare and protection, which was embarked on by my office, is a key initiative to address these issues. I became acutely aware that communication difficulties, deficits in information and the absence of standardised procedures can impede service responsiveness with potentially serious consequences for some children.

Which the Minister of State's predecessors never noticed.

Through the development and implementation of the knowledge management strategy, my objectives are to ensure that the best possible information and knowledge is readily available and can be shared and used to fulfil policy, management and operational needs,thereby enabling the optimal delivery of children's services; to transform the way child welfare and protection stakeholders work, with a view to improving service delivery and outcomes for children; to better facilitate interagency co-operation aimed at helping policy makers, managers and practitioners; and to make sustainable changes, which will have national impact when implemented throughout the country.

I have made this initiative a top priority, to enable the effective reform and reorganisation of social work and related services for children and families delivered by the HSE. To date, policy makers, HSE senior managers, front-line service managers and practitioners, academics and other bodies have engaged actively with my office in outlining the information and knowledge streams currently in place, in identifying the gaps and weaknesses and in making recommendations for improvements.

Perhaps the Minister of State could define "knowledge stream" for Members.

This has resulted in a road map of prioritised practical actions to empower all of these stakeholders. The first priority is the development of a single national child care information system, which is needed urgently to support case management. Standardised business processes are being defined nationwide at present which can be integrated into the national child care information system and will facilitate the introduction and implementation of that system to support front line staff in their day-to-day operations, as well as provide key management information in a better defined more timely manner to assist all concerned to assess need and risk and address problems together.

The objective is to provide for faster and more effective interaction between all the professionals and service providers involved, irrespective of where they work in the HSE or the NGO voluntary providers working with HSE. During all this work, we found there is a very strong collective desire among all the stakeholders to improve, standardise and to collaborate in streamlining information——

Why does the Minister of State not simply state they would like to know what is going on?

——which in turn will help to address failures in interagency and interprofessional communication and in the co-ordination of interventions.

That also comes back to Deputy Shatter

If it was not so serious, this would be a joke.

Deputy Shatter is making a joke out of it.

Deputy Shatter.

My intention is to use the knowledge management approach to protect children from failures.

Deputy Shatter should refrain from interrupting, please. The Minister of State did not interrupt the Deputy.

The Minister of State is provoking me.

Deputy Shatter is easily provoked.

Unless the Deputy refrains, I will be obliged to ask him to leave the House.

Reading this script is embarrassing.

In that case the Deputy should read something else.

My intention is to use the knowledge management approach to protect children from failures caused by agencies working in isolation from one another without effective communication and co-ordination; inconsistent quality of front line procedures; and inconsistent management oversight. I am confident this knowledge management strategy when implemented as a process, will be a key support to planned reforms in the child welfare and protection area.

At this point I wish to place on record my appreciation for the work carried out by social work teams and their management. These individuals are hard working, dedicated professionals who must deal with cases on a daily basis that are becoming ever more difficult, complex and intractable. I note the HSE is evaluating allocations of resources around the country to achieve a more equitable and efficient distribution of staff and skills for the social work service. I also should note that not all services for children at risk need be provided by social workers. The HSE provides a multiplicity of services, which can address effectively the needs of children at risk. Therapy, medical, nursing, psychological, community care and a wide range of services benefiting children at risk are provided. In addition, non-governmental bodies provide key services for children and families at risk on behalf of or in tandem with HSE services in areas such as residential care, foster care, community mentoring, as well as family support such as the Springboard, teen parenting and youth advocacy programmes, as well as many other areas.

The focus for development in the coming years is on preventive, community-based services which provide early intervention within a community care context. The development of alternative care services will, over time, affect the numbers of children in residential and foster care. International and Irish research indicates that in many situations, cases can best be dealt with by way of welfare and care services, which again do not always require full time social worker input to work well, rather than by way of referral straight to child protection services.

The agenda for children's services is the new overarching policy document of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs for these areas and was launched in December 2007. The agenda, with its clear renewed emphasis on family support coupled with reflective questions to enable service provider self-evaluation, represents the fundamental change now under way on how Government policy on children is formulated and delivered. It has been developed drawing on research and best practice at home and internationally. It requires outcomes focus and integrated service delivery in line with the recommendations of the recent OECD report. To help implement the policy and principles in the agenda, at the instigation of my office the HSE has commenced the process of specifying a child welfare services implementation policy. This is vital to effective reform and rebalancing of children's services. The Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is represented on the steering group for the development of this operational policy working conjointly with the HSE.

Another significant feature of media coverage on recent cases has been the call for a constitutional referendum on the rights of the child. All society is judged on how it treats the most vulnerable and the Government is committed to ensuring that the vulnerable children and young people of Ireland are given the full protection of the Irish Constitution. This Government has been proactive in pursuing this ideal since before the publication of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill in February 2007. The Bill, which resulted from extensive consultations and discussions by the then Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, contains a number of proposals to amend the Constitution in respect of children that cover diverse areas such as children's rights, adoption, collection and exchange of soft information and absolute and strict liability.

The programme for Government of June 2007 contained a commitment to deepening consensus on the proposed constitutional amendment and as a result, the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was established in November 2007 under the chairmanship of Deputy O'Rourke. Consensus on this important issue is considered imperative in order that the Oireachtas can communicate to the public a considered and united approach on any proposed amendment to the Constitution. As one of my predecessors in the Department, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, stated "this is to ensure that the Constitution, the fundamental law of our land, reflects the often quoted commitment to value and protect childhood".

The provisions of this Bill are complex and go to the heart of individual rights and the family unit. Our efforts must concentrate on achieving consensus on how best to strengthen the rights of children while maintaining a careful balance with other important principles already contained in the Constitution which, we believe, are as important in protecting and safeguarding children. These include the duties of parents and the regard in which the family is held. Much of the deliberation in discussing an appropriate wording has involved ensuring there is no dilution of these equally important concepts.

The approach the Government has taken to date on the establishment of the joint committee and the development of its terms of reference emphasise the Government's desire to get it right, while also working to bring proposals for constitutional change to the people if necessary. This consensus approach is continuing in the work of the committee as it has deliberated on what are complex and sensitive social and criminal issues. Indeed, the work of the committee has proved so onerous that it has, to date, been given two extensions to its original deadline in order to complete its work. More than 140 written submissions have been received by the committee, and it is also engaged in hearing oral submissions.

Over the course of the committee's work many high profile, sensitive and, indeed, disturbing court cases have been to the fore. While these cases may impinge on the core subject matter of the work of the committee, it has been my experience, as an ex officio member of the committee, that these cases, while the subject of much debate, have not deflected committee members from a consensus approach to issues that are central to child protection and welfare. The complexity of the family and criminal law aspects of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007 have resulted in diverse and polarised commentary, but never once has the all-party membership of the committee wavered in its commitment to achieving the aim of enhancing and protecting the lives of Irish children.

I have welcomed the interim report into the collection of soft information and, in co-operation with my Government colleagues, I have commenced the process of preparing the relevant legislation. Work is under way on the drafting of the heads of this Bill and I am pleased to announce that it is part of the Government's legislative programme for the spring session 2009, which was published yesterday by the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey.

The committee has also given the issue of absolute and strict liability, as dealt with in Articles 42 A 5.2 and 5.3 of the proposed amendment, extensive consideration. I am hopeful that the committee will conclude its deliberations on absolute and strict liability shortly and that a second interim report on this specific issue may be finalised and submitted to the Oireachtas shortly, which will allow the Government to move forward on this important issue.

The committee will then focus on the remaining family law aspects of the proposed constitutional amendment with a view to finalising its work and presenting a final report to both Houses of the Oireachtas by its deadline of 9 April 2009. When the work of this committee is concluded, the protection and welfare of Irish children will be significantly enhanced by legislation, regulatory change and constitutional amendment, as appropriate, so that the laws of our land properly reflect our commitment to value and protect children. I am firmly of the opinion that consensus must be built between the parties represented on the joint Oireachtas committee before any definite decision can be taken on the holding of a constitutional referendum.

I once again reiterate the Government's commitment to address the crucial challenge of protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. When families fail children for whatever reason, the children must be protected by society and the State and this is a complex and difficult task.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, for agreeing to share his speaking time with me this evening. I also echo his remarks regarding the shock we all feel about the case heard before Roscommon Circuit Court last week. The issues this case raises are truly harrowing and should serve as a warning to everyone that the utmost vigilance is required from all if we are to face up to issues surrounding the protection of vulnerable children.

The Minister of State highlighted a number of recent and ongoing service reform issues. In this regard I would also highlight some other worthwhile initiatives of recent times. The first of these is the innovative prevention and early intervention programme which was announced by the then Minister of State with responsibility for children in 2006. This programme examines innovative methods for improving outcomes for children in an integrated way and is scheduled to run for a five year period. Funding amounting to €36 million in total has been provided by Government and Atlantic Philanthropies for the programme, which is being managed by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, OMCYA. To date, service level agreements have been agreed between the OMCYA and projects based in Tallaght, Ballymun and the northside communities of Darndale, Belcamp and Moatview.

The model underpinning this programme is based on evidence of need in the community and an evidence based approach to what works. This approach is gained from professional and personal experience, research literature from successful models tested elsewhere as well as needs assessment on the ground. It is outcome oriented in that it is driven by the benefits or changes for individuals or populations during or after participating in the programme activities. A key element is the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes of the activities undertaken and learning from the individual sites. This evaluation is intended to promote a process of continuous improvement and helps to assess what interventions work best and how and where they can be best employed in improving delivery of services or the development of new policy. It should also guide the reorientation of current services where the evidence indicates that this should happen.

The second innovation I want to highlight this evening, and another significant step forward in the harmonisation of service provision in the area of child welfare and protection service provision, has been the establishment of children's services committees. The Towards 2016 national partnership agreement made provision for the establishment of a high-level group chaired by the OMCYA, now known as the National Children's Strategy Implementation Group. The group was established in November 2006 and its membership is drawn from the relevant Departments, the HSE, representatives of local authorities, the education sector and other key agencies.

The key priority of the group is to ensure implementation of the many strategic plans and policy documents, which have already been drawn up and published, on children's services in Ireland. It must ensure integration of service delivery, cross-sectoral working and the joint implementation of children policies and initiatives.

As part of the process of achieving this goal, the group approved the establishment of four multi-agency children's services committees, CSCs. The sites chosen for the initial roll-out of the committees were in Dublin city, south Dublin, Donegal and Limerick city. These committees have now been established and a framework for advancing their work has been agreed. The aim of this initiative is to test models of best practice which promote integrated, locally led, strategic planning for children's services. The National Children's Strategy Implementation Group is working to provide guidance and practical assistance to each of the committees.

It is hoped to set up at least four new children's services committees in 2009 and proposals have been requested from interested parties and the OMCYA is continuing to work closely with potential sites for phase III.

The policy initiatives and actions I have been referring to are important for child welfare and protection because they promise action to intervene to prevent issues developing to the point where they become child protection problems. The solution these initiatives offer include better service integration and co-ordination, improved communication and a better understanding built up among all service providers of each other's roles and skills based on shared goals and outcomes.

On 30 July last, my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, launched the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs's national review of compliance with the Children First guidelines. This review was part of the Government’s response to the publication of the Ferns report and was carried out by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in partnership with all relevant Departments. In the course of the review, many areas of good practice were identified, and much positive feedback was received. However, in some areas slower progress was identified, including, in particular, around the principles of integrating family support with the child protection service, and integrating the voice of the child into the service.

The findings suggested that while the guidelines themselves presented a good framework for the protection of children, there were a number of areas that needed to be reviewed. Key difficulties were identified arising from a lack of consistency, an absence of a comprehensive local, regional or national structure to plan, monitor and evaluate the child protection services and from a lack of availability of key services and supports.

The key finding of the review was that, in general, difficulties and variations in implementation of the guidelines arose as a result of local variation and infrastructural issues, rather than from fundamental difficulties with the guidelines themselves. Accordingly, it has been decided not to revise fundamentally or replace the guidelines, but to give priority to issues of consistency in implementation and the development of standards. While there is a stated intention to reissue the guidelines, the substance and principles will remain unchanged.

The purpose of the guidelines when they were first published in 1999 was to protect children. Responsibility for protecting children must be shared among everyone, including the statutory and non-statutory sectors, teachers, parents and neighbours. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs to ensure that national policy for the protection and welfare of children is articulated as robustly as possible in the national guidelines and is implemented effectively and consistently across all sectors of society. This is a responsibility that the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, along with everyone in Government, takes seriously.

There have been a number of recent developments in respect of child protection, most notably the publication of the reports relating to the Cloyne diocese and the recent tragic child abuse court case in County Roscommon. Further significant reports are expected to be published, including the Monageer report, the report of the Dublin diocese commission and the Department of Education and Science report from the child abuse inquiry. Everyone would agree that it makes sense that the implications of these reports for our national guidelines on the protection and welfare of children should be fully considered and, therefore, it is intended to hold off on the re-issue of the guidelines until the necessary information is available and what is learned from these reports can be integrated into the guidelines.

I understand that, as part of the HSE publicity campaign on child protection issues undertaken to implement one of the recommendations of the Ferns inquiry, the HSE is due to publish a booklet shortly that will assist the public in dealing with child welfare and protection concerns in line with Children First.

I echo the remark of the Minister of State to the effect that, while the State does not absolve itself of responsibility, child protection is everyone's concern. Issues must be reported and followed up, an outcome that everyone in society can help to achieve within the service providers, which must be responsive and act expeditiously to calm people's concerns and address problems before they become crises.

I understood I could share a 30 minute slot with Deputy Ó Caoláin.

The Deputy only has 20 minutes.

May I share ten minutes with Deputy Ó Caoláin?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this worrying and troubling issue. With the nation, the House shares a sense of shock and horror at six children who were robbed of their childhoods and endured unimaginable suffering within our community. My heart goes out to them because we cannot restore what was taken from them. The House shares this feeling collectively.

That the matter should be fully, comprehensively and swiftly investigated goes without saying. What is at issue is the shape and scope of the investigation. The HSE has appointed a four-person team of inquiry led by the highly respected director of advocacy at Barnardos, Ms Norah Gibbons. Each member of the team brings an important and relevant set of skills and expertise to the task set him or her and is considerably respected. None of these facts is at issue in tonight's debate.

In March 1993, a father was convicted of rape and incest in the Central Criminal Court. The details of the case, which became known as the Kilkenny incest case, gave rise to an outrage similar to that surrounding this most recent case. I was the Minister for Health at the time. I asked then senior counsel, Ms Catherine McGuinness, to lead the investigation into that awful event. The investigation included the head social worker with the former Eastern Health Board, a medical officer of health from the former Midlands Health Board and a senior administrator from the former South Eastern Health Board, the board directly involved. When the report was produced, it was a model of its kind. It was published within approximately two months and debated in the House at the end of May 1993. The report's recommendations are still relevant to this debate.

Deputy Shatter referred to the Kelly Fitzgerald report, which followed some years later. Equally, it is worthy of debate within the context of this discussion. Unfortunately, we do not have time for a broader debate. The fact that the 1993 report was drafted in a way that avoided publicly identifying the victim, her family or the various professionals involved enabled me to publish it in full and immediately.

The Minister of State did not initiate this team of inquiry. Rather, by his request, that was done by the HSE. The team is modelled on the 1993 initiative. All these years later, Deputy Shatter makes a compelling and unanswerable point, namely, that matters have moved on. There is a clear public requirement that no organ of State or group of individuals can inquire into its own activities. In terms of politicians, we set up the Standards in Public Office Commission. After years of arguing, we established the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Regarding doctors, the Medical Council has a lay majority and so on. Confidence in the outcome of any investigation is critical. The voices and needs of victims must be heard and factored into the equation. We need an inquiry that is speedy, but thorough, comprehensive and, above all, has public confidence.

If the proposal tabled by Deputy Shatter is not acceptable, it may be possible to reconstitute or reshape the existing group. In essence, the Kilkenny incest case was an inquiry conducted by Ms Catherine McGuinness, senior counsel, with a plethora of supporters who knew the map of the minefield, what questions to ask and how to go about it, including a medical doctor, a senior social worker and so on. It may be possible to reconstitute the current group, with the investigative team comprising Ms Norah Gibbons and supporters, as with a commission of inquiry in which there is a sole member assisted by a team of investigators. If the Minister of State does not feel minded to go the full way, my suggestion would restore public confidence in the process, which would be important.

Deputy Shatter has discussed a number of the outstanding issues in the difficult matter of protecting children to the extent demanded and required by the public and desired by every Deputy. He rightly mentioned the comprehensive and nationally uniform application of the child protection guidelines. We must all ensure that it becomes the case.

Deputy Shatter and the Minister of State discussed the constitutional amendment on children. None of these matters is simple. I will be honest, as I have heard compelling cases for a rebalancing of the Constitution and for the current balance being better than an alternative. After rereading the 1993 record of the House, I am minded to support the constitutional amendment, but we will have a job to do to get it passed. People in the House will say that they are in favour of it. When push comes to shove, however, and they are told that they will be dismantling the family, there might not be many people knocking on doors to press the issue when it comes to be determined. However, it is right that we should try to shape and advance the constitutional amendment.

While there are good arguments for and against mandatory reporting, I am minded to support it. Deputy Shatter was clearer on this view at an earlier date than I. On balance, it is the right thing to do. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is working hard. We produced an interim report on soft information. It is a source of regret that the Government has not acted more speedily to introduce legislation to deal with that issue. It is an issue which we regarded as of such urgency, we extracted it from the body of other important work and asked the Government to legislate quickly.

The following is a point on which I have strong views. This House is a debating Chamber and we often take sides on issues. There are no sides on this issue. As one in this House, we have a simple and clear objective, namely, to protect children as best we can, to put in place as many supports as we can in that regard and to find the resources to do so. There are no political differences on this issue rather, it is a basic and fundamental task we share.

This is an issue on which, uniquely, we can work together. When I say it is an issue on which we can all work together, that is not to suggest we will all reach the same conclusions; we will not. Simple issues to which people put forward simplistic solutions are often not simple. I have said in private in committee and say publicly now that I have changed my view on many of the fundamental issues. We need clear and public debate on this issue, a respect for each other's views on it and a determination to work quickly in that regard.

Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this issue. I recall the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform pushing through without adequate debate the 2006 Act, aspects of which I argued trenchantly against. Unfortunately, I have been proven right. There are a number of critical issues in respect of child protection which we need to address and to get right. I believe that the net issue on which we can pull together, in respect of the awful tragedy in Roscommon, is the establishment of an inquiry system in which the public can have confidence. I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what has been said in this House so that there is no division about this process, the objective of which we are all agreed upon.

I thank Deputy Howlin for sharing time.

A wave of revulsion swept across the nation as the details of the Roscommon child abuse case emerged during the course of last week. This case of appalling abuse, while shocking, is a symptom of the thoroughly defective system of child protection in operation across this State. Each year, approximately 2,500 cases of suspected child abuse are reported to the social services. We have no system of mandatory reporting so this figure may only be scratching the surface. The 2002 Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland, SAVI, report states that — I must emphasise this — more than a quarter of men and women had experienced some level of childhood sexual abuse.

The unimaginable suffering inflicted upon the children in Roscommon highlights the urgent need to strengthen children's rights and to greatly improve resources to protect vulnerable children. Sinn Féin has consistently and repeatedly called for the rights of children to be enshrined in the Constitution and to be protected fully in legislation. For the past number of days members of the public have queried how it could be possible that a person could abuse their family in this manner and receive only seven years in prison. The answer is simply that this happened because the abuser was prosecuted under archaic legislation owing to the ineptitude of a Government that until 2006 had failed to implement a law providing lengthier sentences for the offences committed in this case.

However, constitutional and legislative changes alone will not guarantee the safety of all children in all circumstances. We need child protection to be robust enough to prevent and punish sexual abuse. We, as a society, have a shared and collective responsibility to exercise vigilance and a willingness to speak up if we have cause for concern within our communities. Also, we need urgent measures to enhance the social services for vulnerable children.

The issues highlighted by the Roscommon case are not new. Last May, an RTE "Prime Time Investigates" programme revealed the horrific extent of the child protection crisis in this State. Children are being abused and neglected or left at risk of abuse and neglect even though their files are in the hands of the HSE and they are known to be in grave danger. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.

Increased resources, training and other measures are needed immediately to ensure that sexual assaults and child sexual abuse are thoroughly and sensitively investigated and prosecuted. Victims-survivors need to receive the necessary support to proceed with and complete a prosecution. A new, robust and specific law prohibiting child sexual abuse is needed in the context of a complete review and overhaul of sexual offences legislation and full enshrinement of children's rights.

There are suggestions by those in the treatment sector that the number of people in the State with harmful sexual behaviour is far above the 3,000 mark. Yet, despite this distressing figure, there are monumental gaps in a health service which is failing on every level to protect children and families, assess suspected abusers and treat offenders. There is no one system of assessing an allegation of abuse or potential for a person to re-offend and there is no standard method of treatment or rehabilitation for those who abuse. Where there is what appears to be a decent system in the first instance, we find it is wholly under-funded. Social workers are overloaded with cases and have no uniform method of tracking a person's risk of offending or, equally, of tracking any risk that a person will be abused. The Children Act 2001 gives health boards powers to intervene where there is suspected abuse and to provide support services but this Act has not yet been fully implemented. These may be some of the reasons it took social services eight years to take the children of the Roscommon abuse case into care.

A constitutional referendum on the position of children within our society will only partially solve the problem. Fully resourcing a system where cases of abuse are dealt with on an ad hoc emergency basis will only partially solve the problem. It is clear now that a massive overhaul is needed across the board. Constitutional guarantees to protect children are mere lip-service unless authorities are resourced to prevent and combat neglect and abuse.

The Roscommon child abuse case is a tragic example of a failed system based on dealing with the aftermath of abuse rather than preventing it. This is not a time for mere hand-wringing, it is a time for making changes to a child protection structure that does not work. The history of child protection in this State is marked by inquiry after inquiry. National outrage ensued after the Kilkenny incest case, the death of Kelly Fitzgerald and the case of Sophia McColgan. Yet, the Government has failed to learn any lessons from these instances where the State abjectly failed in its duties to protect those who were vulnerable.

Are we now to see a further inquiry that will produce a report that will gather dust on a shelf for years while its recommendations are ignored? Must we again be witness to another shocking case of child abuse, such as that of the Roscommon children, when yet another inquiry will be demanded and the whole performance enacted again? What exactly will it take for change to occur in how we protect our children? While I welcome and support this motion in the name of the Fine Gael Deputies, it must be said that inquiries are worth nothing if their results are not acted upon. However, I wish to record my welcome of the willingness of Norah Gibbons of Barnardo's to participate in an inquiry into the Roscommon case and to express confidence that she will exercise her energies and skills, and those of her organisation, to ensure that action does indeed follow on her participation in and production of a report and recommendations regarding this tragic case.

Until radical changes are made to the child protection system Government inaction, under-funding and under-resourcing will amount to complicity in making the lives of some of the most abused and vulnerable children in society all the more perilous. We must accept that there are many other children at risk of the same abuse and neglect as the Roscommon children, some of whom at least are known to the health services. My Sinn Féin colleagues and I implore the Government to make the requisite changes so that more children do not have to suffer such degradation and what must be a deep inner pain.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn