I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, Deputy Barry Andrews, and his officials. I apologise that our discussion of housekeeping issues went on a little longer than anticipated. It is very good to hear the Minister of State's document has been circulated to members. This meeting follows our discussions in July with Barnardos and the ISPCC. Given the high level of public interest in the welfare of children, perhaps the Minister of State might give us an overview of his paper which will be followed by a question and answer session with members.
Children’s Issues: Discussion with Minister of State
Will I give an overview of my paper rather than read every word of it?
The Minister of State can suit himself.
I shall try to skip through it to allow more time for questions.
I thank the Chairman for his invitation to attend today. As he mentioned, the joint committee had a discussion with the ISPCC and Barnardos at the end of the summer in which a number of issues were raised and they shared their views with it. I will update members on our perspective of how things are going. As the Chairman said, the child protection system has never been under as much scrutiny as it has been in the past two years, and properly so. It is widely accepted that there is a commitment, at the highest levels of Government and the HSE, to make changes and improvements. I think everyone shares this ambition.
The key structural reforms considered necessary in the HSE have been identified in the PA Consulting Group report on the delivery and management, in particular, of child and family services, the task force report on the standardisation of business processes and the knowledge management system nationally. I meet the HSE regularly in that regard.
Barnardos raised the issue of political accountability. As Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, I am fully accountable on all of the political issues that arise in this regard. Obviously, I continue to push the agenda of child protection issues which, as I said, continues to be my priority. I recognise, however, that results cannot be achieved without the co-operation of the HSE, my colleagues in government and statutory and non-statutory bodies, as well as the vigilance of all members of society. Improvements will not occur overnight, but we are making progress, as acknowledged by some NGOs which would be more familiar than others with what is happening on the ground. It is highly complex, crisis type intervention and, in that sense, it is distinct from all the other health sector issues with which this committee might deal. It is not like an operation carried out in a hospital environment or a course of pharmaceuticals. It is a complex intervention in a very challenging professional situation for social workers. The delivery of integrated services that identify and respond to children's needs in a timely fashion is the cornerstone of a properly functioning child care system.
I will address a number of specific issues identified by the ISPCC and Barnardos. With regard to social worker recruitment, the Government allocated an amount of €15 million in 2010 to implement the actions outlined in the Ryan report implementation plan. One of the principal commitments in the plan is to ensure that all children in care have an allocated social worker and a care plan. To this end, the Government has committed to filling 270 HSE social worker posts by the end of 2011, with the filling of 200 posts prioritised for 2010.
How many for this year?
A total of 200 posts.
This initiative is designed to target resources at front-line services to ensure that the HSE meets its statutory obligations. The Oireachtas voted the necessary finance. Filling of these posts was exempted from the public service moratorium on recruitment and replacement of staff. This underlines the Government's commitment to this area and is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the reforms that are necessary. The HSE established a project group to oversee this recruitment drive. As of yesterday 133 additional child protection social workers have commenced employment with the HSE since January of this year. In addition, another 23 will commence employment in the coming weeks. The balance of 43 posts have been accepted, with start dates remaining to be agreed. I stress that these posts are new, additional, dedicated child protection social work posts. That significant funding was allocated to the HSE for this purpose for the current year clearly indicates the Government's commitment to strengthen child welfare and protection services.
This is a step in the right direction. Crucially, the HSE has also committed to comprehensive induction processes for new appointees, and to monitor the areas of supervision and case load assignments. We do not wish to burn out these new social workers by swamping them with the most complex cases. We are anxious to ensure that we break the cycle of burn-out that is a factor in social work here. This is a great opportunity to do that and the HSE is committed to it. I noted from one of yesterday's newspapers that the Irish Association of Social Workers blamed the current shortfall in allocated social workers to children in care on the recruitment embargo and the number of workers on sick leave and on maternity leave. There is no embargo in respect of social workers. Furthermore, when social workers who are currently on temporary contracts are appointed to permanent posts as part of the new recruitment process, the temporary posts will be filled. In plain language, the HSE has assured me that there will be a net increase of 200 social work posts.
In the course of discussions with the HSE in June 2010, I referred the need to appoint at a national management level an individual with a proven track record in the reform of children and family services and who should have a direct reporting relationship with the board and chief executive of the HSE. Following those discussions, I briefed my Cabinet colleagues on the initiative and drew the parallel with the role that Professor Tom Keane played very successfully in cancer care reform. The HSE has been very receptive to the proposal and progress is being made. Creation of this new position is a logical development and very much consistent with the emphasis in the PA report on management systems in the HSE child protection services.
The out-of-hours issue was also raised by the ISPCC and Barnardos. At present, an out-of-hours social work crisis intervention service operates in the Dublin area. While there is sporadic out-of-hours provision in other parts of the country, it is largely provided on an ad hoc and often voluntary basis, to the great credit of social workers. In June 2009, the HSE commenced a new national system whereby gardaí can access an appropriate place of safety under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. That was to answer a need which arose in summer 2008 and was particularly highlighted by a child who spent time in a Garda station when no proper provision was available to the child. That issue has been dealt with by this development. This “place of safety” service is seen as a first step in enhancing out-of-hours provision, but further steps must be taken. There are services and locations where the HSE provides access to out-of-hours services. These include general practitioners, acute hospitals and acute mental health services. In accordance with the commitment in the Ryan implementation plan, the HSE plans to pilot an out-of-hours social work crisis intervention service in two areas. It is hoped that will be up and running before the end of this year.
With regard to vetting, the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children submitted an interim report to the Oireachtas in September 2008 which recommended that the Government establish a statutory scheme for Garda vetting for the regulation of the collation, exchange and deployment of hard and soft information for the purpose of child protection. Heads of a Bill, the National Vetting Bureau Bill, are currently being drafted. It will put Garda vetting on a statutory basis and will provide for the holding and disclosing of "soft" information. I must stress that this area, and in particular the use and disclosure of "soft" information, is inherently complex. We must proceed carefully, having due regard to the complex constitutional, legal and ethical issues involved. I hope the heads of the Bill will be drafted by the end of this year and presented to the Government.
The Children First National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children 1999 were revised and published on the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs website in December 2009. This was one of the commitments given in the Government's plan for the implementation of the Ryan report. The revised guidelines are not operational yet. The substance and principles of the guidelines are unchanged. They have been edited to provide greater clarity to those individuals and organisations looking for assistance in identifying and responding appropriately to child abuse. They are more user-friendly as a result of this exercise.
Since being placed on the website the guidelines have been further amended to take on board recommendations made by the Ombudsman for Children, who reviewed the guidelines earlier this year, and to reflect the HIQA's "Guidance for the Health Service Executive for the Review of Serious Incidents including Deaths of Children in Care". I notified the Government by way of a memorandum in July in this regard and brought it up to date with my plans to ensure there will be an implementation assurance framework associated with Children First as well as my commitment to provide a statutory footing for Children First.
The legal position with regard to the provision of after-care has been the subject of recent debate and analysis. Section 45(4) of the Child Care Act 1991 provides what is, in substance, a mandatory requirement that where there is an identified need for after-care, it must be provided by the HSE. That is based on legal advice provided to my office. It is an advance on what had been the case up to now, where it was assumed to be a discretionary power of the HSE. It is now considered to be an obligation on the HSE to provide that care where it is required. Nevertheless, a great deal must be done in this area and, reflecting that, the Government provided an additional €1 million in the HSE's service plan this year to improve and develop after-care services.
For the past decade, the Government has been implementing the National Children's Strategy 2000-2010. The strategy, which is underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, provides the first comprehensive national policy document for the full range of statutory and non-statutory providers in the development of services for children. It includes a range of actions across such areas as giving children a voice so that their views are considered in matters that affect them, eliminating child poverty, ensuring children have access to play and recreation facilities, and improving research on children's lives in Ireland. I have responsibility for the strategy' implementation. Currently, work is under way on the next national children's strategy, which will build upon the success of the current strategy. It will provide a window of opportunity over the coming months to ensure the gains won by the original strategy and the progress made to date are embedded in the way we view service delivery and policy development.
On the proposed referendum on children's rights, following the publication of the third report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, the Cabinet decided that, in view of the complex nature of the issues involved, all Ministers and Departments should consider the report and examine the implications of the proposed wording from the report. A senior officials group working to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion was reconvened to guide the interaction and co-ordinate the responses of all Departments. The group met and identified a range of unforeseen consequences in regard to issues such as immigration policy, continuity of care and acknowledgement of the right of a child to a voice in legal and administrative proceedings in which they are involved. The group also highlighted the financial and legislative implications of the revised wording and further consideration of these matters is being undertaken. The Attorney General has also considered the legal and constitutional ramifications of the report.
To progress matters, the Government has asked that my office restate the policy objectives for the referendum in co-operation with the Office of the Attorney General. I understand that the length of time this process is taking is causing concern in the Oireachtas and elsewhere. However, any proposed amendment must be done properly and, given the particularly complex nature of the issues in this proposal, thorough consideration of all of the details is the least one should expect. I assure the committee that I will not put this on the long finger and will ensure that any deliberations needed will take place as quickly as possible.
The provision of child welfare and protection services remains a key priority for me. We are all only too well aware of how failures in the system have and continue to impact on children, families and communities. The matters I have addressed represent some of the steps being taken that will make a real change to how critical issues affecting children's lives and well-being are handled appropriately and sensitively. I look forward to any feed-back from the committee.
I am conscious I am not a bona fide member of this committee as yet and, therefore, I will be particularly brief and will raise just two issues. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State at the committee and some of the progress to which he adverted. However, we are not dealing with the fundamental problem of the delivery of child care services, in particular the protection of vulnerable children. It is not all the Minister of State's fault because he does not have the power. The relationship between the HSE and the Minister of State requires urgent consideration. Given its overall medical and health remit, the HSE is not in a position to deliver the type of child care service our children deserve but that may be for another day.
In regard to the specific points the Minister of State addressed in his wide-ranging speech, I wish to raise two matters. He will accept the devastating consequences of the public service embargo on the delivery of child care services. Earlier in the year, I was very pleased the Government gave in to pressure by in some way lifting the application of the embargo in regard to social workers. The Minister of State painted a picture of positive activity on the matter of the much vaunted 200 additional social workers. He is still falling short of specific commitments given.
I refer to a radio interview with him on RTE on 20 May of this year in which he stated that the 200 new social workers would be working by the end of June. Adding up the figures he produced today, that commitment has still not been met. We are heading towards the end of 2010 and the commitment for the provision of the 200 social workers, for which the money has been provided, has yet to be honoured. These are specific commitments of a short-term, urgent nature that obviously can be delivered but which are not being delivered. If we cannot deliver on specific commitments given, then it makes the longer-term commitments more aspirational than real.
The fact there is such a shortage of social workers and that those to which a commitment has been given regarding their appointment are not yet working has given rise to a very serious situation over which we, as elected representatives, cannot stand. There are hundreds of children in foster care with no care plan. That is the reality simply because the services cannot be provided given the constraints under which current social work teams work. Some 800 foster carers are not being assessed. Assessment and inspection are two issues which are not being adequately addressed and I regret there was very little in terms of confidence building in the Minister of State's speech which could give rise to any form of satisfaction. Every child is entitled to a social worker and every child in care is entitled to a care plan. Will the Minister of State categorically state that as of the middle of September, he is absolutely certain that none of the €15 million budget he announced last year and re-affirmed on a number of occasions this year is being diverted or deflected by the HSE to other endeavours beyond the remit of children?
I refer to the children's referendum. Again, it is a source of great disappointment that this referendum will not be held this year. Again, this is in stark contrast to the announcements earlier this year. The Minister of State will be aware that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children reached all-party agreement as far back as 18 February. Agreement had been reached on a wording. There were no dissenters and representatives of all parties reached agreement under the capable chairmanship of Deputy Mary O'Rourke. We now find that this referendum will not take place this year. What the Minister of State said reduces the confidence one might have that the referendum might take place early next year.
First we were told there was a delay, that it was not a matter of finance because the money had been provided and that it was a matter of getting a date and that there were political considerations which might have to be considered. We have now been told of unforeseen consequences. I would like the Minister of State to let us know what the unforeseen consequences are because they were not foreseen by the all-party committee and it was accepted by Government on receipt of the report that it would form the essence of the Government commitment to a referendum. It is of grave disappointment to us. I would like the Minister of State to address the specific issues to which I referred.
I welcome the Minister of State. We were all completely taken aback and shocked earlier this year when the Minister of State, the Minister and the committee asked for information on the number of children who had died in the care of the HSE to be told it did not know and then that it knew but it would not tell us.
In regard to the new social workers, the Minister of State said that none of this can be done without the co-operation of the HSE. Is he saying that sometimes the HSE does not co-operate with him as Minister of State with responsibility for children? Why would the HSE object to additional social workers? Will he elaborate slightly on that because I do not believe any Minister makes throwaway remarks?
In regard to the 133 social workers employed, are they new places with new social workers? Are these people who have just qualified or are they people from another jurisdiction or people who are mature and have a little experience? I do not have any great objection to young people going into these positions as they probably have an enlightened attitude to most things but if one is just out of college and one is appointed to one of these positions dealing with children, it will take at least two years to get up to speed and have the type of maturity needed to make sometimes very profound judgments.
I refer to the situation after hours and at weekends. If we are now employing up to 270 additional social workers, I take it we are employing them on a new contract and that we are not employing them on the basis that they are finished at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday. Have we made that mistake? We spent three years renegotiating a consultant's contract to get consultant-led services in accident and emergency departments but have we employed almost 200 social workers on the old contract which states that they are finished at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday and that they do not have to work at weekends. I hope we have not done that because if we have, it is a serious missed opportunity in terms of children.
I refer to the Children First guidelines and I hope the Minister of State has the information in this regard. I was glad he said this was introduced in 1999. When was the children's Act introduced? I believe it was 1992 or 1993.
It was the Child Care Act and it was introduced in 1991.
It was the 1991 Child Care Act.
It did not come in until 1996.
It did not come in until 1996 and we have still not fully implemented it. Is that right?
No, the Child Care Act is fully implemented.
Then why are Children First guidelines still only guidelines?
They are not statutory; they are just guidelines.
That is what we will change.
If the Child Care Act 1991 was implemented in 1996 and we still have Children First guidelines 11 years after they were first mooted, and almost 20 years after the Act, the Government should move on. Despite the Ryan report and despite Ferns we are still looking at it. If this is how the Government looks at matters, we all will be dead by the time any of this is put on a statutory basis.
Hopefully not.
If that is the timespan, that is what will happen.
How many children are in institutional care, foster care or under the care of the HSE, and how many children are awaiting assessment? I will clarify the question a little further. How many children are there who we know need care but who are not getting it yet?
I welcome the Minister of State here today for his response to the presentation by the ISPCC and Barnardos. It is timely for him to come back and give his response to it.
Like other speakers, I welcome his commitment on the €15 million from the Government to prioritise social worker recruitment. I welcome the commitment on the 270 places by the end of 2011, and on prioritising 200 posts by the end of this year. Given the present embargo on the public and Civil Service, it is obvious to anyone who might be tempted to complain, that the Government is going beyond the embargo. The Minister of State recognised the importance of this recruitment and I compliment him on providing for those positions.
On the out-of-hours social worker service, I note a 24-7 intervention system operates in the Dublin area and there are sporadic out-of-hours provisions in other areas. I am worried about that, particularly as it relates to my area of the south east. A sporadic out-of-hours provision on an ad hoc basis is not inspiring. I would like to see something more permanent in the regions. I accept that the biggest problems are in Dublin but I would like to see something rolled out, particularly in Waterford and Kilkenny, in the cities in the south east.
Vetting, which is the responsibility not of the Minister of State but of the Minister for Justice and Law Reform through the Garda, is an important matter. The slowness of vetting procedures is delaying the filling of positions that must be filled. I know of one case of a lady working in the community who has been vetted by the Garda but although I wrote a letter of recommendation to the Garda on her behalf she is required to again undergo the same vetting procedure to fill another post in community work. That seems like a waste of resources and Garda time when the Garda is already under pressure to vet persons for the first time. If a lady is vetted once and cleared by the Garda, that vetting should carry with her to any post she fills within the community. Something should be done about the waste of time. I have written to the Minister on this issue suggesting that once a person is cleared, while that clearance will be reviewed periodically, he or she should not have to go back to the Garda wasting time and resources every time they want clearance on a different post.
My last issue is the referendum. I accept it is complex and the Government has gone through years of research already on the wording of the amendment. At what stage next year will this amendment will be put to the people? I presume it will be next year. It is important to bring clarity to the matter.
I welcome the Minister of State and his colleagues. On the referendum, I join the other Deputies who expressed concern at the delay. I am particularly concerned at the explanation that Departments are now considering the implications and their concerns about legal, financial and administrative implications. It worries me greatly that the united view of all parties in the Dáil might be watered down when persons working in Departments worry about the implications for their Departments of the wording of the referendum. I am concerned that it might be watered down because of the natural caution of those working in Departments. I hope the Minister of State will represent the voice of the elected representatives in that regard and ensure a strong wording that will protect children.
There are a couple of other issues. I welcome the Minister of State's clarification today that the posts are extra posts. I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter a couple of months ago because of concern expressed to me that many of those getting the jobs were already in temporary posts and those posts would not be filled because of the moratorium. I seek assurance that all areas of the HSE will be told that they are to fill the posts. I am concerned that because it has such a funding problem, the HSE west will not fill a post vacated by someone who goes to one of these other posts, if it gets half a chance. Can I get an assurance that such a directive will be given to all parts of the HSE?
After-care is an important area. There is significant risk that young people who come out of care will become homeless. I note there is some reorganisation of homelessness services and I seek clarification on what work is being done to ensure not only that young people who come out of care have the attention of a social worker or somebody who looks after their interests to some extent, but that there is also focus on ensuring that they have an appropriate place to live.
The Minister of State did not refer to the high security care units and while I accept he cannot cover everything, I want to ask him about them and the HIQA report on Ballydowd. There is a high support unit in my city and there are, I think, only two young persons in it at present. Certainly, the numbers are small and it is extremely costly. This is a difficult area. One must have many staff. There were serious concerns about the Ballydowd one and it has not been possible to implement what HIQA has asked for because there had to be somewhere to put these young people. I ask the Minister of State to clarify what is happening with Ballydowd and if there is any rethinking of this entire area which is expensive and caters for a very small number of people. In the past we sent these young people abroad and that was not the correct answer either, but it needs fresh thinking and, maybe, a different approach.
I have three or four questions and I will put them as quickly as possible. Professor Kevin Malone, professor of psychiatry at UCD, attended the committee last week. One of the key points is the waiting list for children. The professor did not raise that point, but I am involved in working on the issue of suicide and mental health and I cannot get a fix on it. If parents do not have the money to pay for psychiatric help, what happens to the children who are waiting? How many are on the waiting list? There seems to be a vacuum there. It is critical that the Government gets to grips with that. No doubt there is an increasing number of children under pressure, particularly with the recession where they see their parents under strain. This is a serious issue for the psychiatric services for children. It is bad enough when parents have money but when they do not have it, what happens? One cannot bear to think about it.
When representatives from the ISPCC appeared before the committee, it was stated that there is tendency to gloss over matters relating to the contributions people make and the assistance they provide on a voluntary basis. The sponsorship money relating to the organisations that operate in this area, which allows them to do their work in an effective way, is drying up. The State is relying too much on the voluntary aspect, which is not fair. State bodies tend to refer people affected by suicide to these voluntary organisations.
The Minister of State indicated that "In accordance with the commitment in the Ryan implementation plan, the HSE plans to pilot an out of hours social work crisis intervention service in two areas". Has a decision been made with regard to what will be those two areas? When will the pilot project be launched?
The Minister of State referred to the preparation of a national vetting bureau Bill. We have been terribly remiss in the context of our approach to vetting across the entire child care system. The approach to which I refer is actually irresponsible in nature. Will additional resources be provided when the national vetting bureau comes into operation?
I am in no way trying to criticise the Minister of State on a personal basis but people are aghast with regard to why it has taken so long to come to a decision on the referendum on children's rights. I have been asked whether the Government is waiting to hold the referendum on the same day as the three outstanding by-elections in order to save money or whether there is some other reason for not proceeding. There is an urgent need to hold the referendum.
I welcome the Minister of State. I served on the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and I was of the view that it had dealt exhaustively with all aspects of the last matter to which Senator Mary White referred. In light of the level of legal support available to that committee, it must be the case that it investigated all possible avenues. In the context of this project, I am sure the Minister of State set target dates in respect of a review of progress, the completion of the report, the implementation of whatever strategies are put forward by the various Departments and the holding of the referendum. Will he indicate the dates he set down and outline his plan with regard to the Government completing its examination of the report? Does the Minister of State intend to communicate further with the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children at any stage? The implications of what he outlined earlier are quite considerable.
Mr. Martin Rogan, head of the HSE's mental health services, stated yesterday that 500 children are on the waiting list for psychiatric services. I do not wish to repeat what Senator Mary White stated but this is an issue of grave concern. Those in the psychiatric profession will inform one that early intervention represents the best chance of obtaining a cure. Professor Patricia Casey states that when early intervention occurs the cure rate in respect of depression is 90% and that said cure is permanent. However, if someone does not receive early treatment or assistance, his or her depression will become chronic and he or she will experience difficulties for the remainder of his or her life. Not only is this a health problem for those affected and a social problem for the wider community, it is also an economic problem because the State will be obliged to provide the people to whom I refer with assistance in dealing with and controlling their psychiatric difficulties perhaps for the remainder of their lives. Delays relating to intervention and assessment in respect of children are detrimental to their health and are bad for society and for the Exchequer.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. As Deputy Neville intimated, Mr. Martin Rogan stated yesterday that 500 children are awaiting psychiatric assessment. Is the Minister of State in a position to indicate whether this is the actual number? There is a problem in this regard throughout the country but I am aware that the difficulties are particularly acute in south Tipperary. With only 14 weeks remaining in the year, will the Minister of State indicate the proportion of the 200 posts that were prioritised for this year that have been filled? In geographic terms, on what basis are such posts are allocated? Has a reconfiguration programme been put in place or is allocation based on need? How many posts were allocated to south Tipperary? The Minister of State will have to excuse me for being parochial but people have raised this issue with me on numerous occasions. How many social work training places are made available on an annual basis?
I apologise for the fact that I am calling on Deputy Ó Caoláin last. As he is aware, that is the order of things.
I am becoming used to it. I hope the Chairman will have good news for me soon.
I welcome the Minister of State. I do not intend to rehearse the various issues my colleagues have already addressed in a quite comprehensive manner. Given that I am the only member of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children who is present at this meeting, I wish to focus on the referendum. I am genuinely concerned that there will be an unravelling of the good work of that all-party committee and that we will then be obliged to deal with all that this would entail.
The Minister of State referred to the senior officials group working to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and stated that it met and identified a range of unforeseen consequences in regard to issues such as immigration policy, continuity of care and acknowledgement of the right of a child to a voice in legal and administrative proceedings. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, I am of the view that it is only reasonable that members should be advised with regard to the nature of those unforeseen consequences. Having attended many of the 62 meetings of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children that were held over a two-year period, the Minister of State will be aware that in its third and final report it measured many of the consequences of the proposed draft change to the Constitution. A number of those consequences are reflected in the subheads the Minister of State has provided in his script.
Who determined that there might be unforeseen consequences and what is the nature and gravity of those consequences? Are these consequences the focus of such concern that they merit the ongoing delay on the Government's part? This delay is not only of concern to the Opposition members who attended and participated in the 62 meetings to which I refer, it is also of concern to the Chair of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, Deputy O'Rourke, who is a party colleague of the Minister of State. During the summer recess, Deputy O'Rourke voiced strong concerns in respect of the fact that the referendum will clearly not proceed in the current year and that there is no certainty with regard to when it will take place.
The Minister of State made a serious point on which other members did not comment during their contributions. A point has been made in his text this afternoon that has not been reflected by other colleagues heretofore. It states that in order to progress matters, the Government has asked that the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs restates the policy objectives for the referendum in co-operation with the Office of the Attorney General.
With respect, that wording does not accurately reflect what has actually been requested of the Minister of State. It is not to restate, because any of us could do that. That was set out very clearly by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, when he first took steps to put in place the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children with the clear intention of holding a referendum. I do not believe it is about restating, because we could do that here. We could restate the policy objectives that were laid out and agreed. We worked to that formula throughout all those deliberations. Restating the policy objectives in terms of what the Government is now seeking to do equates with redrafting them. I am very concerned that this is what the Minister of State is being asked to do, to aid and abet a particular objective in relation to the referendum. It is a delaying process in the first instance. There is no need to redraft, as we can restate here by just simply taking out all that was set for us at the outset of our deliberations.
The Minister of State owes this committee and certainly members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, which has concluded its work, an explanation as to what it is he has been asked to do in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General. Can he give this committee, including the members of each party represented here, an assurance to the effect that the work in which they were involved over a protracted period, was not a waste of their time? We came forward with an agreed position that all parties, including my party, committed to actively promote in securing the support of the electorate for that constitutional change.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is not the only member of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children present. I also was on the committee.
So was I.
Gabh mo leithscéal.
That is fine. The Minister of State has a broad range of issues to address. I join with other members in thanking him for his presentation and compliment him on the ambitious objectives he has set himself. If he achieves only 75% of what he has set out in the paper before us during his tenure, he will have done a very good job of work.
I believe Deputy Ó Caoláin is reflecting a concern we all have, to see the children's referendum held as soon as possible. I accept the Minister of State's commitment that he will do everything possible to ensure there is no undue delay. When one considers that the committee deliberated for almost two years and, as Deputy Ó Caoláin said, had 62 meetings, it is somewhat too soon to say that the delay on the part of the Government has been excessive. We can be reassured that the Minister of State is trying to ensure we do not fall victim to the law of unintended consequences. However, it is realistic that we should have an indication some time in 2011 that the referendum will take place.
On the out-of-hours service, having heard various presentations on this over the last 12 months, I am struck by the fact that we have voluntary sector involvement in each county and local authorities with social workers as well as the HSE. In terms of approaching this particular challenge, does the Minister of State envisage some type of partnership across the voluntary and social agencies to achieve the outcome that would facilitate the 24-7 cover we have got to have? I suspect there is a willingness to achieve that type of outcome. I want to concur with what others have said as regards adolescent mental health. We know the very good work that the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, is doing in his Department. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, might tell us about the type of engagement he is having with Deputy Moloney. I pointed out something to Professor Drumm at a meeting here recently. God forbid one of my children should have an illness. In the event, however, I would prefer my child to be diagnosed with cancer than, for example, an eating disorder. If one has an eating disorder there is no clear pathway to care within this State. The frustration experienced by families in trying to source medical and psychiatric care is so distressing, and this is something we need to look at.
All of us present were struck by the work that is being done by the ISPCC and its Childline operation. While one might marvel at the idea of 800,000 children per year ringing the ISPCC — and I believe it is picking up 60% of those calls — one was struck by the assertion of its CEO, Mr. Ashley Balbirnie, to the effect that most of those calls were coming from children who simply wanted to talk to someone. Perhaps there is a message in this for Irish society, as regards how we are parenting our children. How are we engaging with our children if a child believes he or she must pick up a phone and talk to a stranger? However, given the value of that 24-7 ISPCC initiative, which is working largely out of normal hours and gets no State aid at all, could the Minister of State foresee any opportunity for such State assistance so that it could pick up 100% of the calls it gets as distinct from only 60% at present? Perhaps the Minister of State might now like to deal with the questions.
I will try to address some of the issues that were raised a few times. At the outset, we have spent the last hour talking about negative issues but the truth is that a great many children are doing really well under our child protection service, foster care children in particular. A phrase frequently used at our conferences in relation to foster carers is "ordinary people doing extraordinary things". Many fostered children get upset at the type of coverage that one routinely sees in the newspapers about children in care. It is important to realise that while our job as policy makers and legislators is to try to make things better where there are problems, we must constantly speak out on behalf of those who are delivering exceptional services. We must talk up their morale in terms of the efficiency, dedication and determination of so many people who deliver such a good service. Having made that point, we must continue to tackle the very serious issues that exist in this area.
Deputy Charles Flanagan raised the issue of social workers, and again there is a commitment in the Ryan implementation plan to have 270 additional social workers by the end of 2011. We have front-loaded them for this year. I do not recall saying that it would be done by the end of June. I know we were going to have an additional 50 by the end of June. We were not going to get to 200 in that timespan by any stretch of the imagination. We have 133 in place and working today, and as I said in my opening comments, we hope to have that completed by the end of the year. That is a really positive good news story because our ambition is to ensure that every child has a care plan. We want to ensure that every foster carer is properly assessed and that every child is allocated a social worker by the end of this year.
To have this additional workforce available is a good news story and is very positive. I understand that the committee needs to examine whether that has been achieved.
It is the bare minimum, not good news.
Allow the Minister of State to answer, please.
Perhaps it is the bare minimum, but we must live in the real world. In the context of the absolute tightening of resources in this and every other area of public policy, this is a good news story. There is no other way to view this. To try to put a negative spin on it is to take a dismal approach to this area. Deputy Flanagan also asked whether the €15 million will be fully spent or diverted. The answer is that it will not be diverted. It is ringfenced for child protection and is included in the HSE service plan for 2010 for that purpose.
Deputy Flanagan and other Deputies and Senators asked questions on the referendum, including when it will be held. We must first go through a process in regard to which I will provide members with more detail as we move along. On the views of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and Deputy O'Sullivan's question on whether these would be watered down and Deputy Ó Caoláin's question on whether they will be unravelled, I very much value the political consensus achieved at that committee, of which I was a part, along with Deputies Ó Fearghaíl and Neville. Nevertheless, part of the due diligence of where we came from in February is that we go through this with all of the Departments in terms of how it will affect them. We must for example ask the Department of Education and Skills, which deals on a day-to-day basis with children, how, practically, this will impact on them. Officials of that Department did not attend the committee.
On the 62 meetings, we had a specific number of meetings dealing with this issue, a huge number of meetings dealing with absolute and strict liability and prior to that with soft information. Let us not give the impression that all 62 meetings were dedicated to the formulation of the wording. I do not know exactly how many meetings were dedicated to that issue but we did not come to deal with it until the end of July 2009, following which we completed our report in February 2010. That was the timescale in terms of focussed assessment. While some initial work had been carried out prior to May 2008, that is the reality. I am determined not to unravel that consensus to the greatest extent possible. I want to keep the essence of what the joint committee had to say.
Deputy Neville asked if we would come back again to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. The committee no longer exists. However, I intend at the very least to re-engage with the political parties because there must be consensus when dealing with issues relating to the Constitution. We will re-engage with the Leaders or spokespersons of the political parties on the end result of the process to obtain their views.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked about the number of people who died while in care. Nobody ever suggested they did not know that figure or would not reveal that information. The figure changed for several reasons. It had never been properly collated, in particular prior to 2004. Mr. Geoffrey Shannon and Ms Nora Gibbons are currently involved in a review dating back ten years from 2010. Also included in that review are different categories not previously asked about, including children known to the child protection service but not in care or children with a care history who received after care services. The day concerned was not a good one for Government or the HSE. However, we have shown a desire to sort out this issue as quickly as possible.
In commenting on the HSE, I was trying to underline that we had difficulties down through the years in terms of interpretation. I can achieve nothing without mutual respect. The HSE is routinely vilified in almost every part of society in Ireland yet it does many great things on a day-to-day basis. Who here has not had a wonderful experience in terms of nurses, doctors, social care workers, all of whom represent the HSE? Some people think the HSE is a monster that dwells in a cellar and comes back to haunt the nation. It is actually a good organisation.
If it dwelled in a cellar, we could lock the door. However, it does not and is out there among us.
I think the Deputy is representing the commonly held view.
I am not.
The HSE does an enormous amount of amazing things.
I merely thought the Minister of State's remark a peculiar one.
There is not much air time for those involved in it.
We are being dismal again.
People can sometimes be dismal. On the 133 new social workers, some are new graduates, some are not and others are from outside the country: it is a mixture. Speakers referred to the Children Act and to the Children First guidelines. The Child Care Act relates to empowering the HSE to seek voluntary and special care orders. The Children First guidelines relates to reporting structures. The difficulty is that one must make a choice in regard to having a mandatory reporting system. Where it has been introduced it has put back the clock and caused great difficulties for child protection services because there is over-reporting with no substantial increase in the number of actual proven cases. This has happened in Australia and the US. We are trying to put the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing so that compliance with them becomes a contractual arrangement with the State, as a funder of that organisation. The difficulty is what do we do if, let us say, Barnardos does not report properly first under the Children First guidelines? Should we cut off its funding resulting in it having to close its service? How one enforces failure to comply is the difficulty that arises. It is complicated and we are currently trying to figure this out. I would welcome any views from the committee and NGOs on this. On how many children are in care, there are 5,877 children in care, more than 90% of whom are in foster care. The split in terms of relative and other foster care is even.
Deputies Aylward, Ó Fearghaíl and others asked about out of hours services. We are currently piloting an out of hours service in Donegal and Kerry. Members will be aware that there are currently in existence 24-hour services everywhere — I am not speaking in this regard of social work out of hours services — including GP, mental health and emergency department services. These are all part of the family of health services.
The fire brigade service——
No. I will explain to members why I mentioned the three services concerned.
——and the Garda stations too, but that as the Minister of State well knows is not what we are talking about and muddying the waters in this respect——
This is not a pantomime, Deputy Lynch.
Please allow the Minister of State to continue with his response.
The three services mentioned are part of the health group. We are trying to create primary care teams. Speakers referred to inter-agency working. I merely mentioned areas in the health group which are from time to time involved with children. If a child with psychosis attends a GP do we say that is relevant to a different service? We do not. An effort must be made to link services. A child may attend an emergency department with an issue which has a social care dimension. Therefore, we must create an inter-agency out of hours service that has the potential to link into a social work component, whatever that may be — it is in this area we will do our piloting — and is able to access mental health services and connect with GP and any other after hours service that are available through the HSE. It is important that we get this right and we now have a great opportunity to do so.
We have run the section 12 out of hours place of safety idea outside of Dublin. The numbers from the Garda in this regard are limited. This suggests the demand for the service is quite small. While the demand for such service in Dublin is high, outside of Dublin it is small. We need to be careful about how we use resources. We do not want to create a system whereby two or three social workers spend the whole night doing nothing, which can happen, resulting in that service beggaring others. I do not think anybody would agree with that as an approach.
Deputy Aylward also raised the issue of vetting. The issue of duplication of vetting for different purposes has arisen before. While I cannot answer the question today I will undertake to raise the matter with the Department of Justice and Law Reform. Senator Mary White raised the issue of additional resources. It is true that once the national vetting bureau Bill becomes law it will be possible for soft information to be exchanged between different agencies of the State, including voluntary agencies. This may require an additional 200 people in the national vetting bureau. The work involved is not massively complicated but there is no question but that the bureau will require extra resources.
The creation of 200 new jobs in Thurles is great news.
That is what is called spin.
What about the contract issue and the new staff employed by the HSE?
Rostering from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. forms part of the Croke Park agreement. Earlier this month when I met representatives of IMPACT to go through some of the issues, I raised that matter specifically with them. We want to ensure there is flexibility. Clearly, it is in their interests, as public sector workers, to deliver on this reform because if they do not, we will be at nothing.
Are they employed under a new contract or the original one?
We do not want the new intake to work under this contract; we want everybody to work the same roster. There is no point in having multiple types——
There is a greater chance of getting the people the HSE is about to employ to do that.
The Croke Park agreement will deliver on it, which is a positive story.
Therefore, there is no change.
There is change. It is called the Croke Park agreement.
There is reform.
There is no change.
There is change.
What is it?
The Deputy and I do not need to agree on everything and I will not fall out with her.
This is fundamental to reform and the out-of-hours service. Is the contract under which the people concerned are being employed exactly the same as that——
Of course, it is. We are delivering on the Croke Park agreement which provides for an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. contract.
That is what the word "reform" means.
When Deputy Aylward is Minister, he can answer me.
The Minister of State has answered clearly. We should move on.
I will go through the other issues raised. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked about aftercare and homeless person services. The HSE is to report to me soon on how it proposes to deliver aftercare services. My office has contacted it to review services delivered under its youth strategy. We intend to arrange an early meeting to discuss the situation regarding the Dublin Homeless Agency.
The Deputy raised the issue of special care services provided at Ballydowd, Coovagh House and Gleann Alainn. I went to Ballydowd at the beginning of the month to look at the facility there. The HIQA report was based on the findings of an inspection at the end of June. Major renovations have taken place since in Ballydowd. Members of the committee should visit the facility which deals with some of the most vulnerable children. However, the HSE has undertaken to change its policy. It wants to co-locate high support and special care services, where possible, including the existing 12 places at Ballydowd. It is a policy that is backed by the recent report of the CAAB, the Children Acts Advisory Board. It carried out a review of outcomes for children who had been in special care and strongly supported the idea of co-location. However, the policy change has not been implemented to my satisfaction and I have had some frank exchanges with the HSE on the issue. We need to up our game substantially. However, we need to use the Ballydowd special care unit for the moment. There are three females in the Solas unit in Crannóg Nua. However, they will finish by the end of October and the unit will close.
There is considerable change. As the Deputy acknowledged, this is the most difficult aspect of special care because it is a form of civil detention. Further legislation, the child care (amendment) Bill, is proposed. It will allow for extended periods of special care, as recommended. It will also provide that, even though a child is subject to a criminal charge, he or she will be allowed to access or continue in special care services in such circumstances. It does not mean children will fall between the stools of the justice and care systems.
A number of speakers raised the issue of adolescent mental health and psychiatric service waiting lists. Obviously, the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, has specific responsibility. Nevertheless, we have sat down to discuss the issue. I went to see the Jigsaw project in Galway on Monday and I am very familiar with the DETECT project in my area. It focuses on undiagnosed cases of psychosis and trying to reduce the period to enable all health services to assist families to gain access to services. It is deeply worrying that, even if parents have the guts to go to a GP to advise that their child might have a psychiatric issue, they then find he or she might be on a waiting list. Deputy Neville mentioned a figure of 500 which is of concern. I am not sure how long they have been on the waiting list. The Deputy is correct that the quicker the detection, the less chance medical interventions will be needed.
The funding of the ISPCC was raised by Senator Mary White and the Chairman. In its presentation the ISPCC mentioned a figure of 800,000 telephone calls, an incredibly high number. Ideally, we would fund the ISPCC, but finance is incredibly tight. No one needs to be told we are in a very difficult position. I know the funding position for charities is very hard because of the lack of philanthropy. Dinners are very hard to organise in the manner in which it used to be possible and I can give no solace in that regard.
Senator Prendergast wants to know the number of social workers in south Tipperary. We have an allocation system based on need. They were allocated for no other reason. We looked at the demographics and needs in the various areas and allocated accordingly. I am not sure of the number. However, if the Senator wishes to submit a letter, I can provide her with the figures.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the problematic issues with the wording proposed by the committee. As I said initially, we must go through a process of getting the views of Departments on the wording. The wording of a constitutional amendment is very important. It is not possible to put the genie back in the bottle and we need diligence to establish to the best of our ability what the consequences would be. It is not possible to imagine every context in which something might come to court, but we need to give our best estimate. We are aware from happened in the early 1980s of the price to be paid for failing to properly figure out the consequences of a constitutional amendment. This has been an issue since the early 1990s — since 1993 — starting with Ms Catherine McGuinness. Let us be clear — Deputy Lynch's party was in government at the time.
I am afraid the Minister of State has got his history wrong.
The Deputy was a member of Democratic Left; I remember it now.
That is right; that party was in government.
I hope the Minister of State is not descending to that level of argument about his inability to proceed with a matter on which he gave a solemn commitment, as did his former party leader.
Let us all try to avoid the politics of the issue and deal with the reality.
With respect, the Chairman should address his comments to the Minister of State.
I said "all".
"With respect" is a much overused phrase in this building. The debate on the matter began in 1993. We have had a Constitution review group, various discussions and various papers produced. We are much closer to achieving this now than we have ever been because there is broad political consensus on the issues we want to address. It is fair that we should take the pressure and criticism. While we would like to have done it this year, getting it right is much more important than the timing. In the past one and a half hours there has been no discussion of the substance of the proposal, only about the timing.
We have had two years of discussions.
With respect, the responses of the Minister of State have not been satisfactory.
I am not finished.
He was the fourth in a series of Ministers who participated in the process throughout the period — two Ministers for Justice and Law Reform, and Ministers——
The Deputy has indicated and I will allow him back in, but I ask him to let the Minister of State conclude.
In talking about substance, as the committee is no longer constituted, the Minister of State indicated that he would communicate with the political parties, the participant groups. Will he advise the spokespersons for the various parties which participated in the process of the detail of the so-called unforeseen consequences——
I want to go through the detail now, if I can.
——in order that we might have an appreciation of the extent and depth of concern that is holding back the process?
I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister of State to give us a full answer in order that we can leave the meeting fully informed.
This is an important issue. We have discussed these matters with the various Departments in recent months. I have referred to a number of the issues that have arisen in those discussions. The reference in the wording to "the right to care and protection" is not limited by a phrase such "as far as practicable" or "as may be prescribed by law". Such words are found in all other constitutional provisions. Article 40 of the Constitution, for example, provides that the State has a duty to defend and "vindicate" the individual rights of the citizen "as far as practicable". The latter phrase which appears regularly in the Constitution is not a limiting factor in the wording. We need to tailor it and keep the essence of the meaning, as has been suggested. As we try to make sure it is constitutionally sound, we should not unravel the consensus and the original policy intention of the joint committee.
I first raised the issue of continuity of care which we are all keen to facilitate at the original committee. We do not want to see constant breaks in the placements of children in care. We have heard about many children who had 14 or 15 placements over the course of their childhoods. We want to give a constitutional basis to the right to continuity of care. Some have asked why continuity of care should have greater status or priority, by comparison with other considerations, when children are being placed in residential or special care. Continuity of care may be given a much more important role than other aspects of the care plan for the child, even though the placement is inappropriate. That issue has been raised by departmental officials.
I would like to speak about the proposal to give children the right to have their voices heard in judicial and administrative proceedings that affect them. The Department of Education and Skills has asked whether such a right would mean that every child subjected to suspension or expulsion should be able to avail of legal representation, or that such representatives should be present in——
That is not the intention of the proposal.
Clearly not. That is why I am talking about unintended consequences. This is a constitutional provision — it is not just a statute that could be changed by means of emergency legislation. If it becomes part of the law of the land, thousands of consequences will flow from it, relatively few of which we can anticipate. We need to be careful to anticipate those which are within our understanding. This is an example of the issues that have arisen. This proposal would have implications for immigration policy. To put it bluntly, it would make it almost impossible to deport any family with children. I am not sure if that is the intention — I doubt it. One would not want to undermine one's coherent and sound immigration policy.
The matters I have mentioned need to be teased out in full. As I restate our position, members are free to contradict me if they want. We wanted to ensure we changed the laws on adoption, in particular, on which I think there was broad agreement. We wanted to ensure it was possible for marital children to be adopted if that was in their best interests. We wanted to have a child-specific provision that would modernise the language and reflect the existing statutes. We wanted to ensure the paramount consideration was "the best interests of children", a phrase used in many statutes. We wanted to equalise the position between marital and non-marital children. They were the broad policy objectives we wanted to achieve and we want them to be reflected in a constitutionally sound wording. We are involved in that process. I am committed specifically to speaking with the party leaders or spokespersons, as the parties desire, to go through such issues in a little more detail. I have set out the process in which we are engaged.
While I would welcome such an opportunity, I record——
I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister of State to finish. I assure him that I will come back to him.
I am more or less finished. Reference was made to interagency working. Many do not know about the children's services committees. Perhaps the joint committee might invite representatives of the committees to talk about them. Attempts are being made in various parts of the country to bring together agencies which affect the lives of children. Agencies such as the Garda, the education bodies, the local authorities, the HSE and the VECs are coming together to try to share their knowledge of children. Following the establishment of the free preschool year scheme, another group of professionals is meeting children on a daily basis. Such persons are able to identify issues that affect children in a formative year in their lives and can be sorted out easily, subject to the availability of resources. We also want to involve public health nurses who constitute the first cohort of professionals to deal with new-born children and meet them on a regular basis. We want to bring all of these individuals together. That is what the children's services committees are trying to do. That is our best attempt to ensure a strong level of interagency co-operation on our policies.
I hope I have dealt with most of the issues raised.
The Minister of State did not reply to one question.
A number of members are offering. I will take everyone in order.
The Minister of State did not respond to the last point I made which was related to the restating of the policy objectives. It was a substantive part of my line of questioning. I asked him about his engagement with the Office of the Attorney General in restating the policy objectives set out by the joint committee following its deliberations. Why would that be necessary? I fear that consideration is being given to redrafting which would move the situation away from the critical focus and intent of the committee's establishment.
I will take a couple of supplementary questions and hope members will be reasonably brief. I will then ask the Minister of State to wrap up.
The Minister of State's comments on the referendum were wholly unsatisfactory. The Chairman will not be pleased to hear this, given that he has asked us to ensure our supplementary questions are brief. We will need to revisit this issue with the Minister of State as soon as possible. It was entirely unfair of him to say we had not discussed the substance of the matter in detail. I challenge him in that regard — I am happy to discuss the substance of the issue with him on any occasion that his schedule permits. It is clear the Government is moving away from the hard-won consensus garnered over a number of years. The Minister of State will be aware that many meetings took place during that time. It is regrettable that no comment on the joint committee's report has been made in the eight months since its publication and that no date has been set for the referendum. The Minister of State seems to be suggesting the Government is becoming cool on the issue. I ask him to set out a specific timeline within which the various concerned parties he mentioned will come together. When will the referendum be held? It seems the process under way is no more than one of drift which is totally and utterly unsatisfactory, having regard to the parliamentary work undertaken.
The Minister of State has been frank in giving us a great deal of substantial information on the issues with the constitutional referendum and the discussions held in the various Departments. I am not sure if such information has been placed in the public arena before now. This is probably the wrong committee to be dealing with the matter. I support the suggestion that there should be engagement with those who were involved in the original committee, including Deputy Charles Flanagan. I suggest the legal advisers to that committee should also be engaged with. I assume we are about to hear the advice of the Attorney General about the various legal obstacles touched on by the Minister of State who has alerted us to various issues, including some relating to asylum seekers and children in education. I am concerned about what might happen when such issues are referred to politicians. While we are all very capable, most of us have not received any legal training. Although I am not a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, I envisage that it will be given advice by the Attorney General which will water down the consensus achieved in its deliberations. Legal advice to the Government will be used, as it were, to stack up against the politicians who sit on the committee. For this reason, it is necessary to have proper legal engagement on the issues involved. I am genuinely concerned that the referendum could be a long way down the road and may not reflect what was reached on the basis of consensus.
I understand the point made by the Minister of State that the course of action sought by the all-party committee may have unforeseen consequences and that the Government must address this possibility. However, I am concerned that this could lead us, as public representatives, down a road we do not want to go. Our aim is to provide the strongest possible constitutional protections for children. The joint committee must be reconstituted in some form — one possibility is to invite only spokespersons — to consider legal advice provided by constitutional experts. It must have access to legal advice that is, if one likes, equal to that available to the Government.
I am very frustrated. When the Minister of State who sits at the Cabinet table was first appointed, I raised with him the issue of child psychiatric services. This is a deadly serious matter because there is a waiting list but we do not know precisely where it is. What will be done in this regard?
The Minister of State has indicated the matter falls within the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney.
I thank the Chairman for pointing that out because it is the same response the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, gave when I raised the issue with him two years ago. I suggested to him at the time that he seek at the Cabinet to secure responsibility for child psychiatric services. As Minister of State with responsibility for children, the matter should come within his remit. I am sick and tired of seeking the establishment of a national 24-hour service. Modern technology is changing at an incredibly fast rate. I am sure that if a creative approach were adopted, it would be possible to establish such a service. It would not a big deal to do so in this technological age. I am very upset that children are waiting to access services.
The Senator should raise the matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney.
The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, has a seat at the Cabinet table.
I am sure he will raise the matter at the Cabinet.
When I asked him about this issue previously, he informed me it was a matter for the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, who does not sit at the Cabinet table. The Minister of State is aware that we had a conversation about this issue two years ago. He must ensure all matters pertaining to children aged up to 18 years come within his remit. If I were him, I would be jumping up and down to have them brought within my remit. The issue must be addressed because the number of children on waiting lists for psychiatric services is a scandal that will blow up. It is below the radar because we do not know who has or does not have access to services.
I doubt the issue will be below the radar after today's meeting.
The issue of the referendum and when it will be held has taken over the meeting. The Minister of State has clarified many of the ongoing problems in this regard. As he noted, despite the esteemed members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children meeting for 18 months or two years, problems persist, including with Departments. The issue cannot be raised every week or brought before the High Court, the Supreme Court or anywhere else. As a proposed amendment to the Constitution, we must get the wording right and, before putting a proposal to the people, the final arbiters, we must have all the t's crossed and i's dotted. The Minister of State has been clear on what the problems are. Members must take this on board because we must get the proposal right before putting it to the people.
The Minister of State instanced the examples of concern. These are indicated in the text where they are described as "unforeseen consequences", yet he contradicts this in his acknowledgement thereafter that he raised one of these in the course of the joint committee's deliberations.
The Minister of State will recall that concerns about the other subheads, as I have described them, were raised. For example, I raised concerns about one of them in the course of our meetings. That is insufficient detail. This is important to members of the committee who spent such time on the matter. It is not an issue that the 62 meetings were not confined to this issue — I indicated it was the third and final report of the committee. Therefore, the Minister of State should not for one moment suggest the committee gave the matter inadequate time or consideration. That inference could be taken from his brash retort in response to my first outline of the committee's commitment to the issue of children's rights and child protection. He should make no mistake about it. The committee, made up of representatives of most of the political parties — certainly in terms of active participation — reached a consensus following long, protracted and careful consideration. This was done with advice from senior counsel, the best advice available, on these concerns and issues. This is not a minor matter.
While I would not have a problem meeting the Minister of State on a one-to-one basis, the point made by other speakers is correct. Even though the committee no longer exists, a special opportunity should be created to afford its members a further opportunity to discuss these matters with the Minister of State, with legal advisers present. I will write to the former Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy O'Rourke, to encourage the creation of such an opportunity at the earliest possible time. I would welcome an indication from the Minister of State that he would support the proposal to hold a meeting, at which we would sit down together and get into the nitty-gritty because it was the nitty-gritty that we addressed in no small manner over a long and dedicated period.
My final point was on the restating of policy objectives which I have no doubt the Minister of State will clarify.
It would be unfortunate if, arising from today's proceedings, we were to create a political maelstrom around the referendum issue. The Minister of State has indicated that he fundamentally respects the work done by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and the leadership given thereon, in particular, by Deputies O'Rourke, Shatter and Howlin, and that he and the Government are simply engaged in a process of due diligence. Members would have been critical of him if he had indicated he would present to the people the formula of words devised by the joint committee. He is to be complimented in that regard.
There is still consensus, as shown in the House before it adjourned for the summer, that the referendum should take place. Members encourage the Minister of State to move in that direction because we all want the referendum to be held as soon as possible.
It may be in the nature of our work, but the joint committee frequently concentrates on specific problems and things not being done. The Minister of State is correct to point out that we need to remember wonderful people are working in child care, child protection and child welfare services. Much has been achieved and much is being done by them. We need to encourage them to continue to achieve the high standards they have set and carry on doing valuable work, most of which is enormously positive and life changing for those affected.
I ask the Minister of State to make concluding remarks. I am sure the joint committee will return to the issues under discussion. I also thank the Minister of State for taking the time to attend the meeting.
Thank you, Chairman. I try to inform the committee as best I can as I feel strongly about these issues. It has been a great privilege to work in this area in recent years. I want Ireland to be the safest place in the world to bring up children. A referendum goes some way towards that objective but it is not a magic wand. Nobody really believed it would be. We will restate the policy objectives to the Attorney General. The Attorney General wants to be clear on what the Government wants to achieve in this area. I intend to take part in any proposed discussions with Deputy O'Rourke and the other party spokespersons, as it will be helpful exercise. If the committee asked the NGO community if it believed the wording published in February was perfect, it would say "no". It too recognises there are problems that need to be ironed out.
Behaviour and Attitudes conducted a poll which found 62% want a referendum on children's rights with only 1% does not. All of us are experienced enough to know that will not be the result in the end. We need to work out the wording and its objectives more clearly. We need certain changes and constitutional provisions put into this.
I accept that the process is frustrating for all involved but we need to give expression to the collective will of Parliament and put it to the people for their consideration. That needs to be sooner rather than later. We have been through a traumatic time with the Murphy, Ryan and various other reports. The Government will not move away from the hard-won consensus referred to by Deputy Charles Flanagan. We are dedicated to keeping it together and making sure the referendum wording works.
Senator Mary White has asked me if I will take over this area. There are many areas I would love to take over. There are many children who are sick. Should I be responsible for them or for children who are having difficulties in school? There are Ministers with other responsibilities and we cannot presume to take over all of these. Nevertheless, I visited Jigsaw in Galway earlier this week and met with Headstrong. I am conscious of the role I play in pulling together the strings of the various Departments affecting children's welfare. One of the clearest indications that a child will fall into problems with the justice system in later life is if he or she has mental health difficulties. It has been noted that many homeless people have already been through the child and adolescent mental health system. Identifying this early on is a crucial. My office, therefore, needs to be linked with the policy objectives with regard to children and adolescent mental health. There are many overlapping areas but that does not mean I can colonise other Departments. An important conference on child mental health will take place today in Trinity College Dublin. A representative from my office will attend.
As a business person, I feel naturally driven to——
To take over.
If up to 500 children do not get proper psychiatric attention, a strategy must be put in place to reduce the figure. It is cruel if a person does not have enough money to get psychiatric help for his or her child.
I agree with the Senator.
Child suicide is coming on the radar now.
Perhaps the Senator will put that issue on the agenda for the next meeting and the committee can correspond with the Minister of State with responsibility in this area, Deputy John Moloney.
I thank the Minister of State for attending the committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 September 2010.