For me, the decision was all about equality and nothing else. Equality goes to the very core of true republican values. This is why I was more than happy to play an active part in the campaign. It follows a proud tradition of my party, which initiated giving rights to LGBT people. It goes back to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1992, the Equal Status Act 2000 and the civil partnership Act of 2010. These were all important steps in the process. They laid the foundation for what we voted on a number of months ago. I congratulate the Minister who took responsibility in this regard, and I congratulate everybody of all political parties and none. In particular I congratulate the Yes Equality team. The campaign was very different from a general, local or presidential election campaign. I have participated in many campaigns but none quite like this. I had never seen the level of enthusiasm, energy and positivity. It was very positive and very good to be involved in it.

I began by being invited to attend a meeting at the Greville Arms Hotel in Mullingar. Going in, I was not quite sure how many people would turn up, what would be the age demographic of those who would turn up or how the campaign would move on from there. I did not know whether it would just be about public meetings, the Yes Equality bus moving from town to town and village to village or, like so many other referendum campaigns, meeting people on the streets and in shopping centres.

It was not like that; it was about a very dynamic, passionate and committed group of people from all generations. It was not just about the young. One evening I went out with three different generations of one family who all wanted to sow a message of love and demonstrate a message of equality. They wanted to share their deepest and most personal experiences with people at the doors as to why there were good reasons to vote “Yes” and it would be appropriate to change the Constitution. It was about giving every citizen of the country, regardless of sexual orientation, the same right.

I want to give very sincere thanks to the Yes Equality group in Longford and Westmeath for allowing me to be part of that campaign. It was a great honour and privilege, and it provided a great learning curve. Certainly, if I can bring the same level of enthusiasm and vigour to my next campaign – my re-election to his House – I would be quite happy. As I stated, it was quite enlightening to see the different generations of people who got involved, from the young to middle-aged to older people. This affected everybody, regardless of their background, professional standing or so-called economic security. That contributed to the successful campaign.

There is one note of caution and I wrote to the Minister at the time about this. We must acknowledge that almost 40% of people, for whatever reason, did not feel that this was appropriate. It is obvious that I do not share their view, as I campaigned and articulated reasons for a “Yes” vote. Nevertheless, we must respect the views of these people. One of the predominant fears within this group arose because people have deeply held religious convictions. This was evident from people in my church – the Catholic Church – as well as from members of the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland. There was a fear that if the constitutional amendment came about, they might be forced into performing marriages within those churches, but that was not true. I thank the Minister for replying to me at the time to outline why that was not true. This was about civil marriage and equality for all our people.
The campaign also demonstrated a new interest in politics, particularly from a section of society that would not normally have been interested in politics. This section would quite often have argued that politics was not for its people and it does not affect them. This process clearly showed that decisions taken in this House and effected by way of referendum have a direct consequence and a real effect on people’s lives. It really hit home to me just how this could have a positive and dramatic effect on people’s lives. At the count at Keenagh, people from the LGBT group who had been campaigning broke down and cried while partners hugged and kissed each other. They realised they were accepted as being the same as everybody else, with the same entitlements. Although I had been involved with the group throughout the campaign, it was only at that moment – when the result was declared locally in Keenagh and on a national level – we could see the positivity, happiness and sense of accomplishment. There was also a feeling that these people belonged, which was very powerful. I was delighted to be involved with the campaign and I compliment everybody across all political parties and none on it. I especially compliment Yes Equality because from the very beginning those people drove the campaign and shared the most intimate personal stories, as I witnessed at the doors. They wanted to show this to people who had reservations about voting “Yes”, and this proved that when people are open and honest with the population, they will be accepted, respected and supported. It is a momentous day and I am delighted to offer my few words in support of today’s legislation.

It was unbelievable to listen to Government speakers describe this as an inappropriate time to introduce legislation which would provide assistance to 300,000 people. Talk about being out of touch with reality. I wonder if they hold constituency clinics or meet and engage with their constituents on a daily basis.

We are told that the Minister for Finance met representatives of the various financial institutions.

Let us remember that the Minister originally said he had no hand, act or part in this. It was only after considerable pressure from Members of the Opposition and considerable media attention that he decided to engage with the banks. While the banks have until 1 July to produce a formal response, the early indication of what the banks propose is pathetic. Regarding Bank of Ireland reducing its fixed interest rate, most people on a variable interest rate do not want to be on a fixed interest rate. To listen to previous speakers talking about how we got here, it would appear that they think describing how we got here absolves them of responsibility for helping people who are in a particularly difficult situation with their mortgages. Earlier in the House, we voted for the establishment of a commission of investigation into certain transactions at the liquidated IBRC. Similarly to the action required on the variable interest rate, the establishment of the commission of investigation was initially rejected out of hand by the Government. It said there was no proof of wrongdoing. Now, it says it is only establishing the commission to reassure the public. What reassurance will the Government give to the 300,000-plus families being screwed by their financial institutions? They are looking in here and what they see is one rule for friends of Fine Gael and another for the ordinary Joe Soap. People with high borrowings with IBRC are availing of bargain basement write-downs on their debt and bargain basement write-downs on their interest rates. What does that tell Joe Public? It says the Government is not serious about helping and supporting families. If it was, it would be supporting the legislation.

As my colleague said, while we have concerns about certain elements of the Bill, it should be allowed to pass to Committee Stage so that we can examine how to improve it. As a party, we recognise the need for the banks to be profitable. We also recognise and acknowledge, however, the right of customers to be treated fairly, which is clearly not happening. The recent report by the Central Bank clearly outlines the dysfunction in the mortgage market and states that there needs to be greater transparency in variable interest rate policies. People who are looking on are absolutely bewildered at the margin the banks can charge and the difference being charged in this jurisdiction vis-à-visthe rest of the EU. Someone with a 20-year mortgageof €200,000 in Ireland pays €4,000 more a year in interest than people in the rest of the EU. How is that fair and equitable and how can the Government stand over it and allow it to happen? Nevertheless, Government Members say it is an inappropriate time to talk about this issue. I heard a previous speaker use the words “hopeful” and “confident,” and say that he or she expected the banks to act in a certain way. The father of a young lady came to my constituency office. She is under huge pressure and depressed due to the manner in which the banks are dealing with her. She is in her early 30s and took out a mortgage in good faith which she paid consistently, on time and in the right amount for seven years. It was only after that that she got into difficulty. The manner in which the bank has dealt with her and her family has been wholly unacceptable, but we are told we are leaving it to the banks’ control. Two years ago my party advocated for the removal of the veto, but we were blocked by the Government before it arrived at similar thinking. In the same way, the Government must reconsider introducing legislation to ensure the banks cannot rip off our citizens by charging high interest rates.

Before I finish, I want to touch on the wholly inadequate manner in which the Government is dealing with those in mortgagearrears. Again, a constituent of mine was lucky enough to be in receipt of mortgage interest supplement, given that the scheme was scrapped by the Government a number of years ago. She was getting €280 a month but because she negotiated a revised repayment deal with the bank whereby a greater percentage of the payment went towards the capital rather than the interest, the full mortgage interest supplement has been cut. She is a young woman with a husband and a child and the only income coming into the house is social welfare. How can she afford to pay her mortgage? She cannot. What help and support is she getting from the Government? She is getting none. The Government refers to the mortgage interest scheme and its representatives say the mortgage-to-rent scheme is there. When that was introduced in 2012, 500 applications were meant to be approved each year. There have been 88 since 2012. What does that say about the attention the Government is giving to those in mortgage arrears? It is giving none. I appeal to the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, to reconsider the Bill and allow it to pass on Second Stage to give all Members of the House an opportunity to tease out how we as elected representatives can bring forward legislation to give some hope and breathing space to the 300,000 people who are at the pin of their collars tonight.

Let us put this into context. The last budget left the relevant allocation €18 million short of meeting day-to-day expenditure. This has resulted in making savage cuts to rape crisis centres throughout the country as well as domestic violence support services, among others. Tusla simply does not have enough resources to fund child protection and welfare services properly. Given the shameful number of children in care who remain without an allocated social worker and the fact that 3,000 high priority cases throughout the country have yet to be assigned to a social worker, it is scandalous that scarce resources are being spent on an unregulated and chaotic system while we do not have sufficient front-line staff to help vulnerable children.

When I questioned the Minister about these costs he confirmed that the Child and Family Agency, the body responsible for administering the guardian ad litemsystem, could not provide the information on exactly how much is paid out to individual guardians. Remarkably, the financial system of Tusla does not have details on the number of individual guardians ad liteminvolved, despite the exorbitant fees being paid out under the scheme.

The high fees for legal representation are a gross waste of public money at a time when there is a shortage of social workers. One of the most serious issues arising is the fact that this area remains unregulated. We do not know who can be appointed or what criteria or qualifications they need to meet to be appointed. Moreover, there are serious variations from region to region in appointments. It is shocking that the Minister does not even know how many guardians ad litemare receiving these payments, a clear indication that there are serious management issues in his Department and Tusla with regard to the guardian ad litemsystem. The system is chaotic and mismanaged at the moment. It is not child-centred or child-focused. It is a cash cow that is being manipulated and abused for the benefit of a few.

The Child Care (Guardian Ad Litem) Bill 2015 will establish and provide for the ongoing regulation of an independent appointment system of guardians ad litemin the context child care proceedings. The Bill mandates Tusla to undertake the supervision, training, monitoring and accountability of all individuals involved in the appointment and the training of guardiansad litem. The Bill obliges the Minister to introduce regulations. Along with this Bill I will submit to the Minister a guideline set of regulations that can be introduced to establish codes of practice and professional standards for the guardian ad litemsystem.

The Bill and the regulations deal with a number of key reforms of the current system. The Bill makes a number of key amendments to section 26 of the Child Care Act 1991. It amends section 26(4) of principal Act by granting courts the discretion to retain a guardian ad litemin care proceedings in circumstances where a child becomes a party to proceedings.

In addition, the Bill provides uniform judicial guidelines that a court must consider in appointing a guardian ad litemin child care proceedings. These provisions allow a court to appoint a guardian ad litemin various contexts to ensure accountability by both judges and guardians ad litem.

The proposed regulations would introduce a variety of important systemic reforms to improve fundamentally the independence and ongoing professional competence of all guardians ad litem. The proposed regulations would establish the Guardian Ad Litem Advisory Board for the first time. This body is to be an independent authority with statutory responsibility for ensuring the minimum qualifications; educating and training guardians ad litem; providing for and maintaining the professional competence of all guardians ad litem on an ongoing basis; maintaining the responsibility for the appointment and payment of individual guardians ad litemin all cases; and the appointment of independent guardians ad litem. Furthermore the board, through the independent fitness to practise committee, would have an important role in ensuring accountability of guardiansad litemby determining complaints made against any of them, whether in respect of bias, prejudice, discourtesy or otherwise, by any interested stakeholder.

I urge the Government and all parties seated here today to support this important Bill. The guardian ad litemsystem is in urgent need of reform and this Bill would achieve that reform. Scarce money should not be wasted on a chaotic system that is being exploited by a few, and the reforms introduced by this Bill will enable resources to be targeted where they should be, namely, into child and family services.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:“(10) A provider who is served with a non-compliance notice shall be liable to inspection by child protection staff of the Agency.

(11) A provider who has been served with a non-compliance notice and has been on the register of non-compliance for 30 days consecutively or more may be liable to an offence and on summary conviction may be subject to a class B fine.”.

The amendment specifies that a provider who is served with a non-compliance notice should be liable to inspection by child protection staff of the agency. There seems to be an error. The amendment I submitted provided that the provider be liable to inspection by HIQA. The Bill also specifies that a provider who has been served with a non-compliance notice and has been on the register of non-compliance for 30 days consecutively or more may be liable to an offence and, on summary conviction, may be subject to a class B fine. We debated the measures at considerable length considerably on Committee Stage.

I welcome the main provisions of the Bill and, as I indicated on Second Stage and Committee Stage, my party will support it. It is long overdue and has been promised since the new Government came to office. While I should not call the Government “new” given that it is four and a half years into its term, it has taken four and a half years to bring the legislation to this point. It will put the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis, which will ensure anybody who has child welfare or protection concerns or who suspects abuse or neglect, will be legally required to report the concerns. Wherever children congregate, there will be a requirement that a child safeguarding statement be in place and on display. In the absence of sanctions and consequences for the failure to display a child safeguarding statement, it will not be robust enough.

I looked back at a press release I released in 2014, when the heads of the Bill were published. The Government had previously published heads of the Bill in April or May 2012. At that stage, it was envisaged that there would be robust sanctions for failure to comply with Children First legislation, up to five years in prison. The Minister’s Department, led by his predecessor, was ensuring such sanctions. We need to put sanctions in place. Without them, we will not achieve sufficient compliance with the legislation. I suggested providers be liable to inspection by HIQA because HIQA’s independence is unquestioned and it has carried out much good work during recent years in inspecting nursing homes and other institutions. Nobody questions HIQA’s reports, due to its independence. HIQA would also be well placed to exercise discretion.

When we discussed it on Committee Stage, one of the Minister’s main concerns was the cost implications associated with my tow amendments. I do not know if we can, in all conscience, take cost into account regarding child welfare and protection. We must ensure we do not compromise the welfare or protection of children in any way. HIQA will be able to exercise discretion and target areas of greatest vulnerability, issue proportionate sanctions and examine the risks involved in non-compliant institutions. In the business world there are serious sanctions for failure to have a safety statement in place, for example on a construction site or in a factory. If it is appropriate to sanction a business for failure to publish a safety statement, it is appropriate to sanction various institutions which deal with the most vulnerable people in society, children. We should implement sanctions and make non-compliant providers subject to inspection by HIQA. I made the point on Committee Stage, and the Minister asked me to have it costed. I said the Minister would be better placed to do so, given that he had a full Department at his disposal. I would welcome his feedback on it.

James Reilly:

Section 12 allows the agency to establish and maintain a publicly available register of non-compliance. It also sets out the criteria by which a non-compliance notice may be removed from the register, namely, on receipt by the agency of a child safety statement or the agency being satisfied that the statement is no longer required. Amendment No. 1 proposes a new subsection (10) to provide that a provider who is served with a non-compliance notice is liable to be inspected by child protection staff of the agency. The new subsection (11), which is also proposed to be inserted by the amendment, provides for a criminal sanction for a provider of service which continues to be on the non-compliance register for longer than 30 days. I will address both these together.

I have been advised that in order to provide for a criminal sanction in a legally sound manner, the Bill would have to provide for very significant operational complexity, including the operation of an inspection regime. After detailed consideration of what an inspection regime would involve, it was decided not to include a criminal sanction. It is my Department’s view that introducing an inspection regime would divert significant Child and Family Agency resources away from front line, core child protection work and, therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 1. I understand and share the Deputy’s concern that there should be full compliance with the requirement, that providers of relevant services prepare and publish a child safeguarding statement. I expect parents will be a significant ally in this respect and I hope it will become the norm that parents demand that services attended by their children, in both public and private sectors, will, where required by the legislation, have a fully up-to-date child safeguarding statement.

The matter will be kept under review and I will be prepared to revisit the issue if it transpires, following commencement of the legislation, that providers of relevant services fail to fulfil their statutory requirements. Until then, I cannot justify the significant diversion of resources from front line child protection work which would be required for the implementation of the Deputy’s amendment.

Robert Troy:

The Minister’s position has not deviated at all since Committee Stage. It is somewhat regrettable.

I accept the Minister’s point about how, at times of scarce resources, we must ensure the provision of adequate front-line services. In this case, however, it involves front-line services where children are being looked after and there is non-compliance.

I accept that the amendment provides for the child protection staff of the agency when it should be the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA. Has the Minister examined the possibility of extending HIQA’s remit to include this area? The authority has already proved it can exercise discretion, target areas of greatest vulnerability and issue proportionate sanctions at the same time without compromising scarce resources for front-line services. We must ensure the best allocation of the Department’s resources. I know the challenges it faces in providing an adequate number of social workers and affordable child care services, as well as many other constraints. However, the best way to ensure compliance is to clearly state there are consequences and sanctions for non-compliance. Until a child care service faces sanction for not having a child safeguarding statement publicised or up to date, this will not work. I am concerned that we are putting an additional onus on parents to ensure they monitor various institutions. If a safety statement was not produced on a building site or in a factory, management would be liable to face sanctions.

James Reilly:

No one is asking parents to monitor organisations. We are merely asking that they satisfy themselves that there is a child safety statement. If it is not in place, they should reconsider whether they should let their child attend that service or organisation. It is important to point out that there are over 25,000 organisations involved. The burden of the Deputy’s proposal would soak up a significant amount of available resources, not just of money but also personnel, even for an organisation such as HIQA. We are not asking parents to monitor the situation but to satisfy themselves that, as one mark of a facility’s or service’s quality, there is a child safety statement. If there is not one in place, it should lead them to ask further questions about the appropriateness of that organisation, facility or service for their child. If reported to the agency, it will take action regarding the register of non-compliance. I have also given an undertaking to keep the matter under review. If I find it is not operating in a safe and satisfactory fashion, we will revisit the issue. In the first instance, however, the approach we have taken is proportionate and reasonable.

Robert Troy:

I accept the Minister’s bona fides in this regard. He has undertaken to review the provision in the future if it is not working satisfactorily. However, that goes for all legislation. The reason we are putting the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis is we believe they are not working adequately and want to ensure there is a legal requirement to ensure their implementation.By virtue of this, we are acknowledging the current system is not fit for purpose and want to improve the status quo.

Parents can satisfy themselves on the standards applied in, say, a crèche. However, what happens if its safeguarding statement is out of date? What happens if it is published one month but not subsequently? If a crèche is reported as a consequence, the Minister considers it is appropriate enough to name and shame rather than have meaningful sanctions.

The proposal to introduce tough and robust sanctions came from the Department under the then Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, in 2011 when the legislation was first proposed. The proposed sanctions included up to five years’ imprisonment. Why has there been such a change in the intervening period?

The Minister has claimed this provision will be under review. There will be an election in eight months. Without wishing either of us ill luck, who knows if we will be back in this House? With all due respect, a personal undertaking is not worth the paper on which it is written. If this does not work, how we can ensure child care facilities will become subject to investigation by HIQA and face sanction?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Robert Troy:

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 14, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(13) A mandated person may be held guilty of an offence if he or she is required to report concerns or allegations of abuse to the Agency under subsections (1) and (2) and fails to do so subject to subsections (3) and (4). A mandated person guilty of an offence will be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.

Unfortunately, we have a litany of legacy issues where people in positions of authority ignored the physical abuse of minors in their care and moved predators from one jurisdiction to another. Some of them held kangaroo courts to try to administer justice.

This provision should apply to everybody, whether he or she is in a position of authority or an ordinary citizen on the street. Knowing what we now know about what happened in the Church, swimming clubs, schools, youth clubs and various organisations across the State, we have a responsibility to those who have been abused to ensure we will take all necessary precautions in order that no minor will have to suffer at the hands of an evil predator or suffer neglect or abuse. Someone should never be able to say he or she had concerns, but that Paddy or Johnny was an upstanding member of the community and that that alleviated him or her of responsibility. There must be a requirement that if someone has concerns, they be reported to the appropriate authorities to ensure they will be checked to see whether they are justified. Learning from past experience and past mistakes, it is not something that should or can be left to chance. There should be tough sanctions and consequences for those who knowingly and willfully flaunt regulations and ignore their moral duty to ensure a child is protected. Anyone who knowingly and willfully ignores the welfare and protection of a child is just as bad as the person who abuses or neglects a child. Such a person should also face consequences and sanctions.

I genuinely appeal to the Minister to reconsider accepting the amendment because it is in the best interests of all children that it be accepted. It would improve the Bill which I acknowledge is good, but there are small areas where we can improve it. We are working together on a cross-party basis in the interests of promoting child welfare and protection and this is an area in which improvements could be made to the Bill. I, therefore, ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

James Reilly:

Section 14 provides that certain professionals and other persons in specified occupations, as listed in Schedule 2, are mandated persons for the purposes of the Bill. The section sets out the circumstances where a mandated person is required to make a report to the Child and Family Agency.

Amendment No. 2 proposes to impose a criminal sanction on a mandated person who fails to report concerns or allegations of abuse to the Child and Family Agency. Taking legal advice into account and the need for a reasonable and proportionate approach, it was decided that it was unnecessary to impose a criminal sanction on a mandated person in the overall context of meeting the policy objectives of the proposed legislation. There were very serious concerns that unfounded and misplaced fears of attracting a criminal sanction would result in over-reporting and thereby place the child welfare and protection system under even more pressure. Some low level or inappropriate reporting could have the unintended consequence of delaying the prioritisation of higher risk reports if the ability to process reports was compromised. International comparisons indicate that this, in fact, has been the case in other jurisdictions. For example, in New South Wales the introduction of mandatory reporting precipitated a large increase in reporting rates but with little or no improvement in child protection overall.

There are a number of administrative sanctions or consequences available if it transpires that a mandated person has failed to comply with his or her statutory obligations. The option to report a mandated person to his or her employer or the fitness to practise committee of his or her professional regulatory body remains open to the Child and Family Agency in a case where it transpires that a mandated person has failed to make a report. The Bill includes a link to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. The Child and Family Agency will be a scheduled organisation under that Act and in cases where a mandated person has failed to make a report, the agency, following an inquiry, will pass this information to the National Vetting Bureau.

The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 makes provision for the reporting of relevant information to the Garda. This legislation will operate in tandem with this Bill, when enacted. A person who fails to report to the Garda under the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 could be subject to criminal sanction. I envisage opportunities for administrative arrangements to support the implementation of the legislative requirements; for example, mandated reporting should be incorporated into codes of conduct and contracts of employment for relevant persons. As things stands, many providers of children’s services consider a failure to report to be a disciplinary matter.

For these reasons, I am not accepting amendment No. 2. However, as stated previously, I will be keeping the operation of the Act under review and if it transpires that mandated persons are failing to comply with their legal obligations to report, I will be prepared to revisit the issue.

Robert Troy:

I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I thought he would accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was submitted, that is, to improve the Bill. He talks about the members of many professions being subject to disciplinary action, but that is not something one can say for definite with authority across all professions. He also talks about the withholding of information, but he will be aware that that legislaton only deals with very serious criminal offences. He talks about the National Vetting Bureau. Despite the fact that that legislation was enacted over 18 months ago, it has yet to be commenced. Therefore, I am not confident that these two pieces of legislation will deal with all of the issues with which we want to deal.

The amendment seeks to ensure that in all matters to do with child welfare and protection, if there is serious concern that a child is being abused or neglected, a person would make the necessary report to the Child and Family Agency. Perhaps it might place additional requirements on the services of the Child and Family Agency, but I would much rather see additional requirements being placed on the agency than a scenario, as happened in counties Laois and Offaly, where files would be left to one side. In that instance reports were made but not acted on for a number of years. That is why the Minister had to provide additional support from outside the area. When it comes to child welfare and protection, we cannot be complacent. We must bring forward extremely robust legislation. It was the Minister’s Department which proposed to bring forward these sanctions in 2012. I am only following through on what it wished to do three years ago.

James Reilly:

I have already given the Deputy an international example where what he proposes in this amendment hugely increased the workload of the agency concerned without any benefit to children. If an extra burden can be placed on an agency which is to the benefit of children it is something we would not shy away from doing. However, it has been proven internationally, in the case of New South Wales in Australia, that it does not yield any benefit but merely makes more work because people, paranoid about criminal sanctions, report anything and everything lest they be exposed. The Deputy acknowledged that in Laois-Offaly the issue related to a different problem altogether. There was not a problem with the reporting but a failure to deal with the reports in a way that had been agreed via protocols. The issue has been handled by the agency in a very urgent fashion and the chief operations officer, Mr. Fred McBride, has taken personal responsibility and control of the situation and has done similarly in Louth-Meath.

We are listening to people. The Deputy points out again and again that my predecessor and the Department spoke about an approach not unlike the one he is proposing but they have taken the time to consult and have learned that this may not be the best way forward and could even be counterproductive. We have left ourselves a safety valve in that, if we find our approach is not working, we will review and revisit the situation. We will keep it under review as I believe child safety is everybody’s responsibility and I know all Deputies have child safety and protection to the forefront of their minds. They want to see that our children are safe and can enjoy their childhood, that they are well connected, protected and involved in contributing into the future.

Robert Troy:

The Minister cites the example of New South Wales but there are many other jurisdictions, such as in Canada and in the United States of America, where sanctions are in place and where, having brought legislation in without sanctions, they later added sanctions. I referred to these places during the Second Stage debate last year, though it was the Minister’s predecessor who was in the House at that time. There is always an international experience that can justify the case one wishes to put but, as the Minister confirmed on Committee Stage, the big issue is resources. Tusla, the new, stand-alone agency which was set up specifically to deal with prevention, early intervention and the welfare of children is not adequately resourced and has not been adequately resourced since its establishment. There are not sufficient front-line staff in social work and that is the real reason we are not bringing forward sanctions for people who fail to report. The agency is not fit for purpose in terms of being adequately resourced.

There are areas internationally where there are sanctions for non-reporting and, given the number of inquiries and reports there have been down the decades, we have a responsibility to ensure this never happens again. One of the ways to make sure it never happens again is to hold people accountable who knowingly and wilfully turn a blind eye to cases of abuse and neglect. This legislation gives us an opportunity to make those people face the rigours of the law with sanctions for failing to carry out their moral obligation. It was always their moral obligation to report these things.

Standing Orders allow that the final contribution of the proposer of an amendment can speak without time limit and the Minister should not be worried about the time limit. He should be more worried about ensuring we get this right. We have been waiting for this legislation for four and a half years and it was promised when the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs was established. We are now in the last week of a Dáil term before an election and it is being rushed through with a guillotine. I do not mind the guillotine because there are only four amendments but we should thrash out those four amendments. I accept that we have a difference of opinion but this amendment should be examined.

The things to which I refer are not in the distant past and are not just legacy issues but are happening now. People in positions of authority fail to live up to their moral obligation and when they do that there should be a legal obligation. If they fail to live up to their legal obligation there should be consequences for those people. I am pressing this amendment as it is worthy of consideration. I am disappointed the Minister has not taken it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Michael Kitt:

I understand that Deputy Ó Caoláin is pressing the amendment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

We are pressing the amendment.

When my party leader questioned the Taoiseach on this issue last week, the latter seemed to be under the impression that the changes could only come about on 1 July. He apparently did not realise that this was the deadline by which the banks had to report back. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has the reputation of being a very competent, capable and able Minister. However, he did his reputation no good last night when he made his statement in Brussels that progress has been made on this issue. Progress has not been made and he is fooling himself if he believes it has. He talked about a reduction in fixed interest rates. Does he not realise that switching to a fixed rate is not something every mortgage holder can do because it ties them in for a two-year period? He referred to people switching their mortgages from one financial institution to another. Again, this is not something all homeowners can do, perhaps because they are in negative equity or do not have the resources to pay the solicitor’s fees to effect the transfer.

It is interesting to hear Government Members talk about being reluctant to intervene with the Central Bank in a context in which that body has not sought any new legislation or powers. Yet the same Members constantly criticise the previous Administration for not intervening with the Central Bank at particular times in the past. Some Government speakers suggested that in the event that the Central Bank does look for new powers, this legislation might be good enough after all. All of this raises the question of who exactly is running the country and making the decisions. The Minister and his colleagues are in the privileged position of being able to enact legislation that can make this country a better place for citizens. What is interesting to note at the same time is the following statement by the former Minister of State at the Department of Finance and now MEP, Mr. Brian Hayes, last February: “We can now say with certainty that Irish homebuyers are being ripped off by banks, particularly when you consider the eurozone average variable mortgage rate which is 2.47 per cent.”
Compare the treatment that Irish taxpayers who are struggling day in and day out to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table and send their children to school have met with at the hands of the banks, with no intervention by the Minister, with the treatment that certain well-heeled and well-connected people are getting from the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. The contrast is quite alarming. That so many Government Members chose to contribute to this debate is a clear sign this is a real issue for their constituents. We have been told that if nothing happens by budget day, the Minister will intervene. People are being left to drown in the same swamp they have been drowning in for several years until budget day when, apparently, they might be thrown some type of lifebuoy.

The Minister would not listen to us when we urged him to remove the bank veto on personal insolvency arrangements. He ignored our warning regarding the devastating consequences of withdrawing mortgage income supplement. He has since had to row back on some of those issues. I implore the Minister tonight, on behalf of the people I represent in Longford and Westmeath, to wake up and smell the coffee. He needs to introduce legislation. The banks cannot be left to their own devices, as they have proved in the past and continue to prove in the present. The time for discussion, debate, deliberation and serious conversation is over. The time for action is now, and the Minister is the man who is in a position to ensure it is taken. I implore him to do so.

She is also snatching money from the pockets of single parents. By doing so, she is taking food off the tables of young children. Her decision, and the collective decision of this Government, is ensuring that more young children will go to bed hungry and cold.

I agree with the Minister that the best way to achieve economic security is full employment. However, what happens in the absence of full employment? None of many different sectors – the disabled, invalids, the elderly and parents living alone – has been left untouched by this Government in the past number of years. There is what is called a social conscience. We have an obligation and a duty to ensure tho more vulnerable in our society have protection. It is no surprise that this year the Children’s Rights Alliance afforded this Government an F grade in terms of child poverty. The child poverty statistics are abysmal. From 2008 to 2014, the numbers have increased twofold. That is a direct consequence of policy decisions taken by this Government.

The Minister spoke about these proposals as being job activation measures and as freeing up parents to work longer hours. She said two thirds of people could be better off if they secured longer hours. She is making a lot of assumptions, including the assumption that people can go next week to their employers and say they want an increase in their working hours. That is simply not possible or practical. Given what is happening in the likes of Dunnes Stores, the Government should realise it is not possible or practical. She also said these changes would not go ahead unless a Scandinavian model of child care was introduced. Not only did she tell an untruth in the House and mislead it, she and the Government Ministers collectively are failing abysmally to provide quality affordable child care to all. She spoke about the €260 million available at the moment. She did not mention the number of schemes which are closed to new entrants. A number of the schemes to which she alluded are only available to one third of the service providers in our country. There are a number of schemes where the capitation rate for the free preschool year has been cut. Nothing is being done and nothing has been done.

The Government refers to and makes comparisons with other jurisdictions saying there is a lower age bracket. It does not compare the supports available in terms of quality affordable child care. Working tax credits are being introduced in other states, for instance, across the Border. The Minister, Deputy Burton, continuously refers to how there is a younger age bracket up the North, but working tax credits have been introduced there to support and help people who are faced with a choice of either working 15 hours and not needing child care or giving up and getting child care. The cost of child care according to a recent report for lone parents is 54% of their net income.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and welcome the fact the Minister is staying for the duration. Our Defence Forces have a proud tradition, both nationally and internationally. For example, consider the work Defence Forces members from Custume Barracks in Athlone did when the Shannon flooded or of the work done internationally by serving personnel from Custume Barracks who are involved in peacekeeping in Lebanon. They have a proud tradition and it is important to acknowledge this in this debate. It is regrettable, however, that there has been such a significant reorganisation of our Defence Forces in the past years in advance of the publication of the White Paper. I speak particularly of the disestablishment of the Fourth Western Brigade.

Mention has been made here tonight of the international terrorist threat. I take this opportunity to pass on my deepest sympathies to the families who have been affected, in particular the families of Larry and Martina Hayes from Athlone and I offer my deepest sympathy to their daughter Sinead.

Our Defence Forces enhance our international reputation and reaffirm our commitment to the UN. They are of critical importance both to the State and to society.

I welcome the fact that in his contribution the Minister sought cross-party support. He said he would listen to Members of all parties, including Opposition parties, on the White Paper. I hope they are not just idle words and that he is genuinely here to listen, and that when valuable concrete proposals are put forward he will take them on board before the ultimate publication of the White Paper.

All is not perfect or well. There are issues within the Defence Forces. There is no point in saying there are not. Morale is low. Pay and conditions have been savaged in recent years. The closure of barracks has meant personnel have been required to move from one location to another. Constituents have informed me that many people, especially at lower grades in the Defence Forces, are relying on family income supplement. At the 2012 PDFORRA conference which took place in the wake of the announcement of the reorganisation of the Defence Forces we heard claims that they are not fit for purpose. We were told morale is suffering and certain elements of Government and the Civil Service are constantly trying to bring about the total destruction of the Defence Forces by stealth. That is very worrying to hear such things. I hope the Minister is addressing those concerns. By virtue of the fact that he is bringing forward a White Paper he is clearly intending to outline a strategy for the future and I hope he is taking those points on board.

What is more worrying is that we learned only this week from the front page of a national newspaper that 100 officers have resigned in the past two years. That is a serious brain drain from the Defence Forces. The Minister knows better than most that it takes four to six years to train specialist officers. We must ask why they are leaving what would be regarded as a permanent, pensionable job and moving into the private sector. They are doing so because the Government and the Department of Defence have failed to honour commitments made in relation to career progression.

Various Army barracks have closed, including Columb Barracks in Mullingar. Many Garda stations have also closed in recent years. We have taken the eyes and ears of the State off the ground. Since 2012 the Defence Forces have only two permanently occupied barracks along the complete Border with Northern Ireland, namely, Finner Camp in south Donegal and the other in Donegal town, two widely dispersed locations, which leave entire swathes of the Border without the required presence for both State security and economic oversight. With the disestablishment of the Army’s 4th Western Brigade in November 2012 the control and monitoring of the complete Border with Northern Ireland is overseen from Cathal Brugha Barracks in Rathmines in Dublin. From a State security and economic well-being perspective, that is both reckless and unsustainable.

During the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in cattle in 2001, which was discovered in the UK and Northern Ireland, the Department of Defence and Army personnel played a pivotal role in Border control.

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

They will do it again if they have to.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

Army personnel will have to travel from a more distant location to the Border and the situation will prove challenging. In addition to the incidence of foot and mouth, there are other challenges in which the Army should and could play a more meaningful role. I refer to cigarette smuggling, the smuggling of illegal fuel and fuel laundering. Recently, there have been allegations concerning illegal abattoirs in operation in this country, possibly on both sides of the Border. Only last week 100 cattle were stolen from a farm in Kilbeggan in my constituency. It was not a case of “Beam me up, Scotty” and they disappeared overnight. They are stolen to order. I believe they have been sent to an illegal abattoir. We must be very careful of our good reputation in terms of food quality.

The Government must re-examine its decision to disestablish the 4th Western Brigade. Unlike my constituency colleague who spoke earlier, I do have concerns about the long-term future viability of Custume Barracks in Athlone. I am not scare-mongering. I have no short-term concerns about the barracks’ viability, but the long-term viability would be best served by the re-establishment of the 4th Western Brigade. In February of this year I asked the Minister about the permitted strength and number of units attached to the barracks. We know there has been a reduction from 12 units to eight units and the permitted strength has been reduced from more than 1,400 personnel to less than 1,000 personnel. That has happened by way of statutory instrument and as a result of the downgrading of the 4th Western Brigade.

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The reduction in numbers happened under the previous Government.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I am talking about the permitted strength of what we can aspire to achieve in the future.

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Deputy should not mislead the House.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

The investment in Custume Barracks in Athlone happened in 2009 before the disestablishment of the 4th Western Brigade.

I am conscious that my time is coming to an end and I wish to refer to the Reserve Defence Force, which plays a pivotal role but is undervalued. We must recognise the commitments of members to volunteerism and the work they are doing within their community. That must be acknowledged.

Last Thursday I had an opportunity to table a question on the future use of Columb Barracks in Mullingar. In his opening speech the Minister referred to the scope of his Department to contribute to Ireland’s economic recovery through further engagement in Irish enterprise, research and the education sector. Could the Minister ensure the Department finds a long-term viable future for the barracks that was closed in 2012? A total of €30,000 in taxpayers’ money is being wasted in hiring a private location for the Reserve Defence Force when numerous buildings are lying idle in Columb Barracks. The Department of Education and Skills recently purchased a new headquarters for the Education and Training Board although significant space is available in the barracks. A new community college is badly needed in Mullingar. Perhaps the Minister would engage with the Department of Education and Skills on the matter. In some cases the Civil Defence works out of rat-infested portakabins. That is something that should be examined.

I acknowledge the Minister’s attendance at the launch of the fuchsia campaign 2015. Many retired ex-Army personnel are living in deplorable conditions. Perhaps the Minister would consider rehousing some of them in barracks which would provide a future use for them.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Troy should conclude.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

There are many possible future uses for barracks that have been closed and I implore the Minister to engage with the community on how Columb Barracks could be best utilised in the future and make amends for the disgraceful decision to close it in the first instance.

As he will know, on Monday, the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, published its annual report on the regulatory activity of children’s services for 2014. That report covers statutory children’s residential centres, statutory foster care services, child protection and welfare services, designated centres for children with disabilities and the country’s detention schools. While I must acknowledge that the report highlights findings of excellent child-centred practice, the HIQA inspection raises significant ongoing concerns about the performance and operation of Tusla. The HIQA review highlights that: “Significant variation in the performance of the Child and Family Agency services have been found in the Health Information and Quality Authority analysis of its regulation and oversight of children’s services during 2014.” As the Minister and I know, Tusla has a statutory responsibility to promote the welfare of children and protect those deemed to be at risk of harm. We have a duty of obligation to ensure that happens. We have seen coverage on the news of the historical abuse inquiry taking place in the North into the activities of the most notorious sexual predator that probably ever walked the face of this earth, or that we have had in this country, and how a blind eye was turned to his activities and how people in positions did not do their job. We have a responsibility in this area and the Government has a responsibility to ensure that the agency that is tasked with the responsibility to protect our children gets the necessary supports and resources.

There are serious concerns about inconsistencies in the safety and quality of children’s services nationally. The management systems are not adequate in providing assurance on consistent, safe, good quality services, robust quality assurance systems, effective information systems and effective risk management processes.In some areas, children waited for significant periods of time before the level of risk to which they were exposed was assessed or until their cases were allocated to a social worker. As result of the lack of social workers, medium and lower priority cases are being put on the long finger and those children have to wait very lengthy periods to be allocated a social worker.

This report comes on the back of previous reports. A HIQA report published earlier this year into the social services in Cork showed that more than 230 children assessed as being at high risk of harm did not have an allocated social worker. HIQA states that, “children…deemed to have a high level of need…[were placed at risk by the failure to allocate social workers to them or to give them] timely access to child protection and welfare interventions”. We also know what happened in Laois and Offaly but I acknowledge that when it came to our attention and the Minister’s attention quick action was taken.

This is a new agency. There should be no issue with its governance or management structure. The main issue in question is that it is not adequately resourced.

The Government and the Minister cannot shirk their responsibility for the stark shortcomings in the child protection and welfare services across the country. Internal documents show the agency’s board was told that a budget of less than €650 million in 2015 would lead to serious reductions in several areas. There is a clear shortfall there. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to how he will deal with this to ensure that no child, regardless or their geographical location, will be left vulnerable to sexual predators, neglect and abuse in future.

In November 2011, the Minister’s predecessor announced the closure of Columb Barracks in Mullingar. What tangible action has been taken by the Government to ensure full utilisation of a fine facility in the town of Mullingar?

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

It is a fine facility and we are looking at ways for utilisation.

Following the closure of Columb Barracks, my Department invited Departments and other public bodies to express any interest in the property, with a view to its disposal by the Department. No such interest was expressed at that time. As the Deputy is aware, my Department was approached by the Westmeath GAA county board for the use of the barracks as a training centre. The barracks in Mullingar is currently used by the county board under a short-term lease, an extension of which is currently under negotiation. The former barracks is also used by An Garda Síochána and the Customs and Excise service for training purposes and it is intended that these arrangements will remain in place. A number of other local groups, including the Irish United Nations Veterans Association, IUNVA, and the midland youth services have also been allocated units in the barracks. Leases with these and other local community groups are being progressed by the property management branch in my Department.

We are trying to find practical use for the barracks. We are trying to support community groups and arms of the State. We are also trying to support the GAA in order that the facilities in the barracks can be put to good use from a community perspective, but also from a functional perspective in terms of maintenance of the barracks.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister for his update. Were it not for the proactive approach of Westmeath GAA county board, no use would be made of Columb Barracks. I know this because I initiated the contact with the Department of Defence almost three years ago in regard to it taking out a lease. Despite use by Westmeath GAA county board, Customs and Excise, An Garda Síochána, the Irish United Nations Veterans Association and the midland youth services it is totally under utilised. The Minister acknowledged in his reply that it is a fine facility. It is unbelievable that the Reserve Defence Force in Mullingar pays €30,000 per annum to hire a premises while a huge facility in Columb Barracks lies idle. It is unbelievable that Westmeath Civil Defence is in substandard accommodation while a huge facility lies idle. I was delighted to hear in a previous response, the Minister’s strong commitment to the Reserve Defence Force, pending publication of the White Paper. Given the central location of Columb Barracks in Mullingar and the quality and capacity of the accommodation and the current training arrangements in place for the Reserve Defence Force, would he consider making Columb Barracks the headquarters of the Reserve Defence Forces where adequate training could be completed?

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The ultimate aim is the disposal of the property as it is no longer part of the Defence Forces infrastructure. I have an open mind on using all the properties we still own as the Department of Defence to ensure they are being used in the most efficient and effective way across all the areas for which I have responsibility, whether it is the Reserve Defence Force supporting Civil Defence, etc. Obviously, the permanent Defence Force has moved out of that barracks. We also have a broader responsibility to other community groups. That is the reason we have worked well with the GAA in that regard. We have an open mind. I also have a responsibility to ensure that the cost management around former Defence Forces infrastructure is also managed appropriately so that if we take on new tenants, they will look after the property properly. There is a whole series of issues that we need to take on board with barracks that have closed.

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

If the Deputy or the Reserve Defence Force have suggestions, please come back to me and we will look at them.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to look at suggestions. What I understand from the Minister today is that his long-term strategic plan is disposal of the barracks. That is the only plan the Department of Defence appears to have. That is regrettable because Westmeath GAA has been an anchor tenant. It has ensured that any community group which wishes to use the facility has been accommodated. The Minister has said his priority is to ensure there is value for money. How can he, as Minister for Defence, stand over a situation where buildings in Columb Barracks in Mullingar are lying idle while the Reserve Defence Forces pays €30,000 a couple of hundred metres down the road? Certainly that is not value for money. If the Reserve Defence Force was allowed carry out its training and work in Columb Barracks in Mullingar, the €30,000 being paid to a private landlord could be better spent in the upkeep and maintenance of what is a fine facility in the town. I will come back to the Minister with concrete proposals.

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Deputy is missing a point. The barracks is a very big facility. Significant maintenance costs come with ownership and management of a facility such as that. In the barracks for which there is no longer a military function, we are looking at disposal in the medium to long term but we are also trying to ensure it is the right disposal for communities who have strong linkages with the various barracks that have been closed.

We have done that in respect of the other barracks very successfully with local authorities, An Garda Síochána, other community groups and so on. There is an ongoing discussion with Kildare County Council. It is not the role of the Department of Defence to be a landlord indefinitely to facilitate multiple groups. We will do that in the interim and if we can put long-term arrangements that make sense in place, we will do that as well. However, I have to consider this in the round.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill. We finally get to speak on it after all the delayed starts over the past two days. The original principle underpinning the Children Act 2001 was that detention should always be a last resort for children. As society has evolved over recent years and the past decade, practices that were once acceptable are no longer acceptable. I welcome the Minister’s finishing up with the remark that this is about ensuring there is a child care model in detention centres for children under 18.

I welcome the fact the main purpose of this proposed legislation is to enable the amalgamation of the three children detention schools – Trinity House, Oberstown Boys School and Oberstown Girls School – into one central campus, namely, Oberstown, and to provide for the necessary legal changes required to end the detention of children in adult detention facilities. That is very important, worthwhile and right. I acknowledge the work this Government has done in bringing this to where we are today. Responsibility for 16 year old boys was transferred from the Irish Prison Service to the children detention facilities in Oberstown in May 2012. Boys aged 17 and remanded in custody to St. Patrick’s Institution remained the responsibility of the Irish Prison Service pending the completion of the building project at the children’s detention facilities at Oberstown and the preparation of the necessary legal instruments to transfer responsibility for this category of offender to Oberstown. The Oberstown campus commenced taking 17 year old males, newly remanded in custody, since Monday, 30 March 2015, which is another positive development.

We welcome the further work that needs to be carried out for young offenders, including facilitating Red Cross training in Wheatfield Place of Detention, focusing on rehabilitative resettlement of young offenders under supervision and delivering victim empathy group programmes in both Wheatfield and the children detention schools. Much of this would not have been possible were it not for the success of the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Fitzgerald, in securing the necessary capital funding to build this new purpose-built facility back in 2012, which I acknowledge.

Before I get into the contents of the Bill, in his own address yesterday, the Minister made remarks in respect of a number of positive steps that have taken place to meet the programme for Government commitments. One of them was: “A first recruitment process for care staff to work in Oberstown was completed in 2014, and further recruitment steps are ongoing”. Will the Minister, in his wrap up, elaborate further on this remark in terms of the number of staff that have been through the process and the timeframe for their recruitment? This is something which I find quite frustrating. It is not just now and it is not just this Government’s fault, but the length of time it takes people to be hired in the public service is quite frustrating. Will the Minister confirm that we will always have the necessary staff in place to man these facilities?

The issue of remission is important in the context of a recent judgment. The Prisons Act 2007 provides for the remission of 20%, and up to one third, of a prisoner’s sentence for good behaviour. This also applies to detention facilities in juvenile criminal justice systems, such as St. Patrick’s Institution. No explicit provision was ever made in law for such remission at the children’s detention school at Oberstown in County Dublin. In the case, the applicant maintained that the lack of remission at Oberstown amounted to a form of discrimination contrary to Article 40.1 of the Constitution, which states: “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.” The case centred on whether young offenders detained at Oberstown were entitled to remission in the same fashion as other prisoners and young offenders who are detained at St. Patrick’s Institution. The judgment stated that the failure to afford young offenders in Oberstown detention school with the benefit of statutory remission rules amounted to a plain breach of the constitutional command of equality before the law.

The Minister has taken that on board in this legislation. That will ensure equality of treatment between children in children’s detention schools and adults in prisons. The Bill makes provision for remission in children’s detention schools, incorporating a new disciplinary process and an appeals process where the sanction imposed is forfeiture of remission.

Regarding the provision relating to the period of detention imposed by the court, the Bill provides that a child who is convicted of an offence cannot receive a period of detention that would be greater than the period of imprisonment an adult could receive for the same offence. The Irish Penal Reform Trust commented that while it is noted that the purpose of the section is to give consideration to the principle of equality of treatment between children in detention schools and adults in the prison system, and given the importance of the principle that detention should be a last resort for children, the trust recommends that the provision be amended to reflect more closely the spirit and wording of section 96 of the Children Act 2001, which provides that where a child is convicted of an offence and a period of detention is imposed on the child by a court the period of detention shall not exceed the term of detention or imprisonment that the court could have imposed on a person of full age and capacity who is convicted of such an offence, and may be less. It also recommends that the court should have regard to the age, level of maturity, the best interests of the child and the principle of imprisonment as a last resort in determining the nature of any penalty involved.

Our focus should always be on the use of detention as the last resort. We should channel our resources and efforts into trying to keep children and teenagers away from a life of criminality and anti-social behaviour. When children and young adults get involved in the justice system it is sometimes very hard to disentangle them from it. When young offenders become involved in the justice system they are often on an irreversible spiral that sometimes ends in Mountjoy Prison. There is a need for greater inter-agency co-operation. I again plead with the Minister to prioritise the final implementation of the Children First legislation and make inter-agency co-operation mandatory.

We should not talk about sending children to detention facilities and holding children on remand without also focusing on the lack of supports that are currently available in terms of social workers. Many of our social workers are seriously overloaded with work. Often the children who end up in detention facilities come from marginalised parts of society and vulnerable backgrounds. They are children who do not get the supports they require to have a full and productive engagement in society. We have seen the reports from Tusla, the new agency charged with responsibility for supporting children in vulnerable situations, and heard its new chief executive officer speak about under-resourcing. Every child does not have a social worker or dedicated care plan. Without the required social workers and dedicated care plan, the child can embark on risky behaviour and often on a life of crime.

This legislation is extremely welcome with regard to amalgamating the services that are currently in place. I acknowledge the work the Government has done to bring Oberstown to the current standard. What was good enough one or two decades ago is no longer suitable. I also acknowledge its commitment to the provision of care for under 18 year olds in the detention facilities. However, the issue is to get things right before that and to keep children away from a life of crime. Children in the detention school system will often have experienced the care system, with many under HSE care at the time of their committal and some coming directly into the detention system from secure care. This is one of the most vulnerable groups of children in Ireland and many of the traumatic factors which led to the children being taken into care in the first place are also at the root of their offending behaviour. The children detention school system invests its resources in addressing the challenges and what can be extremely challenging behaviour of these young people.

We have a duty to support young people leaving detention in their efforts to desist from offending behaviour through the provision of after-care, safe housing and support and to ensure that they do not return to the chaotic conditions which gave rise to the offending behaviour in the first place. It could change their lives and lead in turn to safer communities for everybody. In accordance with international human rights standards and particularly in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, custody for children should only be used in the last resort and for the minimum required period of time. International law stipulates that all efforts should be made to apply alternatives to detention to ensure that such a measure is only used in exceptional circumstances.

We must ensure there are adequate supports in place for children who are in care and for children who are at the margins of society. Often that means they are living in families that are living in difficult areas in our communities. They are not getting the necessary supports, including social welfare supports, and educational opportunities, and their parents are not getting job opportunities. One of the best things we can do to lift people out of poverty is help parents back into the workforce. The challenge in that regard, however, particularly for women and low income families, is the high cost of child care. That is something the Minister must address. If he can support families in securing economic stability, he will help to prevent many children taking to a life of crime or engaging in anti-social behaviour.

With regard to the appeals procedure for sanction, this section provides that a child on whom a sanction was imposed may petition the Minister, within seven days of being informed of the finding and sanction, concerning the finding or sanction or both. The Minister can confirm, modify, suspend or revoke the sanction and will notify the child accordingly.

The Irish Penal Reform Trust makes the valid point that it is unclear why the petition should be to the Minister rather than a child-friendly independent tribunal – for example, the Ombudsman for Children. Perhaps the Minister could examine this as the Bill progresses through its various Stages in the Oireachtas. We will have an opportunity to table specific amendments. I hope the Minister will scrutinise them according to the spirit in which they will be tabled to try to improve the legislation. As I stated, we welcome the legislation and acknowledge the work done on it but there is still a lot more work to be done to ensure the detention is the very last resort for children.