884 entries for Government Department

Following a review of earlier recommendations in relation to administrative responsibility for child welfare services, the Task Force concluded: ‘We are satisfied that what is needed as a prerequisite to the most effective planning, development and delivery of services for deprived children is that these services should be unified under one Government Department as far as possible and that child care services should be integrated with family support services.’ The Report then recommended that the Department of Health should be that Department that would have responsibility for: The implementation of the statutory provisions contained in a Children Act concerned with the welfare and protection of children, including the making of regulations, orders or rules to be provided in that Act; The development of the child care expertise necessary for formulation of policy, based on practical experience, professional knowledge and relevant research and information; The identification of children’s needs and the provision of services, including preventative services, designed to meet these needs in consultation, as necessary and appropriate, with other Government Departments, with child care authorities and other bodies providing services at local level’ The making of organisational arrangements for the delivery at local level of the services for which it is responsible in accordance with statutory provisions and in line with defined policy guidelines; The monitoring and evaluation of the services for which it has responsibility.291

The authors of the supplementary report to the Task Force, Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly, however, although agreeing with the other members of the Task Force that the Department of Health and the health boards should be given responsibility for the provision of childcare, went on to state that ‘We are not in agreement with our colleagues views that the existing administrative structures are adequate’(emphasis in original).292 At Departmental level, they recommended that the existing childcare division be strengthened by providing the division with additional administrative and professional resources, but otherwise they saw no substantial problem with the existing structure. However, in terms of allocating responsibility to the regional health boards, they argued that ‘the allocation to them of entirely new responsibilities, does in our view present considerable problems’. They went on to claim that: In short we believe that the health boards as they are at present organised could not carry out these responsibilities. We have concluded that the health boards, if they are to become Child Care Authorities, would need to be reorganised to some extent. It is on this basis that we have supported the recommendation that they should become Child Care Authorities.

The Report was scrutinised in the Department of Education prior to publication and Mr Ó Maitiú drafted a lengthy response to the report dated 12th November 1980. He commented initially on the lack of agreement between the members and observed: Given the diverse composition of the Task Force, one could hardly expect unanimity of view on all aspects of the subject studied. Nevertheless, the extent of disagreement is somewhat surprising. There is one main report, one minority report (claimed by its authors, Mr. S. O Cinnéide and Miss N.O’Daly, of CARE, as a supplemental Report), and four sets of reservations from (a) Mr. K. O’Grady, Department of Justice, (b) Mr. Tomas O Gilín, Department of Education, (c) Mr. John Hurley, Department of Health and (d) Mr. M. Russell, Office of the Attorney General. It is obvious, therefore, that in reforming the Child Care system in this country, the Government will have to choose between a number of different solutions. Since the Department of Health will have the lead role in this reform, it is very likely to push the alternatives which best suit its own interests, and great vigilance will be needed to ensure that the interests of this Department do not suffer.

On the recommendation that child welfare services should be unified under one Department and this should be the Department of Health, he commented that: This recommendation is unanimous and is in accord with this Department’s thinking. It is in the implementation of the proposal that disagreement occurs. A majority of the Task Force recommends that, in addition to the services for which it is already responsible, the Department of Health should take over (a) school attendance services; (b) advisory and some supervisory services for the Courts; (c) Community Youth Services and (d) residential services, including existing residential homes, special schools and hostels. In his reservations, this Department’s representative opposed (c), partially opposed (d) and reserved his position on (a). He was supported on (d) by the Department of Justice representative.

One of the reasons for the departure from the view held over the previous decade that the responsibility for the Special Schools be maintained by the Department of Education was that: At the moment, the Health Boards tend to repudiate all responsibility for delinquents and from discussions with them, I gather they would not be at all averse to leaving delinquents with us. I’m not too sure that we should let them off the hook in this way. The operation of the schools for delinquents has given many headaches and there have been problems with children, with staff, with the Religious Orders and with local residents. While a fair degree of success has been achieved with the younger boys in Finglas and Clonmel, the outcome in the case of the older boys at Lusk has been very dubious. Apart from the high rate of absconding, all too often we hear of past-pupils finishing up in Loughan House or St. Patrick’s. The new secure school at Lusk will replace Loughan House and will involve the Department in running what is, in effect, a juvenile prison, without a religious Order to cushion it from day-to-day problems.

For Mr Ó Maitiú, the consequences of the Department of Education retaining the Special Schools would be to ‘saddle itself, of course, with the very worst children – particularly the very violent and difficult 14-16-year-olds who are not amendable to any discipline. They will be a place of last resort for children which the Child Care Authority cannot handle or does not want to handle.’ He argued that: The Health Boards have considerable expertise in running residential institutions. I feel that a solution on Kennedy lines would enable them to exercise this expertise in the case of special schools, while, at the same time, this Department would bring the benefit of its own expertise to the educational programme. It would be a better solution than the system in Britain where both the care and educational programme are under the Department of Health and Social Security, with not too satisfactory results. I would suggest, therefore, that the Department should now consider a compromise on Kennedy lines. If we adamant about retaining the Youth Service) as I think we should be, we might perhaps concede that the Health Boards should have School Attendance and that there should be a compromise as suggested in regard to the special schools.

In September 1981, a memo was circulated which outlined the response of the Department of Health to the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo stated: The Minister for Health accepts the general principles of the Report and is anxious that the initial steps should now be taken in regard to the implementation of these specific aspects of the Report and its supplementary recommendations that are acceptable to her. Some of the recommendations relate to areas of responsibility, which are already those of the Minister for Health. These are now being considered in association with the health boards and voluntary agencies concerned. Where the improvement of existing services is necessary this is a matter that will be considered by the Minister in the light of available financial resources if additional funding is involved. In so far as changes in the law will be necessary appropriate provision will be made in the Heads of the Children Bill, now being drafted, which will come before the Government at a later date. However, there is a number of important functions now the responsibility of either the Department of Justice or the Department of Education which in the light of the Report and the earlier Government decision of October 1973 should, in the Minister for Health’s view now be transferred to her department. The Minister is seeking approval in principle to their transfer to her Department so that necessary discussions about transfer can be instituted with the Departments concerned (including the important issue of implications for existing staff) and also to enable appropriate provisions to be made in the Heads of the Bill.

In relation to the Special Schools, while noting the objection of the Department of Education of their transfer, nonetheless, The Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the main tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education as they are at present... The Minister for Health accepts the majority view of the Task Force that special schools are appropriate for integration into the general body of child care services under her Department. These would include the new secure unit at Lusk to replace Loughan House.

In relation to adoption, the majority of the Task Force recommended that this be the subject of a separate study. But the ‘health representative recommended that adoption should form an essential part of the amalgam of child and family care services and that responsibility should be transferred to the Minister for Health’. The memo also claimed that this proposal had the support of a range of voluntary agencies and that as such ‘the Minister for Health proposes that responsibility for the Adoption Board and other aspects of the adoption machinery should be transferred to her Department from the Department of Justice. In relation to the Probation and Welfare Service, the memo noted that the members of the Task Force were divided on the role of the service in relation to young offenders. However, the memo concluded that: While appreciating that the service has developed very rapidly over the past few years and now has an administrative structure and favourable career prospects, the Minister is of the opinion that a supervisory role such as is envisaged for the health boards would be seen as a progressive measure and would be more compatible with the underlying philosophies of the Task Force Report which calls for community-based services, with a reduction in emphasis on specialised services and direct involvement with the courts for some categories of children. While it is accepted that the proposed transfer of functions will present problems in terms of maintaining existing conditions of work for existing staff, these problems are not insurmountable and will, of course, require considerable discussion between the Departments of Health and Justice and the staff interests concerned before any transfers take place.

In May 1981, a document was prepared by the Department of Health in relation to the implications of the Task Force Report on the training and deployment of child care workers. The document observed that: the majority report of the Task Force on Child Care Services makes no specific recommendations on the training of child care workers apart from saying that its recommendations will require a considerable increase in the number of professional trained child care workers. However, the recommendations concerning increased specialisation and expertise in residential care and the employment of significant numbers of child care workers in the community have major implications for the training of child care workers. The supplementary report attached to the main report does consider the question of training in a little more depth. The supplementary report considers that child care workers in residential and day care and working with children in their own homes will constitute one of the most important resources of the child care system. The supplementary report places a major emphasis on the training of child care workers to work not only with children with serious problems but also with their families and in most residential and day centres, with the local community. The same report argues strongly that there is no valid reason for maintaining different levels of training for different forms of social work. It recommends that training for child care workers should be of an equal standard and an equal status of that of other social workers. They also suggest that the forms of training be brought together and the same qualifications be awarded.

Later that month, on 26th May 1981, a meeting was held in the Department of Education to discuss the Task Force Recommendations. At the meeting it was agreed that the Department of Health would be responsible for the introduction of a new Children Act and for setting up a statutory body for the registration of child care workers, but only in consultation with the Department of Education. The meeting had no objection to the transfer of Industrial Schools to the Department of Health, but not the Special Schools for ‘deviant children’. Specifically, the meeting, acknowledged that these schools cater for the most difficult sector of the child population and great expertise and financial resources are needed to provide proper services for them. The importance of education in the treatment programme was stressed. The possibility of agreeing to the transfer of responsibility for the residential care of the children to the Dept. of Health was discussed. Experience has shown, however, that two authorities looking after a problem area could lead to conflict. It was agreed that the children’s interests would best be served if these schools were retained by the Dept. of Education i.e. both the care and education element.

On 18th September 1981, Mr Ó Ceallachain in a memo to the Minister for Education observed that the Department of Health were proposing the transfer of various functions from the Department of Education to Health and recommended that the Department agree to the transfer of the Industrial Schools, but in relation to the Special Schools (Reformatories): the position recommended is that this Department enter a most serious reservation on the grounds that these establishments, providing as they do a structural programme of education, training and recreation with a view to rehabilitation belong more properly in the sphere of education and that moving them into the ‘care’ area would not be in the best interests of the pupils. While care functions do exist in these establishments and a caring atmosphere is cultivated this can be catered for adequately within the present responsibility structure through the format of management and services and the willingness to consult and co-ordinate as necessary with care authorities. Should the Government decide, however, to transfer this responsibility to the Minister for Health, the responsibility of the Minister for Education for all aspects of education within the establishment should be maintained.

The Department of Health in a memorandum to Government in relation to ‘Proposals for comprehensive legislation to Extend and Up-date the Law in Relation to the Protection of Children’ in December 1982, stated that the Task Force: supported the earlier government decision of October 1974 that the main central responsibility for child care should rest with the Minister for Health. Dealing with the problem of children in need of care, the report stressed the importance and integrity of the family and insisted that there should be minimal intervention in it by the State. It rejected the notion of placing the child in institutional care and removing it from the family setting unless this was absolutely unavoidable.308

The memo acknowledged the reservations of the Department of Education in his regard stating: The Department of Education has been consulted and has expressed serious reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility in respect of special schools. It regards these as establishments the prime purpose of which is educational and suggests that this purpose is reflected in the preponderance of the activity in the institutions arising from their programmes of rehabilitation and reform. It considers that any measures which would have the effect of removing these schools from the mainstream of education would not be in the interests of the children. In the Department’s view, the care elements involved are being and can continue to be adequately catered for through the format of management and services available and through arrangements for consultation and co-ordination with care authorities.314

The background to the drafting of the Children Bill 1982 by the Department of Health lay in the Government decision of October 1974 to transfer the ‘main responsibility’ for childcare services to the Department of Health. In a memo to the Minister for Health in 1987, the background was outlined. Having outlined the recommendations of the Task Force on Child Care Services, the memo observed that: The question of who was to take over responsibility for the new juvenile justice legislation was not settled at that time nor has it been since. This Department was prepared to co-ordinate the preparation of a comprehensive Children Bill with the juvenile justice aspects being drafted by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, on the other hand, held that it was up to the Department of Health to formulate the proposed bill in its entirety. Justice offered to comment on the proposals once they had been prepared but would take no part in their preparation. Faced with this attitude and under strong political pressure, the Department of Health attempted to prepare the outline of a comprehensive Children Bill, which would include provisions on the treatment of juvenile offenders, reform of the Children’s Courts and the age of criminal responsibility. Without the assistance and expertise of the Department of Justice it proved an almost impossible task. However, just before the change in Government in December 1982, the Minister (Dr. Woods) directed the Department to circulate for comment to the other Departments involved the (as yet incomplete) Heads of a Children Bill.321