4,228 entries for Historical Context

The Department of Education, in reviewing the submissions to the draft memo to Government, noted: that there is a fairly wide divergence in the course of action proposed by each Department. On the question of administration, Departments of Health, Public Service and Attorney General believe that the main responsibility for planning and provision of child-care services should rest with the Minister for Health. Department of Justice, on the other hand, agree with this Department’s view that this is neither logical nor practicable. None of the ‘one-Department’ supporters have defined precisely what they mean by ‘child-care’ and none in effect have answered the point, that, in the nature of things, both the Departments of Education and Justice must continue to be responsible for many services in relation to children.

The Department of Education therefore suggested that the: Department of Health proposal that a full-time task force be set up to complete the job in 3 months is unrealistic. The Department of Justice rightly makes the point that this will be a complex and time-consuming task, which will call for controversial decisions. This is confirmed by own experience in making comparatively small amendments to the children’s acts. Current public controversies emphasise how difficult it will to be to produce legislation which will satisfy all shades of opinion in Church and State and meet constitutional requirements.

In light of these difficulties, the Department of Education suggested: A possible way out of the dilemma might be to set up a small full-time working group or task force controlled by a part-time steering committee representative of the Departments concerned plus outside interests. (This might be something on the lines of the OECD study on Investment in Education where a small team of full-time experts from Departments and Universities worked under the direction of a broadly based steering committee). Since this working group would have to seek advice from outside bodies anyway, it would seem reasonable to postpone the setting up of a formal advisory committee until a later stage.

The Department of Education also considered the possible membership of this task force or working group, suggesting that outside expertise was required from ‘fields such as psychology, psychiatry, social sciences, education’ as well as various organisations with an expertise in the area. On the question of chairmanship of the Committee, Mr Ó Maitiú highlighted that would be ‘a crucial issue’ and outlined that: We are not prepared to agree to have it operating under the aegis of the Minister of Health and presumably Dept of Health would be opposed to someone from this Dept as chairman. Would it go to sorting the situation if we proposed a chairman independent of all the Departments. Since law revision will be the task of the committee, I suggest that the Chairman should have a legal background – probably a member of the judiciary.

The Parliamentary Secretary in reply stated that he was ‘favourable to outsiders being involved in law preparation if it is on the basis of strict confidentiality of proceedings and non-publication of recommendations. Does something need to be done to ensure this?’

In the memorandum to Government, the Minister for Education noted that having considered the views of other Departments he remained of the view that the approach suggested by the Inter-Departmental Working party was the most appropriate, and while ‘a full-time task force as proposed by the Minister for Health has its merits, he considers that a time-scale of three months or so is unrealistic’. He proposed therefore that: (1)administrative responsibilities to remain as at present in the short term. (2)An inter-departmental committee to be established under continuing political direction to up-date all the laws relating to child care and to consider such wider policy issues as may arise in the context of such legislation. This Committee to be authorised to set up working parties, which would include experts from outside the public service, to consider specific proposals. (3)A permanent inter-departmental committee on operational co-ordination to be set up. This Committee to promote the establishment of local-co-ordinating committees at health board level, starting with County Child Care teams which would review the position in each area, (4)A national advisory council on child care as recommended in the Kennedy Report.227

However, the view of the Department of Health prevailed and on 11th October 1974 the Government made a decision to firstly allocate to the Minister for Health the main responsibility, including that of co-ordination, in relation to childcare; and secondly authorised the Minister to set up a working party to report within three months on the necessary updating and reform of childcare legislation and of child care services. On 19th October 1974, Mr Brendan Corish, Tanaiste and Minister for Health and Social Welfare issued the following press release: Last week the Government decided that I, as Minister for Health, should have the main responsibility for children’s services in the future. I welcome this decision, since the present arrangements whereby responsibility for children’s services is diffused between three Government Departments presents serious obstacles to reform. I intend to begin work immediately in the following areas. I intend to prepare a new Children’s Bill. Simultaneously, I will review and draw up proposals to improve and extend the services available to children. At the same time, it will be necessary to carry through reforms. To help me in this work, I am immediately setting up a full time task force comprising one representative from each of the Departments concerned with children’s services, together with a number of outside experts...Since the group will work on a full-time basis, I expect that my proposals for reform will be ready within a matter of very few months.228

The Task Force on Child Care Services229 as it became known, was established with the following terms of reference: (1) to make recommendations on the extension and improvement of services for deprived children and children at risk; (2) to prepare a new Children’s Bill, updating and modernising the law in relation to children; (3) to make recommendations on the administrative reforms which may be necessary to give effect to proposals at (1) and (2) above.230

However, in relation to the first decision, no guidance as to the extent or nature of the ‘main responsibility’ to be given to the Minister for Health was provided and this was to adversely impact on both Ministerial and Departmental responsibility for different elements of the child welfare and juvenile justice for a further 30 years.

Before the decision was taken to establish a Task Force on Child Care Services, in August 1974 the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons published two interim reports. The first report was entitled Assessment Services for the Courts in Respect of Juvenile’ and the second The Provision of Treatment for Juvenile Offenders and Potential Juvenile Offenders. In respect of the first interim report, the primary recommendation of the Committee was that: There should be established, on a permanent basis, an inter-departmental committee to co-ordinate the activities of the Government Departments concerned in relation to children and young persons. Its aim should be to keep the changing needs of the situation under constant review, to advise on any further provisions – remedial, administrative, legislative or otherwise – which it considers, from time to time, to be necessary or desirable in relation to young persons who have come or are likely to come in conflict with the law or who may be in need of psychiatric treatment. It should also have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the provisions of any projected legislation likely to have an impact on the personal or social well-being of young people.231

The Committee also reported that: It appears from enquiries made by the Committee that very little accurate information is available in regard to children and juveniles who appear before Irish Courts. In the absence of adequate information about themselves, their social background, the offences with which they are charged and the court decisions, it is very difficult to decide the nature and extent of the facilities requires’ and on this basis recommended the establishment of a ‘suitably staffed research and statistics unit as a matter of urgency.232

Crucially, the Committee recommended that children and juveniles should only be referred to a residential unit after a full assessment and that ‘existing legislation should be amended to permit remands to assessment centres for periods of up to 21 days where the court finds that necessary.’233 It also recommended the development of additional assessment centres as the Committee noted that the existing centre in Finglas was insufficient to meet the ongoing needs. In their second report the Committee recommended the expansion of the role of welfare officers to provide non-residential services for young offenders. In terms of residential services, the committee recommended the development of small residential homes, an additional Special School to be built for young male offenders, and a closed unit for male offenders and a special residential school for female offenders between the ages of 12 and 17.

After its establishment, the Task Force on Child Care Services sought submissions from interested parties. These submissions provide a useful snapshot of the views of various interest groups in the mid-1970s. In their submission to the Task Force on Child Care Services the Irish Association of Social Workers234, in relation to foster care argued that: There should be a recruiting programme for Foster Parents for temporary and long tern care and children with special needs. At present, there is no legal provision for short term Foster Care i.e. Mother in hospital, Father can’t cope – this provision could prevent a long term break down of the family. At present, children in such emergency situations are placed in Children’s Homes where they cannot have such personal attention. There should be no Age Limit for Foster Care. It is assumed that only babies and small children are suitable for foster care but we feel all ages require and would benefit from such a personal type service as offered through Foster Care. Rules should be made governing the standards of assessment of Foster parents and the quality of support necessary to Foster Parents, the Foster Child and the natural family. Allowance should be made for adequate remuneration to Foster parents. All Agencies arranging Foster Care should be encouraged to understand the team approach, i.e. that Foster Parents should be seen as important members of the team caring for the child.235

In relation to residential care, the Association argued: There should be increased and improved training facilities for staff of Residential Homes. There should be increased facilities for the emotional, educational and social assessment of each child as to define the most appropriate type of care for the child. This assessment unit will, of course, have to be Residential and we would need such units throughout the country. Each Health Board should have a wide range of residential facilities available to ensure that children are not placed away from their cultural background and natural family. These should include small group homes, Hostels, Homes for severely handicapped boys and girls, and homes for severely disturbed boys and girls. There should be as few as possible single sex homes. There should be an overall plan worked out for each child between the Agency placing the child and the Home. There should be regular reviews of the child’s progress, the suitability of the placement and the Child’s After Care at least annually. The Placing Agency and, where appropriate, the responsible Health Board Social Worker should be represented on this Review Board. There should be a registration of all Homes and regular inspection to maintain minimum standards of entrance and physical and emotional care which, at the same times, would give each home the chance to develop their own speciality.236

The Manager of the Magdalen Home in Sean MacDermott St in Dublin, Sr Lucy Bruton suggested the need for: A facility for young itinerant offenders, who are becoming legion and cannot be accommodated in the present institutions, because such units are entirely alien to their culture and upbringing. I suggest a section of the Itinerant Settlement Committee, who could be appointed as ‘Fit Persons’ to look after such offenders.237