In fairness, the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2025 is a substantial piece of work. It needs to be because it is the first real reform of our child protection laws in more than 30 years. It comes after a very long and well-documented history of systemic failures, inconsistent practice and persistent gaps in co-ordination between the agencies, especially within Tusla's work. For example, we have had situations where children have been known to multiple agencies but the information was not shared. There have been cases of severe neglect where schools repeatedly raised concerns but there was no co-ordinated response. We have also had cases involving children with complex needs, disability, mental health issues and addiction issues in the family where there was a failure by agencies because no one took the lead. These types of issues have been highlighted repeatedly by HIQA, the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and numerous case reviews. In that context, the Bill's modernisation of the Child Care Act 1991 is welcome and necessary. The Bill will introduce clear statutory principles to place the child's best interests at the centre, affirming the right to be heard and requiring proportionate rights-based interventions at all times. It has been broadly welcomed many of the various oversight bodies and practitioners who have long argued that the absence of these principles in legislation and the lack of a statutory basis for them has contributed to inconsistencies around the country, depending on the area people are in. The Bill's emphasis on this inter-agency co-operation is definitely a step forward. I have raised issues already regarding people falling between the cracks in the fragmented service. The creation of an coiste forfheidhmithe agus idirghníomhaireachta um chúram leanaí responds directly to these failures by establishing this formal structure. Vetting provisions will be further strengthened to give full effect to Directive 2011/93/EU. This is also important because we have had delays in vetting foster carers or volunteers, regular poor communication with the National Vetting Bureau, and cases where relevant information about the adults in a child's life was not shared or was not shared in a prompt manner. Other Deputies referred to child sexual exploitation as one situation where people have been allowed to fall through the cracks. The delays in vetting foster carers and inconsistent information sharing have caused major problems. In principle, embedding the stronger safeguards in law is a meaningful improvement. However, the Bill does have some notable gaps which the Ombudsman for Children has raised, for example, in terms of voluntary care. For years children have remained in voluntary care arrangements without adequate oversight, clear timelines or consistent review processes. While the Bill does improve that framework, it does not have the robust statutory protections that many advocates like the ombudsman believe are essential to prevent drift and may mean things will just go and that because we have this legislation, things are fine. We need to ensure accountability. There are also unresolved issues in terms of children presenting as homeless. We have had documented cases where children were told to return to unsafe homes or where the responsibility for their welfare was disputed between housing authorities and Tusla. The Bill does strengthen the general duties of care and co-operation but it does not actually give any clear statutory responsibility for homeless children. Oversight bodies have documented delays also in assigning social workers, inconsistent guardianship arrangements, and the use of unsuitable accommodation. There is a lot in the Bill but it does not tackle chronic resource pressures that tie in with all the systemic failures we have seen, such as the high caseloads, the staff turnover and, as I mentioned, the disparities in services around the country. The legislation on paper creates higher standards but I want to emphasise that without the tools to increase the capacity and to ensure staff are kept and more staff are retained, these standards risk remaining aspirational.

Sentiment score: 0.08