Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Agus mé ag féachaint ar Theideal an Bhille agus na rudaí atá sé chun a dhéanamh, déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire as teideal Gaeilge an choiste nua a úsáid, is é sin, an coiste forfheidhmithe agus idirghníomhaireachta um chúram leanaí. Is mór an rud é go bhfuilimid ag úsáid na bhfocal agus na dtéarmaí Gaeilge sin. Ag an am céanna, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil gach éinne chun an teideal sin a úsáid gach lá. Sílim go mbeidh deacracht ag roinnt daoine an teideal sin a úsáid. B’fhéidir go ndéanfar giorrúchán ar an ainm sin ach is breá é a fheiceáil i dTeideal Fada an Bhille. It is wonderful to see the use of the Irish title for the committee that is proposed, but I see it being shortened by people in daily use. I suspect that it will be referred to either as "the coiste" or by an acronym. I welcome the Bill. It is hugely important. This is an area of legislation that has not been updated for some time and that requires updating. The care of children or specific childcare measures are hugely important. I am sorry to say that we are all aware of many instances where the State has failed to deliver in that space. As such, any effort the Government makes to update the legislation in this area to ensure that there is proper care provision in place for children who need it is absolutely welcome. Something I always say when we deal with legislation of this sort is that there are a mass of amendments to the principal Act. In this case, the principal Act is the 1991 Act. I understand that the latter is the basis of childcare in Ireland today. However, having a Bill that is a mass of statements such as "section 5 of the principal Act is amended in the following ways" makes it difficult for people to read. One of the things I always say about amendment Acts is that it would be much better to pass a consolidated Bill, restating the bits of the principal Act we want to keep and restating the sections proposed to be amended by the amending legislation. That said, it is worthy of acknowledgement that section 7 does that by the substitution of section 5 of the 1991 Act. It can be seen in the restatement of the new section 5, which will be the law after this Bill passes, that it is much easier to read. Therefore, if we can do it in this one section, where it is proposed to replace section 5 of the 1991 Act with the new section to be substituted, that is, section 7 of the Bill, we can do it elsewhere. I wanted to acknowledge that the draftsman and the Department have done that, even though it has not been done in other places in the Bill. I refer to the table of contents, where almost every section in Part 2 is simply an amendment. For example, "Amendment of section 3 of the Principal Act" is section 4 of the Bill. I am a lawyer. Even as a lawyer reading that I have no idea what it means until I go to see what section 3 of the principal Act says. It is an important principle, in the context of drafting and making drafting accessible to people, that they are not required to sit down with three, four, five or more Acts. The worst area for this is road traffic legislation. People must sit down with several Acts to ascertain what the law is. That is more of a drafting point than anything else. I have listened to the debate today and there is definitely work to be done. The Bill identifies areas where there are problems that need to be resolved. I note sections 7 and 8 of the 1991 Act about the committees are being repealed. I understand why that is happening and I welcome that a coiste is being set up to replace those institutions and ensure we can deliver the childcare provisions required. The reference to the Child and Family Agency brings me back to the fact that "Tusla", as it is commonly called, is just a brand name being pushed by a marketing person in the Child and Family Agency. Rather than creating clarity, it is creating confusion. If I may, I will say a few words about Tusla. It does enormously important work. Very often it does great work. It provides lifelines for families and children who need it. It provides counselling, social protection and social care for those people. It intervenes when no other arm of the State is willing to do so. It provides succour, guidance, advice and support to those families and children. That is massively important and I acknowledge the work it does. Many of the individuals who work in Tusla - the social workers, the people who are fighting the ground war with problems that families and children are facing - deserve our acknowledgement and praise. Tusla, as an institution or entity, however, has significant problems. I am not criticising it wholesale, but there are value-for-money issues in Tusla. Significant sums of money can be dispensed on services that do not need to be spent. Sometimes, because it is a behemoth, much like the HSE, it begins to act as such and it would be much better if it were leaner and willing to respond to the needs of the people it purports to serve. We see in this Bill the power it creates for regulations to be made by the Minister relating to homeless children. That is exactly the kind of area where we should be legislating to empower the Government to act in exigent circumstances. Members of this House who have dealt with constituents who come to their offices with issues that are appalling and frightening and that they would never want anyone they know or represent to deal with know it is Tulsa we turn to answer those questions and respond to those problems. I welcome the Minister having the power to intervene directly by making regulations in a more reactive or flexible way. One of the difficulties with primary legislation is that to change it we all have to come here and to the Seanad and vote to do so. I welcome that section 8 provides for the right of the Minister to make regulations about accommodation for homeless children. That is one way the State is being empowered to react with a swiftness and flexibility that are not available if the power is set out in primary legislation only. The idea that it is in a regulation and that Ministers can change it as demands arise and situations change is important and welcome from the point of view of how the Bill, and the Act as it will become, will operate. Similarly, I welcome the provisions set down in section 9 about lost or abandoned children. We often talk about cherishing all children of the nation. It is a phrase that goes right back to the beginning of our statehood and the formation of the State. It is not just a slogan or phrase; it is something by which we must live and there are any number of examples we are all aware of where we have not managed to cherish all children of this nation equally. We need to do everything we can to ensure they can be cherished. This Bill is a step in that direction. It is not a panacea and there is still a lot of work to do. The Minister is aware of that. However, if this Bill can bring us further down that road and address some of the lacunae identified by people who work in this sector and who are served by the sector, that is a good thing. On that basis, I welcome the Bill and look forward to its passage.

Sentiment score: 0.08