Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The difference is between what I would describe as public and private arrangements. It would not be remotely practical for a parent giving a child or some children a lift to have to be vetted. Where there is a commercial arrangement, involving the school bus driver or a bus hired by a team on a weekly basis to take a team of 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds somewhere, for example, it would fall under the Bill. It is detailed in paragraph (8) of Part 1 of Schedule 1: "Work as a driver of a public service vehicle which is being used only for the purpose of conveying children." A driver in that position must of course be vetted.

We are trying to allow people get on with their ordinary lives but for public service vehicles or commercial operations, individuals regularly in contact with children must be vetted. In our constituencies there are many different sports teams with parents involved. Parents who are coaches of such teams must be vetted. I am sure that where sons and daughters of the members have been on teams, many of us have gone to look at a game and we would pick up a couple of their friends on the way. Often, parents may alternate this practice if they do not watch every match. It would be impossible to provide for vetting in those circumstances, and it would be a gross invasion of individual privacy, as well as family and friend relationships. It would impose a burden on the vetting bureau that would be impossible, and we could end up in a position in which large portions of the population which provide temporary assistance with family sporting arrangements would have to go through a vetting process. Even worse, these people would be criminalised if they did not go through the process. We must be very careful in achieving a balance. We believe this legislation has achieved that, although I like to say that in these cases nobody has a monopoly of wisdom. We have tried to separate the private and practical from the regular commercial profession.