James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, to delete lines 29 and 30 and substitute the following:“(a) who provides a relevant service, and”.

It is proposed to amend the definition of "provider" in section 7 to provide greater clarity and to ensure the obligation to prepare a child safeguarding statement falls solely on the provider of the service as opposed to those who commission the service. This is to ensure there is no scope to interpret the obligation as falling on those who commission the service against those who provide the service.

Amendment No. 10 to section 8 provides that Part 2 is not applicable to an individual who undertakes any work or activity in the course of a family relationship, where the work or activity is undertaken solely for the benefit of his or her child or for a family member or where the work or activity is undertaken in the course of a personal relationship and where assistance is given on an occasional basis for no consideration. It is proposed to reword section 8 to clarify that the exemption in regard to personal relationships applies to the provider of relevant services. The exemption for personal relationships arrangements is based on a similar provision in section 3 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. Both are based on the fact that it is not the policy intention to place onerous statutory responsibility on arrangements that are in place as a result of personal relationships rather than commercial consideration. Also exempted is occasional assistance in local and community events in order not to discourage participation in such activities.

Amendment No. 37 is a technical amendment to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. What it proposes is that any work or activity which consists of the inspections of a service provided to a child are included as a relevant service. It was considered that inspections of health services to children carried out under the Health Act 2007 should be also be included in this paragraph. For example, this would include inspections of residential centres for children with disabilities, with which I think we would all agree.

Amendment 38 proposes to insert a new paragraph after paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to include inspections, examinations or investigations by the Ombudsman for Children as a relevant service. It is considered that as by definition any investigation or inspection by the Ombudsman for Children is likely to include contact with children, that office should come within the definition of a provider of relevant services.

Amendment No. 39 is an amendment to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. It is proposed to clarify that an assessment which may lead to treatment is included as a relevant service for the purposes of the legislation. This is being proposed for inclusion as in some circumstances an assessment for treatment might be separate from the treatment itself and might be carried out by different individuals. Both the assessment and the treatment should be considered a relevant service for the purposes of legislation.

Amendment No. 40 is an amendment to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 and it is proposed to limit its application as there are concerns that as currently drafted, it is broad enough to encompass most retail outlets. This proposed amendment is in response to feedback that as currently drafted any retail outlet where children may be might fall within the scope of the definitions. This was not the policy intention so an amendment has been proposed to clarify that it applies only where the service to the child is central to the service.