Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The thrust of the Bill is positive. However I have some concerns which I would like to address. We have had too much legislation which does not have a solid practical application and uncertainty about how it will be applied. It is important to consider this legislation not only in its own right but also where it fits into the jigsaw in terms of the suite of child protection legislation. We must examine the institutions in the first instance. In this respect we have been very bad at putting in place good institutional architecture.

With regard to reform, this morning I listened to the Taoiseach speak about squeezing as much as possible out of the Croke Park agreement. This is not reform; it is a system of cost-cutting. If we are to have very good institutions which can deliver in the area of child protection they must be integrated with each other and we must have real reform which allows this. This cannot be left to the individual organisations themselves. There must be political input in designing the end game and putting the citizen at the heart of it. This is a deficiency in the area. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, stated he did not want to micromanage some of the systems but a broad philosophy on the outcomes is essential.

To return to the Bill, its main purpose is to establish a vetting process. Will this require additional resources? Who will do it? Will it cause delays? We have been given information on the delays in vetting being reduced. This does not stack up with my experience. I have heard from community organisations which are very critical of the time it takes to vet those who are required to be vetted for jobs, schemes or courses. The two week time period does not stack up with the experiences of those who contact me. The bureau relies on temporary staff, as 20 people and four from JobBridge were assigned to it earlier this year. The way it is being handled at present does not give me a sense of certainty. I completely understand there can be peaks and valleys in the number of requests but unless we have certainty about the people who will do this work we will have logjams, delays and problems and it will not work for those to be vetted, those it should exclude or children.

The Bill deals with vulnerable adults. We cannot disconnect this from what is happening at present. Nobody is more vulnerable than vulnerable adults who are part of a special school such as St. Raphael's in Celbridge. Transport provision for people within 3 km of the special school was not considered a front-line service and was cut. The people involved used to get a bus but this service has been dispensed with now there is no money to provide it. The only way they have of getting to the special school or to the sheltered employment in which they are involved is for their families to collaborate in taking a taxi. Some of the families have contacted me to state if those involved were brought to the end of their county they would not know how to say it is not where they want to go, let alone be able to identify whether they are being inappropriately dealt with by a driver. This is not to cast any aspersions on a particular cohort of people in the transport system. Cutting services which are not deemed to be front line is leading to the creation of gaps. If people cannot get to the services it causes a deficiency. If they must rely on a service which is not vetted it leaves them vulnerable.

It must be considered in the broadest sense of the word.

I have concerns in regard to soft information in particular. If soft information had been used in the Soham case in England, for example, and the caretaker had been identified, it may well have prevented those deaths, although that is an extreme example. Soft information has a place. However, this must be very carefully applied because somebody could feel it is unconstitutional. I would not dismiss the Irish Human Rights Commission in regard to its concerns. It says that under Article 43.2 of the Constitution people have the right to a good name. It is not just any individual who can notify but specified organisations. However, one can never dismiss the prospect of something which may be vexatious. There must be very good guidance in regard to how this is applied because somebody could take a constitutional case. That would be a terrible irony because we are talking about including something very positive. Earlier this morning at a briefing with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, I saw the wording of the new article with which I am very comfortable. It will be a positive insertion in the Constitution should the citizens decide to include it. It would be a terrible irony if that was included as a means to protect children while a means to do that could be found to be unconstitutional. How it is applied will have to be considered very carefully.

A point was made earlier in regard to PPS numbers. I do not understand why they are being collected if they cannot be used as an identifier. We get quite a lot of advice about what information we can and cannot hold in regard to data protection. There is a question in that regard which should be answered.

People have major concerns about duplication. We need to work more smartly with the resources available to us. If a person does three different things and requires to be vetted for three different organisations, there should be a smarter way to do that within a timeline and which does not lead to the kind of duplication that absorbs administrative time but provides the kind of scrutiny required.

Geoffrey Shannon expressed his concern at the current system where, in effect, the person applying for a position must furnish necessary police vetting from other jurisdictions in circumstances where Garda vetting is not available for staff, students and volunteers who have lived outside this jurisdiction. He stated that many would argue that self-provided police vetting is not acceptable. I would pay serious attention to somebody like him who has had such a high level of involvement in a report as recent as the one in which he and Nora Gibbons were involved.

The Bill defines coaching, mentoring, training and counselling. That is very important because we do not want to stop people from volunteering to do things but at the same time, we want to define areas where there is engagement with children on an ongoing basis which would leave them open to inappropriate or criminal behaviour by an adult.

See this speech in context