Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012. This Bill provides the necessary statutory basis for the use of the Garda's criminal records database to conduct vetting of persons offered employment or working on a voluntary basis with children or vulnerable adults. It puts the existing system of Garda vetting on a statutory basis and in order to provide greater levels of protection it introduces criminal sanctions for those who do not properly use the vetting system.

As is evidenced by the introduction of several legislative developments in respect of the protection of children, the Government is proactive in taking the protection of children and vulnerable people into consideration. This is at the core of what our Government aims to achieve. We are looking forward to the referendum on children's rights which will be held on 10 November as an opportunity for enhancing the reputation of institutions of State, sporting organisations and the church as safe places for children and vulnerable adults. In addition to the referendum on children's rights, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 and the Criminal Justice (Withholding Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Adults) Bill 2012 have been introduced this year and the heads of Children First Bill 2012 were published in April.

Vetting is carried out by the Garda central vetting unit and is only conducted on behalf of registered organisations. Areas affected by vetting include: the Civil Service; sports organisations, including sports clubs and national governing bodies; volunteer groups; registered social workers; accredited adoption bodies; care and welfare of residents in designated centres for older people; licensed driving instructors; child care in pre-school services and special care; approved mental health centres; and private security. However, vetting for individual sole traders whose profession involves a level of contact with children and vulnerable people should also be considered in the near future, perhaps through an association of which the trader is a member. Child entertainment has become a large industry and it is only prudent to ensure that the same level of governance is provided to private industry as is the case for State institutions and other recognised organisations.

One of the main changes this Bill permits is the introduction of soft information, which is not permitted in the existing vetting system. Hard information encompasses official criminal cases and section 15 of the Bill permits the introduction of soft or specified information. I welcome that anybody can seek to protect their good name through an appeals process. This is a well thought out and just provision. With the enactment of this Bill the bureau will be allowed to consider information that has not led to a criminal case if it concerns possible harm to a child or a vulnerable person and includes information gathered by gardaí in the course of an investigation or other organisations such as the HSE, the Teaching Council, the Medical Council or the Health Information and Quality Authority. It is important to realise that information which may have been insufficient for a prosecution can be pertinent to the role an individual plays in an organisation.

Arguments have been made both for and against soft information. In 2007, Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, a solicitor and child law expert, stated that soft information can add another important layer to the vetting process and he has welcomed constitutional or legislative amendments which would lead to the use of such information in vetting persons who have unsupervised access to children. Kieran Walsh, a barrister and lecturer, stated in July 2010 that such issues, while complicated, have been part of discourse within child protection circles since the early 1990s, if not earlier, and are legitimate as long as adequate safeguards are put in place. However, the Irish Human Rights Commission has expressed concern that the disclosure of soft information is unconstitutional and the Law Society Gazette suggested in May 2010 that hard information on unsuccessful prosecutions could be seen as a breach of rights and soft information as an extreme violation of human rights.

See this speech in context