Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Bill the primary purpose of which is designed to close an existing loophole in our current law, but it is much more than that. What we are hoping to do will bring us all one step closer to protecting the children of Ireland. We cannot undo the harm of the past but we must put safeguards in place for future vulnerable citizens.

This Bill is one element of a series of legislative measures to protect children and vulnerable persons to whom our Government is committed. It has been drafted to complement the operation of both the Children First Bill and the national vetting Bill. These initiatives represent a significant development in the legislative framework governing child protection in Ireland.

Reports such as the Ryan report, the Murphy report and, more recently, the Cloyne report have given this country a litany of shocking revelations, stories and images none of us can forget. There is, therefore, a compelling argument for closing the current loophole in the law. In doing so, the Bill aims to better protect children and vulnerable adults from serious offences including sexual offences. There is no question that this Bill has big boots to fill, high expectations to meet and vulnerable citizens to protect. In short, we need to get it right.

There has been much comment in recent years on the horrors of institutional and clerical abuse. While I support the Bill and its intentions, I am concerned that it might criminalise families. We cannot escape the awful fact that most abusehere occurs within families. It must be recognised also that families may and do act in a self protecting way by not disclosing abuse.

Some truths are hard to acknowledge, but they must be all the same. Every citizen has a moral duty to report child abuse. People did not do so in the past partly due to a motivation to protect the family, and the bone fide interests of the family. The Bill requires the parent or guardian to act in the best bone fide interests of the child or vulnerable person. If we are to get that right it is crucial that this legislation clearly defines what is in the best bone fide interests of the child because my interpretation of it as a mother and somebody else's interpretation of it as a parent or neighbour might be entirely different. It is crucial that we clearly define it.

In the midst of the rush to report, the interests of the child - the victim - must still be paramount. In the Bill, children under the age of 14 will have no rights in the reporting of their abuse. These children are already victims and we should not make them victims all over again. That child will have a family, and it is not in isolation that all of this must be taken into consideration when preparing the legislation. The family could be left ostracised and stigmatised. These are issues we must confront and we must have measures in place which support rather than divide families already in a dire situation. The repercussions of reporting abuse are huge and cannot be underestimated. We need to have adequate systems and supports in place for families which may well be torn apart in the process of reporting abuse.

The introduction of mandatory reporting requirements within a jurisdiction tends to increase the community's awareness of child abuse. This is a good thing. However, if there are inadequate resources available, it may result in services being overwhelmed. We all have a duty to inform, but as I have already said, public opinion has been influenced by revelations of abuse and subsequent cover-ups by the likes of the Catholic Church. Understandably, this has led to a preoccupation with the matter of reporting. Whether legislating for reporting is the most sensible approach to enhancing child protection services is open to question, particularly as it has been well established in other jurisdictions that criminalising the failure to report has led to unintended outcomes. Among these is the disproportionate level of funding required to manage the intake of reports, with consequent reduction in the resources available to provide services for vulnerable children.

There is an over-arching, positive obligation on the State to protect children from abuse, including when this abuse is carried out by private individuals. Putting in place an effective system to achieve this end requires a wide range of measures. The Office of the Ombudsman for Children has welcomed the Bill, but the Ombudsman has also made substantial recommendations with which I agree. These include that all necessary resources be put in place to ensure that social work departments can respond effectively to any increase in reporting consequent upon the general scheme; that an effective system of monitoring, for example, by the social health services inspectorate, SSI, or HIQA, is put in place to monitor the effects of the general scheme; and that an independent review of the effects on child protection practice is required to be undertaken no later than three years after implementation. This should be informed by inspection by HIQA or the SSI.

This Bill will only be useful if it makes our children safer. An independent review would measure whether this has been achieved. It is worth noting that following the experience of its

implementation in New South Wales, it was recently decided to remove criminal sanction for breach of the duty to report.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask for silence in the Visitors Gallery as the Deputy is being interrupted.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At a recent seminar in Trinity College, Professor Leah Bromfield, deputy director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection at the University of South Australia, warned that Ireland should think carefully about introducing mandatory reporting. In her jurisdiction, within several years the rate of reporting had risen sixfold, overwhelming the child protection system. Fearful of being prosecuted, citizens were overloading the system with reports of suspected abuse or neglect. While only an eighth of reports were confirmed as abuse, resources were swallowed up trying to cope with the reports, at the cost of less formal social work, such as family support, that could help children. Two recommendations of the Wood inquiry in Australia were to limit the legislative reporting duty to cases of suspected significant harm and to implement a greater focus on the referral of more minor cases to community-based services.

Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment. The best way to streamline reporting of suspected child abuse is to restore confidence in the system by implementation of a sound management structure and investment in professional development, alongside measures to promote the notion of child protection as everyone's business.

This Bill and the Children First guidelines are two serious steps on the way to further ensuring the protection of children in Ireland and I am sure the Oireachtas and the people of Ireland will be support them wholeheartedly. However, I would like to urge a little caution, because there is so much at stake. It is very important that we do not destroy the family in our efforts to protect the child.

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As parents, our primary instinct is to protect our children, yet as a society, we fail in this time and again. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that has been put into the drafting of this Bill in order to make it fit for purpose. There is no doubt that through this legislation, along with the referendum and the collective legislation to copper fasten the protection of children that is to follow from Minister Fitzgerald, this matter has been given the unprecedented attention it so justly deserves. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I have witnessed the extraordinary dedication that voluntary organisations such as the Rape Crisis Centre, One in Four and the ISPCC, to name but a few, give to representing in full the victims they are trying to protect. Their insight has been invaluable to the construction of this Bill. I acknowledge my respect for the work that they do and the courage of those victims who have been willing to share their story with the aim of helping others.

We have poor historical record when it comes to protecting our children. The disbelief and anger surrounding revelations of institutional abuse is not just about the actions that took place, but about the covering up and turning a blind eye. Last week we saw a damning report of 112 children dying of unnatural causes, in tragic and lonely circumstances, during one of the wealthiest and progressive periods of our history. The Catholic Church may not have the same institutional power as formerly, but the days of turning a blind eye are not yet behind us by any means. In the past we may have underestimated the disincentives to blowing the whistle on criminal or neglectful behaviour. We now are learning - the hard way - the power of fear, uncertainty and loyalty when it comes to reporting crime in areas such as corruption, banking practice and even something as sinister as child abuse.

According to ISPCC research, 57% of people would be reluctant to report a crime. This gets more complicated when we delve into the reality of sexual abuse. Statistically in Ireland, it is the people that are closest to the victim, such as family, friends or the people placed in positions of moral guardianship, who are the perpetrators. Ultimately, these are also the silent accommodators of child abuse. These are the people we trust the most with our children, family, friends, and professionals. These are the people most difficult to suspect or even question. Some 80% of abuse takes place within the close family and friend circle of the child. The aim of this Bill is to identify the obligation for those who may be struggling with the concept of reporting or of identifying a loved one as a victim. This Bill ensures that it is a crime not to. This is the only way to ensure that the welfare of the child or vulnerable person, and other children who may be subject to abuse by the offender, is put first and foremost.

Children and vulnerable persons do not have the means to report a crime on their own and must rely on others. Their only hope is to be saved or protected by a suspecting adult who will step forward and report the abuse. While one may argue that turning someone into a criminal for not reporting someone, due to fear, confusion or loyalty may be a step too far, the child must come first and there is no alternative or excuse. This Bill clearly acknowledges the power of authority,the institution and self-protection as barriers to doing the right thing. It creates an incentive that goes beyond the moral incentive. There will now be a legal duty on each and every person in society, not just the professionals, to ensure that the facilitation of abuse will not be tolerated. It will no longer be someone else's problem. It will be their problem and our problem. Looking the other way will no longer be the easy option. Failure to report will now be a criminal offence.

One of the main findings of the justice committee was that there was much comment on institutional abuse whereas much abuse is inter-familial. For this reason we recommended that the legislation should strike a balance between confidentiality and the risk to children and vulnerable adults, in other words, we should tread carefully. I acknowledge that there has been debate about the legislation in respect of reasonable excuse and the choice of the victim not to report. In an ideal world all excuses would be outlined before the Bill is published.

I echo Deputy Regina Doherty's call on the Minister to continually review the impact of the Bill with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and to continue dialogue with organisations such as One in Four, on which we rely to give real insight into the incidence and reality of abuse of children and vulnerable adults. We must be vigilant in the implementation and review of this legislation to ensure that, along with the upcoming children's rights Bill, the vetting Bill and the children's referendum, it serves its vital purpose, that is, to protect our most vulnerable.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. A society can progress only if it is prepared to learn from past mistakes. One of our society's gravest mistakes was the creation and maintenance of a culture of secrecy and undue deference. This contributed to the shameful abuse and exploitation of thousands of young and vulnerable citizens in communities and residential institutions. The abuse and exploitation was brought to light by some survivors who spoke out courageously against the prevailing silence. Their bravery led to the statutory inquiries which culminated in the Ryan and Murphy reports. Although long overdue, these reports have firmly recorded the shameful secrets of our country's past. Only last week we heard of certain failures in our recent past. Anyway, these reports must be accompanied by positive action.

The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill is one element of the positive action needed. I welcome the provisions, which will enhance the protection of children in Ireland. The preparation of the Bill has included public consultation and a call for submissions from public and civil society organisations. Civil society organisations can provide invaluable assistance and insight into a range of areas to an extent simply not possible by public representatives because of other duties and tasks. Without doubt the Bill is richer and more comprehensive in outlining and achieving its objectives because of the contributions made by the Rape Crisis Network Ireland, Barnardos, One in Four, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, and others.

The regulatory impact analysis was important as well. It recommended independently that we need stand-alone statutory provisions to ensure a greater focus on effective protection of children and other vulnerable persons from serious crime. The Bill recognises the responsibility of communities to safeguard children. It does so by placing a duty on all citizens to report to An Garda Síochána any case of actual knowledge or a strong belief of an arrestable offence. Arrestable offences are listed in detail in the Bill. The distinction between actual knowledge or belief of an offence as opposed to mere suspicion or rumour is crucial because the reporting of false accusations can have detrimental effects on a person wrongly accused. I cannot think of a worse situation than for an innocent person to be wrongly accused of the crimes with which this Bill deals. The legislation lists in detail the defences on which a person may rely for not disclosing information. These defences are clear and straightforward. They respect the wishes of a victim of serious crimes provided he or she possess the capacity to make informed decisions. Special provision exists for designated professionals, including medical practitioners and social workers, as well as for parents and guardians. These provisions contain the important qualification that all decisions must be taken with the interests and welfare of the vulnerable person or child.

The former chairman of One in Four and current executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, Colm O'Gorman, who is a survivor of abuse, has recalled how the trauma he experienced was exacerbated by the realisation that people in the community knew of the abuse and even joked about it, but failed utterly to act responsibly and compassionately by reporting their knowledge to An Garda Síochána.

It is regrettable that the debate on the Bill has concentrated on the Catholic sacrament of confession and whether confessional privilege should apply. It is a complex matter of a personal and moral nature and one on which many views can be held. It should be accepted by all citizens, however, of all religions and none that this legislation is first and foremost about protecting children. This is not about singling out a particular religion and it shameful that some commentators have ignored the substantial provisions and focused instead on a populist, inaccurate angle.

It is worthwhile to consider the important work of the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. It has shown that almost 80% of childhood abuse victims have been abused by someone known to them. The State cannot and will not permit a situation whereby adults, especially those in positions of responsibility, are aware of criminal acts, in particular those of a sexual nature or those against children or vulnerable people, but choose to do nothing. Such an eventuality makes manifest the essence of the remark attributed to Irishman, Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on introducing the Bill. The Bill is important and my party supports it. It will help to ensure proper protection in the State for children and vulnerable adults. It is being introduced along with the children first Bill, which puts the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing. The thrust of both Bills will enhance our child protection system.

I commend the Minister on the process by which the Bill was taken before the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. Oireachtas Members and committee members have been able to scrutinise the details. Organisations with an interest and a contribution to make have been afforded the opportunity to present their views on where they believe the legislation should be altered or tweaked to ensure that when it is ultimately passed by the Houses, it will ensure the best possible outcomes and safeguards, it will ensure children and vulnerable people are protected and it will ensure that the public is clear on the onus to come forward with any information they may have relating to serious offences and that it is simply not acceptable for someone not to do so. Such inaction is punishable if a person fails in his duty.

The similar process taken at the Joint Committee on Health and Children of scrutinising the Children First Bill has been useful and productive. It will lead to that legislation being much improved when it comes before the House. This Bill deals with arrestable and prosecutable offences and any information relating specifically to offences of this nature. The children first Bill deals with a wider range of issues, especially those affecting the well-being of children. In particular it deals with the necessity for those in positions of responsibility, either in a professional or voluntary capacity and who are in contact with children and responsible for safeguarding them, to pass on any concerns they may have in respect of the well-being of a child where they believe the welfare of that child may not be secure.

Following the committee discussions, the Minister introduced a reasonable defence clause. Ultimately, this will be for the courts to decide. This provision was the result of contributions made earlier. The reasonable defence clause relates to serious offences. Although this has been taken on board in the Bill it is something which arises only in the most grave and exceptional of circumstances and when someone does not report something as serious as one of the offences listed. The Bill deals with that as best it can. Whether in respect of information on serious offences or child protection and welfare issues, appropriate action must be taken in the interest of the child. We cannot return to the situation of the past whereby too many people believed it was not their responsibility to play a part in ensuring children's well-being was protected by those who were looking after them. This Bill and the Children First Bill 2012, the heads of which are being considered by the Joint Committee on Health and Children, will bolster the child protection and welfare services of this country.

However, in conjunction with ensuring issues are reported to the appropriate authorities, we must also properly equip the agencies of the State to deal with vulnerable children in their care. The report on the deaths of children while in the care of the State produced by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon and Ms Norah Gibbons of Barnardos found that 112 of the 196 deaths which occurred between 2000 and 2010 were from unnatural causes. The report further found that many of the children who died of natural causes were not being provided with an adequate level of protection and care. That was a failure on the part of the State which was not related to the reporting of issues or of the children coming to its attention. All of these children were known to the State and were either in care or interacting with the HSE. In many instances the level of service and effort provided was insufficient to address the needs of these particularly vulnerable children.

By the time a child enters the care of the State he or she will already experienced extreme difficulties. In many cases they have high levels of need and they require a wide range of services in order to undo the damage they have suffered and to give them a viable pathway to adult life or a second chance at a happy childhood. In addressing the Bill before us and, more particularly, the children first Bill, we must ensure State services meet the needs of children who are brought to the attention of the HSE or the new child and family support agency by reports from professionals and members of the public.

People who deal with children should take a level of responsibility that is appropriate to their position so that issues are not escalated prematurely or in a way that is not in the best interest of the child concerned. We should be careful in introducing the criminal sanction aspects of the children first Bill to ensure that all cases where children do not receive adequate care are reported without creating an excessive burden on services. When reports are escalated at a very early stage it can allow people to avoid their own responsibilities. The Joint Committee on Health and Children has heard from a number of organisations on this subject. At our meeting yesterday representatives of the teaching unions expressed concern that criminal sanctions in the absence of adequate training could lead to a situation in which everything is immediately reported to the HSE. That would create the danger of drawing resources into the HSE to the detriment of providing services for children.

In many cases the social worker has the primary responsibility for dealing with calls and reports. Social worker numbers have come under significant pressure and since the start of last year the number of children in the care of the State with assigned workers has decreased from 94% to 91.9%. This points to the need for the Government to recruit additional social workers and adequately resource our child protection system. It is critical that every child in the care of the State is given a written care plan and assigned a social worker who can act as a contact point. We are not yet at that stage, however.

It is important that the views expressed by the organisations who discussed the Children First Bill with the Joint Committee on Health and Children are taken into account if we are to ensure children are protected and that reports are passed onto the State. No child should be endangered by a lack of legislation or guidance on how the public and the State should react to child protection and welfare issues.

We must ensure that, along with legislation, we put in place the resources so that children get the treatment and services they deserve when they come to the attention of the State. I urge the Minister and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to reinstate the exemption for social workers from the Civil Service recruitment embargo. The exemption was in place until recently. Responsibility has been devolved to HSE, which makes calls as it sees appropriate. We need to ring-fence all social work positions in child and family services and allow no slippage from that number. We should also increase the number. The Government has devolved responsibility to the HSE and has not taken the position that we must ring-fence the number of positions and replace staff. Maternity and temporary positions are not being filled, which has led to slippage with regard to the number of children in State care with an assigned social worker. It is important that the number of social workers is increased. It goes hand-in-hand with reforming our child protection and welfare service.

We will need to see that, through the establishment of the new child and family support agency at the start of next year, weaknesses in the system highlighted by several reports have been learned from so that this is a new departure. The new agency should have responsibility for services for children so that it becomes a child and family welfare and support agency rather than a child protection agency.

I assure the Minister of my party's support. Since the Bill was announced, coverage has focused on the narrow issue of sacerdotal privilege. The Minister noted the media obsession on this point and the genesis of the coverage goes back to the initial presentation of the Bill and the publication of the proposals for the Bill. This is a balanced and important Bill. It is important legislation in combination with the children first legislation. I forward to making a contribution to the children first legislation to ensure we have a child protection and welfare service in this country that looks after our children and ensures those who need support and services from the State receive them. This will ensure that we do not fail them, as happened in too many cases in the past.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Buttimer. This is very important legislation and I welcome the priority given to it by the Minister for Justice and Equality. I specifically welcome the manner in which the Minister has framed the legislation. The Bill has been the subject of a regulatory impact analysis. The draft scheme of the legislation was discussed at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. The hearings at the joint committee included oral presentations from One in Four, the rape crisis centre and the CARI Foundation, together with written presentations. It is most encouraging that the Bill includes provisions to take account of the issues raised by the joint committee during the course of its deliberations. The Minister chose to introduce the Bill in the Seanad last May and, having read the transcript of the initial debate on its content, this was a worthy exercise as the legislation moves through the relevant processes. We are often criticised for not introducing reforms. The way the Minister presented this Bill in the Oireachtas shows a different approach and will lead to better legislation.

The Bill criminalises the withholding of information on certain arrestable offences against children and vulnerable adults. It aims to protect children and vulnerable adults from serious offences including sexual offences. This Bill, together with the children first Bill and the national vetting bureau Bill, will strengthen child protective legislation.

The central point of the Bill is to place a duty on people - not just health professionals or others working with children - to report certain specified arrestable offences to the Garda Síochána. It has been broadly welcomed by a cross-section of organisations working with children. The external debate during the framing and initial presentation of the legislation wrongly centred exclusively on the seal of the confession. When we deal with this subject as law makers, there is the potential to miss more important core issues and nuances when the entire discussion zones in on a specific aspect of the proposed legislation. I am happy the Minister dealt with that specific issue in how he outlined the Bill.

Before the publication last week of the State's role in protecting children in its care, media attention and the general debate on child abuse focused on abuse by the clergy. National statistics from the Rape Crisis Network Ireland, RCNI, show that nearly 80% of childhood sexual abuse victims were abused by someone known to them, such as immediate family members, relatives or family friends. Some 12% were abused by those in authority, such as teachers, coaches or priests. We have a shameful past in Ireland with regard to the abuse of children and, like the vast majority of Irish people, I am instinctively in favour of mandatory reporting. That is not to say this legislation will be a panacea.

I welcome the sections of the Bill dealing with vulnerable adults. In recent times shock revelations have emerged about abuse of the elderly in a number of nursing homes. Many victims of abuse are severely traumatised by the abuse. While prevention of abuse to others is important, it is also critically important that we do not criminalise victims. The Minister outlined the fact that this legislation closes a loophole in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, whereby it was deemed an offence to withhold information in respect of a serious criminal offence. However, that provision of the 1998 Act specifically excluded sexual offences. I understand the urgency of the 1998 Act following the Omagh atrocity. The offence of withholding information was effectively abolished in Irish law when the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours was abolished by section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1997.

A general duty to inform no longer existed in Irish law. Oireachtas debates from this time show an awareness that the abolition of this offence would mean it would no longer be a crime to fail to report child abuse. However, it appears from the debates in 1996 that it was expected that some form of mandatory reporting of child abuse would be put on a statutory footing in the near future. It has taken 16 years for this to happen, which is a terrible indictment of the Oireachtas.

However, this legislation is a step in the right direction. The Bills digest produced by the Oireachtas Library includes in its appendix recommendations from the report by the Garda Inspectorate entitled Responding to Child Sexual Abuse. These 29 recommendations offer a criminal offence perspective and neatly encompass the current shortcomings in the system and the difficulties that may arise in the future. If properly implemented, they will help to ensure better outcomes. This Bill and the Children First Bill will facilitate an enhanced appreciation by society at large of the deep problems of child abuse. These and other initiatives will allow us to begin to move away from our shameful past.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, to the House and compliment him and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, on their ongoing efforts to safeguard children and other vulnerable individuals in our society. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, indicated in his opening statement that the primary purpose of this Bill is to close an existing loophole in the law. There is something in the Irish psyche that tends to embrace loopholes and seek to obfuscate and abdicate responsibility in certain areas. I am glad we now have a Minister for Justice and Equality and a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs who are committed to ensuring that we do as we have said we will do, namely, safeguard the well-being and welfare of children.

As other speakers observed, we have had a litany of reports in recent years illustrating a legacy in the area of care for children and vulnerable adults of shameful neglect, abdication of responsibility, betrayal and a failure of accountability on the part of the State, the church and individuals. The publication last week of the report on the deaths of children in care highlighted the State's failure to protect these most vulnerable of children. This Bill is not about a particular setting or institution but encompasses institutional abuse, clerical abuse and abuse within the family. As other speakers have pointed out, the majority of abuse takes place in the home. It is vital that we have a joined-up approach to child protection. This Bill joins the Children First Bill and the legislation on vetting and will be followed, hopefully in October or November, by a referendum on children's rights. That referendum is about protecting those most in need of our protection. The 1916 Proclamation pledged to cherish all of the children of the nation equally. As Mr. Geoffrey Shannon, one of the authors of last week's report, observed, the Constitution must not be a barrier to State intervention to protect children. Rather, it should include an obligation on the State to aid and assist those children and vulnerable adults most in need of care.

This debate should not be confined to this Chamber but must also take place across the wider society, in the living rooms, kitchens and dining rooms of every house in the country. If the Minister, Deputy Shatter, leaves office without achieving anything other than his work in the area of child welfare and protection, he will have done a very good day's work. As Deputy Joe Carey observed, for 16 years or more we have had a complete abdication of responsibility. In the Chamber this morning the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party reminded us once again of his own failure to act when in government. We must, as a society, look back in order fully to understand the deficiencies in the system, while also looking forward with a determination to put in place systems that adequately protect children and vulnerable adults.

In 1996, the then Government undertook to place the mandatory reporting of child abuse on a statutory footing. It is only now, in 2012, that the necessary actions are being taken to ensure that level of protection is in place. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I have been overseeing the scrutiny of the draft heads of the Children First Bill for the past two months. I pay tribute to the delegates who have attended committee meetings, the agencies who have offered submissions, both oral and written, and the committee members for their work in analysing all of the information. Our report on these hearings will be published tomorrow.

The Bill before us today creates a criminal offence of withholding information in regard to serious offences committed against children and vulnerable adults. It places an obligation on persons who have knowledge of or belief that such a crime has been committed to report it to the Garda. The Bill does not, however, require a person to report or submit a suspicion - there must be knowledge or belief. I welcome the defences contained in the Bill to protect those who act in the best interests of children and vulnerable adults. Those of us involved in the care and education of children and vulnerable adults are well aware that one size does not fit all. In this regard, I welcome the provision that where a victim of abuse is over the age of 14 and has sufficient capacity, deference must be given to his or her request that information is not passed on to the Garda. I also welcome the inclusion of a defence where a parent, guardian or designated professional does not disclose information in the belied that he or she was acting in the interest of the health and well-being of the child or vulnerable person.

As part of my preparations for the committee's scrutiny of the heads of the Children First Bill, I have spoken at length to representatives of the Samaritans. They make a number of interesting observations regarding their work, not least of which is that most of their interactions take place by way of their 24-hour telephone helpline. I understand this amounted to some 1,069 listening hours per week for 2011, with similar volumes of calls expected this year. The vast majority of these contacts are anonymous. I urge the Minister to take on board the views expressed by the Samaritans. The confidential helpline affords callers a safe space in which to express their fears and concerns. As such, the value of reporting certain conversations may be outweighed by the support counsellors can offer to the caller. It is vital that the provisions of this Bill do not impinge in any negative way on the work of the Samaritans. I hope that will not be the case.

The Government, led by the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, is delivering on its reform agenda in regard to the welfare and safety of children. This Bill is part of a suite of measures that will culminate in the referendum on children's rights. That referendum should be held in the autumn and must be a standalone ballot. In the lead-up to the vote, there will undoubtedly be some who seek to enter into side debates on other issues. We must get the message out that this is about protecting children, first, second and last. That is the task we have been given as Members of this House, of all parties and none.

The Government is taking a three-pronged approach to put in place a child protection system that delivers for children, families and society. In its approach to this Bill and the Children First Bill, the Government has been very open in encouraging consultation and debate. The Children First proposals have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, while the heads of the Bill we are discussing today were debated by the Joint Committee on Health and Children. That process has allowed for a strong level of public consultation and engagement, with findings being fed back to the relevant Ministers. As I said, the health committee concluded its public deliberations on the heads of the Children First Bill yesterday. In addition, we received many written submissions from interested parties. Those submissions were wide-ranging, in-depth, interesting, thought-provoking and challenging. They came from people who wanted to participate and express their viewpoints. That demonstrates that this legislation places a value on the role of the child in society. It also shows that we are all equal, from the vulnerable most in need of the State's help to those who charged with the responsibility of care. If we learned nothing else last week, it was that there can be no further reneguing on responsibility and accountability.

The new child and family support agency heralds a new beginning with a new code of ethics, responsibility and morality regarding the care of children. In developing this legislation we have listened and are open to suggestions. We must ensure that we are consistent in our approach and definitions. Having different definitions of vulnerable people in various pieces of legislation can lead to confusion. Where possible, therefore, we should try to use the same definition and language, although I accept that it may not always be possible to do so.

The Bill defines a vulnerable person as someone suffering from a disorder of the mind, who has an intellectual disability, or is suffering from an enduring physical impairment or injury which is of such a nature or degree as to severely restrict the capacity of a child to guard himself or herself against serious exploitation or abuse. The Bill touches on the issue of capacity, which is a complex area where our laws still rely on outdated and arcane rules. Comprehensive reform of our capacity legislation is required, which will benefit the most vulnerable people as well as their families and those who care for them. We should have a scheme which acknowledges that there are varying degrees of capacity, in order to facilitate people in making their own decisions, while recognising that in some instances people need support in taking decisions.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, I chaired the Committee on Health and Children that dealt with the heads of the Children First legislation. This Bill is significant and I hope it will attract cross-party support, thus showing that we all take seriously our responsibilities regarding the protection of children.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to join with my Sinn Féin colleagues in welcoming this Bill. The legislation before us, together with the Children's Bill and the National Vetting Bureau Bill, shows a shift in attitude towards the protection of children and other vulnerable citizens. I heartily welcome that, but I would like to restate my colleague Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's concerns that these pieces of legislation must complement one another. All legislation enacted to protect affected vulnerable adults must be in line with the provisions of new mental capacity legislation.

It is important to state outright that mandatory reporting is a good thing. Concerns regarding resources are not a sufficient excuse for turning a blind eye to situations where children and vulnerable adults are being harmed or are in danger of harm. The State must ensure that children are protected and that anybody who knows a child is being abused has a responsibility, under the terms of the legislation, to make a report. While the sheer scale of historical institutional abuse may never happen again, our goal must be to put in place every measure necessary to protect all of our children in every situation.

Legislation is important but it will not of itself protect children and vulnerable adults without vigorous support services being in place. This is where my uncertainty creeps in. To be frank, I simply do not have confidence in the Government's ability to properly resource support services. Any family who has endured the tragic experience of having to support a child through the legal quagmire of an abuse case - particularly one taken by the State - will tell of the delays in obtaining those necessary supports. Children can often wait months to receive the necessary counselling and physiological support. Parents or guardians trying to cope with such a revelation - as well as dealing with gardaí and the DPP's office, while struggling with their own heartache - receive no counselling at all. The gardaí dealing with their case are often the only support that families receive. It can take up to two years for a straightforward case to reach the courts. Once families get to court, there are little or no supports, bar the great work done by voluntary services. A case can take up to a week in the criminal court. I am sure any Deputy who has supported a family through such a case from beginning to end will say it is a truly traumatic experience for young victims and their families, most of whom have never seen the inside of a courtroom before.

Robust legislation is unquestionably the foundation of child protection, but the necessary support services are the scaffolding upon which real protection is built and sustained. This legislation is an acknowledgement by the State that the decades of horrific abuse experienced by our children will not be tolerated again. It is a clear line in the sand. It is a marker that states the culture of silence that colluded with those who ran State institutions, overseeing violent abuse of our children, is no longer acceptable in Irish society. We are all responsible for our country's children who must be protected and cherished at every turn. I support Deputy Buttimer's remarks that the referendum on the rights of the child must go ahead in the autumn. It should be a stand-alone item and the wording of that referendum must be comprehensive and robust.

We cannot talk about the future protection of children and vulnerable adults without highlighting the failure of the Government to redress the wrongs of the past. The Government has been in situ for 16 months. For years in opposition, they correctly berated Fianna Fáil-led governments for failing to provide redress to the surviving women and children of the Magdalene laundries and Bethany Home. Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies, some of whom now sit at the Cabinet table, were in no doubt about State involvement in both institutions. They were unequivocal in their demand for an apology and redress for these survivors whose lives were forever framed by the abuse of those who were entrusted with their care. Yet, now that they are in Government and perfectly placed to right this wrong, the very same public representatives sit on their hands. They have hidden behind an unnecessary committee charged with investigating what we already know and can prove. They refuse to acknowledge the survivors of the Bethany Home and Magdalene laundries.

The men and women who survived do not have time on their side. They are elderly and many of them have serious health problems. They need closure. They need the State, through the Government, to step up and acknowledge its wrongdoing. They need the people of Ireland to know that their incarceration in these institutions was not their fault. Survivors must have all of this but, critically, they need support. The State still continues to refuse pension supports due to the Magdalene women after many years of work in those laundries. It is a sad irony that Government Departments of the past used these laundries. Yet, Departments today refuse to pay pensions due to these women. Survivors need urgent access to health care. Many of them suffer serious illnesses directly attributable to the abuse they endured in these institutions. Some 219 children, who died in Bethany Home between 1922 and 1949, lie in an unmarked grave in Mount Jerome Cemetery in Harold's Cross.

In 1939, the Government's Deputy Chief Medical Officer refuted damning public and health inspectorate concerns in regard to the standards of care at Bethany Home on the basis of a barbaric belief that it was normal for children of unmarried mothers to suffer from starvation. While no action was taken by the Government to protect the children in Bethany Home, which was a Protestant run home, the State did force the home to cease admitting Catholic mothers and babies. What does that say about the State, its orientation and actions?

Let us not forget the State has already accepted that there was abuse in the Magdalene laundries. This abuse is starkly documented in the Ryan report published in 2009 and in the heartbreaking detail of survivor testimonies collected by the Justice for Magdalene Group. The Ryan report and these testimonies recount that women's labour in the Magdalene laundries was forced and wholly unpaid, working conditions were harsh and women were completely deprived of their liberty, many of them of their children, and suffered physical and horrendous emotional abuse. Yet, this Government, like the previous Government, refuses to accept its and our responsibility for this abuse. Ministers continue to deny their responsibility to the women and children of Bethany Home and the Magdalene laundries. This refusal cannot and must not continue.

I believe the Government wishes to the right things in respect of child protection. Sinn Féin will support it every step of the way, when the right things are being done. In addressing the welfare and protection of our children now and into the future, we must make amends to those children and women, many of them young at the time, who were so deprived, brutalised and wronged by our State and who, by they Catholic or Protestant, now need an acknowledgement and apology from this State which had a duty care to each and every one of them.

Ciara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on this important legislation. On Deputy McDonald's point in regard to the Magdalene Laundries, I do not believe anybody denies the truth in terms of the horrific stories we have heard of the conditions endured by the women and children involved. However, we await publication of Senator McAleese's report on this matter. I have worked and continue to work, along with Ms Sally Mulready, who is based in London and was recently appointed to the Council of State by President Higgins, with these women. Ms Mulready has also referred to how time is not on their sides and how beneficial the process with Senator McAleese, whom I know met with them in London some weeks ago, is to them.

This Bill places a duty on all people and not only health professionals, as was the case in the past, who are working with children to report certain specified arrestable offences to the Garda Síochána. Child protection is everybody's concern. It has been easy in the past to scapegoat particular organisations or individuals in this regard. We are now for the first time taking a cross-departmental approach to the issue of child protection. Deputy Buttimer, Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, referred to the prolonged period of interaction that has taken place with various stakeholders on the heads of the Children First Bill. For the first time ever an interdepartmental group appeared before that committee to report progress in Departments in terms of the steps being taken to ensure child protection is being adequately and efficiently dealt with. While this should have been done in the past, we were bereft of legislation in this area in respect of which we had only empty promises and rhetoric from previous Administrations.

This Government has been in office for 16 months now. There is now a stand-alone Ministry with its own budget in this area; three significant pieces of legislation, including the Garda Vetting Bill, the heads of the Children First Bill and the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable People) Bill 2012, have come before us; for the first time since the foundation of this State a handbook for social workers in terms of practice has been published and HIQA has published standards on child protection services. These are services which people would have assumed were in place but were not, leading to us being presented with a plethora of reports on child abuse, including the Murphy, Ryan and Cloyne reports, all of which were shocking and sickening and which detailed horrific abuse of children, something none of us in this House wishes to see happen ever again.

As I stated, these reports focused heavily on abuse committed by members of the clergy. This is a key area of concern although, as others have said, we know abuse can occur anywhere. The focus of the debate on this legislation has been around the confessional seal, which disturbs me. How many disclosures were made in the kitchens of bishops palaces or in the sculleries of the parish priest's house where no confessional seal was in place yet they failed to take action or to take responsibility for or to support and protect young people and children in our State against whom some of the most horrific crimes had been committed? In my view, this legislation will address that issue.

People speak about the need for the voice of the child to be provided for in legislation and policy yet, we hear adults speak of their discomfort about having to make a disclosure or report. What about the child's discomfort? Where is the child's horrific experience to be voiced if adults will not step forward and take up their responsibility to protect children and vulnerable people?

There has been much focus on child protection. It should not be forgotten that there are 370 and 4,000 residential beds in this country for children and adults, respectively, with intellectual disability yet we have no method of monitoring what goes on in these institutions. If history has taught us anything it is, unfortunately, that people who seek to abuse others focus on areas where vulnerable people are present. I welcome this legislation and all the other legislation on the protection of children which has been brought before this House. However, there are still loopholes in our law in this regard. We have much work to do in terms of protecting vulnerable people. We must put in place criteria and standards for residential institutions to which people with intellectual and physical disability often go for respite or full time care. It is incumbent on us to pursue this.

This is the first occasion I have had an opportunity to speak in the House since publication of the death of children in care report. I worked as a social worker on the front line in the period from 2000 to 2010 and I have experience of being that social worker who fought for expenses to send flowers to a child's funeral. I hope now more than ever that we will see child protection services taken away from what we know to be a very dysfunctional HSE system. I have great confidence in the Minister's vision for the new child protection and family agency. I was pleased to see an additional subhead in the budget to ensure the agency will be appropriately staffed and will be able to implement and do the type of work we need it to do.

Atrocities happen when good people fail to act. The legislation will bring this to the fore in people's minds. We know people out there know what is going on, but for some reason they feel they cannot come forward. The Bill will compel people to do this and we do not have to make any apology for implementing such badly needed legislation. The onus will be put on people who have knowledge of a crime to voice their suspicions and make known their concerns.

The motto of Barnardos is that every childhood lasts a lifetime, and this is very true. We can see the early childhood experience of those children who suffered abuse in the past in State care or who were resident in Magdalen laundries followed them through their lives. It is also reflected in those we see in Mountjoy. It is no coincidence that a high proportion of those in care end up homeless and, because of the cruel and distressing life people lead on the street, turn to crime and end up in prison. Much analysis and research has shown the experience of children from birth to the age of five has a lifelong and lasting impact on their social, emotional and physical development.

I welcome that the Minister has brought forward this legislation and that he is working with his Cabinet colleagues, in particular the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to ensure we have a proactive approach from now on with regard to intervening with children who come to the attention of social services at the earliest possible stage. We know this is in the best interests of the child, the family and the parents.

With regard to the referendum on children's rights there is much discussion about what day of the week a referendum is held. If we are to have the fullest participation on such an important matter, and to ensure the participation of young people who may be away at college or university or attending training, we should hold this referendum on a Saturday. I have asked the Minister about this previously and I hope he will bring it back to his Cabinet colleagues. Let us show people how serious we are about ensuring everybody has their say on such an important issue. We should consider this. It would also signify the importance we place on the rights of children. We should stop the rhetoric on the voice of the child and give an opportunity to engage on this issue to those close to childhood, at the age of 18, who are the most likely to be away from home.

The rights of the child and the protection of our children and vulnerable must take precedent. By protecting people who are vulnerable or who may have an intellectual or physical disability we are responding to the duty of care incumbent on all of us and supporting what can only be described as a basic human right. By protecting our children we protect all our futures.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill which is a welcome addition to the Statute Book. I am fortunate that on my travels throughout my constituency comprising Louth and east Meath the issue of sexual offences against children arose on very few occasions. This is despite the fact that Louth boasts two large urban population centres, in Dundalk and Drogheda.

The purpose of the legislation is to close an existing loophole in the law. Under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 it is an offence to withhold information in respect of a serious criminal offence. However, this provision of the 1998 Act specifically excludes sexual offences. Therefore, the Minister is bringing forward the Bill to ensure there is an obligation on persons who have knowledge of all serious offences, including sexual offences against children or vulnerable adults, to inform the Garda Síochána. I think it is fair to assume that all Members would support such a motion.

Recent reports such as Cloyne, Murphy and Ryan highlighted a litany of revelations concerning the sexual abuse of children and failure to respond to this abuse. It is clear from these revelations and the various published reports, that if those who had knowledge in the past of sexual offences committed against children had informed the Garda, many children who subsequently became the victims of abuse may have been protected from clerical sexual predators. Therefore, a compelling argument exists for closing the current loophole in the law and I reiterate that all right-minded people should support such a motion.

As Members are aware, the problem is not confined to offences against children, with a number of equally serious cases of vulnerable adults in institutional care being subject to serious sexual and physical abuse. These incidents should not be tolerated. It is very important that the Government produces legislation that affords protection from abuse to children or vulnerable persons in any scenario or location. This is what this Bill is about.

Under the provisions of the Bill it will be an offence to fail to disclose to the Garda Síochána, without reasonable excuse, information concerning certain serious criminal offences where such offences are committed against a child or vulnerable adult. These serious offences are listed in the Schedules to the Bill and all carry a penalty of imprisonment lasting five years or more. They include most sexual offences and offences such as assault causing harm or serious harm, cruelty to a child, the abduction of a child, manslaughter and murder. The Bill also establishes some limited defences for those charged under the Bill for persons such as a parent, guardian or medical professional acting in the interests of the health and well-being of the child or vulnerable person.

Members are aware the Bill is one element of a series of legislative measures to protect children and vulnerable persons to which the Government is committed. The Bill has been drafted to compliment the operation of the upcoming Children First Bill and the national vetting bureau Bill. The Bill addresses the role of the Garda Síochána. It requires that any person who has evidence that a person has committed a serious offence against a child or vulnerable person must provide the Garda with that information so the Garda can investigate the alleged crime.

I welcome the Bill. It strengthens the current legislation and closes a loophole that has existed for far too long. It is good legislation and should help to ensure that abuses are always reported to the appropriate authorities. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Halligan who is sharing time with Deputy Boyd Barrett.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The frequency and source of the denials associated with child abuse in Ireland, as we have all said, is nothing short of a national shame. The Bill is long overdue. It is a small start to ensuring what happened will not happen again. It is a pity the law cannot be made retrospective with regard to those who withheld information concerning sexual offences in the past, particularly in the wake of the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports and the systematic abuse of thousands of vulnerable children in State and Church run institutions. The legislation is very welcome.

I also welcome the assurances given by the Minister that there will be no ambiguity when it comes to the seal of the confessional. Sacerdotal privilege has quite an uncertain status in contemporary Irish law and there must be no instance in any attempted criminal prosecution where a member of the clergy can use this privilege as a defence for failing to disclose the information in question. Some have already indicated, as the Minister is well aware, that they may very well do this. We have to send and copperfasten a clear message in this Bill to the effect that it will not be allowed to happen. Any measures aimed at strengthening child protection in this country are to be applauded. Many voluntary and sporting organisations throughout the country are working hard to implement the Children First guidelines.

I find it a little disingenuous on the part of the Government that it is pushing ahead with child protection legislation at a time when hundreds of highly vulnerable children throughout the country do not receive call-backs from front-line child protection agencies because they have heavy caseloads and are under-staffed as a result of unofficial recruitment bans. The case of a child in my constituency who was abused between the ages of 13 and 17 made the headlines last week. The case was brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána and the health services. I spoke to gardaí about the matter. It is appalling and unacceptable that as of last week, the child had yet to be contacted by the health authority. As I said earlier when I welcomed this Bill, it will be of no value if we do not strengthen the services associated with child abuse to make sure every child in the State who is abused receives an immediate, quick and efficient response from the health service.

The HSE has acknowledged that there are glaring gaps in child protection services. I am concerned that as a result of this legislation, social work teams will be overwhelmed with cases of potential abuse that will be referred to them from the Garda and will not have the resources to deal with them. It is beyond me to understand how the current system, which is already allowing vulnerable children to slip through the cracks, as in the case in my constituency that I mentioned, can be expected to cope with what will happen in the future. I have spoken to many gardaí who are having to act as social workers by doing call-backs to vulnerable children who are tormented as a result of physical and sexual abuse. Many such children are not being contacted by our social services. I appeal to the Minister to think carefully about that. I am not being critical of him.

I welcome this Bill and I am pleased it is being passed. We will support it. I know I am kicking at an open door when I say, as I have said three times already, that we need to deal with cases like that of the child in Waterford who up to last week had not been contacted by the social services. I am keen to reiterate this point on the record. It has been acknowledged by gardaí that what is said to have happened to this child actually happened. The child's family are aware of it too. It is appalling that such cases are allowed to happen. In welcoming the Bill, I emphasise that we need to make sure children who have been abused in the past, who are being abused at present or who will be abused in the future are contacted by the health services immediately.

The latest official figures indicate there is a high level of inaccuracy in the reporting of child abuse cases. Up to half of the 20,000 to 30,000 cases of suspected child abuse that are reported in a single year tend to be reclassified as child welfare cases that do not require statutory intervention. That needs to be examined because it adds a level of vagueness to the system. When one speaks to front-line workers in this area, as I have done, one learns they do not think the system of classifying child abuse is unacceptable. They find it very difficult to deal with. Significant international evidence suggests that the introduction of mandatory reporting requirements in a jurisdiction results in a substantial increase in the number of reports made to that jurisdiction's child protection services. I will conclude by complimenting the Minister on the introduction of this worthwhile legislation, while reminding him that it will be completely undermined if it is not matched with substantial additional resources for certain aspects of our social services and the Garda Síochána.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I am pleased that the Government and Deputies on all sides of the House have made it clear in recent weeks and months that there is an urgent need to do something about this issue. In light of the horrific revelations that have emanated from the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports in recent years - and most recently the report on the deaths of children who were in contact with the social services - it is long overdue for a way of protecting children from such horrors and abuses to be put in place. This Bill, which compels people to report arrestable offences to the Garda Síochána, is to be welcomed in that context. Essentially, it will criminalise the withholding of information on offences that have been committed against children or vulnerable people. While that is to be welcomed, we need to do a little more than simply making it a crime not to report knowledge or suspicion of such offences. There needs to be a link between our efforts in this regard and the whole question of the welfare of the child. The HSE website states that a person who is aware of a case of child abuse or neglect needs to report it to the HSE's child and family services. If this Bill is passed, will such a person be required to make that report to the Garda Síochána? Such a report would not be enough because it would focus on penalising the offender without doing anything to uphold the obligation on the social services of the State to take action to protect the child in question.

It is clear that offenders need to be reported but the stated aim of this Bill is to protect children and vulnerable adults from serious offences. The reporting of perpetrators really only does half of that job. Where is the Children First Bill? The initial Children First guidelines were published in 1999. We need legislation to be passed to ensure the very good recommendations in Children First are put on a statutory footing. That should lead to the real implementation of the Children First guidelines. It is crucial that our efforts to protect children have this sort of legislative back-up. The big question is what will be done when a problem is reported. How will children or vulnerable people who are at risk, or who are victims of abuse be assisted? If resources are not available to offer real support to vulnerable or abused children, all the legislation in the world will not really solve the problem. That brings us to the issue of cutbacks in front line services like social work, psychiatry and psychological assessment. All sorts of cuts are affecting the provision of such services. In that context, it is important to note what the Children First guidelines have to say on the issue of neglect:

Neglect can be defined in terms of an omission, where the child suffers significant harm or impairment of development by being deprived of food, clothing, warmth, hygiene, intellectual stimulation, supervision and safety, attachment to and affection from adults, and/or medical care.

Carers, family members and even individuals can be guilty of neglect. Surely, by that definition, this Government is guilty of such neglect. The imposing of caps on special needs assistants, their removal from many schools throughout the country, leaving some of our most vulnerable without the necessary support, is surely an instance of neglect, whereby the State should be-----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy obviously does not know there are more special needs assistants now than at any stage in the history of the State.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am well aware of that but the problem is we also have more children than at any time in the history of the State. There are 10,000 extra children entering the primary school system every year. In absolute terms, the question is not about how many SNAs we have; it is about the ratio of SNAs to the number of children in the education system, specifically to the number of children with special needs, a number that is increasing. The fact is, by imposing caps the Government is reducing the level of support provided to the most vulnerable children. That is neglect, and if we are serious about protecting children that level of neglect should be criminalised.

Similarly, there is the removal or threatened removal of measures such as the domiciliary care allowance, again for parents of children with special needs, disabilities and so on. This is an instance of State neglect. Is the Government going to held legally responsible for that level of neglect, which is being inflicted on some of our most vulnerable children? There are the cuts imposed on disadvantaged schools and the cutbacks to front-line services. Some child mental health services are seeing only emergency cases and are turning away everything else. Waiting lists for speech and language therapy are extremely long; the availability of psychologists to do assessments is woefully inadequate. One of the parents involved in the DCA Warriors protest outside the Dáil the other day told me there are now no psychologists in County Cavan to provide assessments for children with special needs. That sort of situation is being replicated all over the State.

As I pointed out to the Tánaiste in the Dáil the other day, if we are serious when we talk about protection for children and preventing neglect and abuse, the most obvious obligation the State has is to provide housing, a roof to go over the heads of children that is of decent quality and secure. The State is failing abysmally in that. I do not know whether studies have been done on it but I would bet my bottom dollar that if one looks at the most vulnerable children, the victims of abuse and neglect, who have ended up in various institutions, there will be a correlation between that and coming from poor and inadequate housing conditions, housing insecurity, and so on. That is blatantly obvious. Yet the way in which the State is failing in its obligation to provide housing for some of the least well-off families and their children is getting worse by the day. Every week the cuts in rent caps are forcing dozens of families with young children into homelessness. Is that not neglect on the part of the State? Is it not a recipe to ensure that in certain cases those families will break down and the children involved will end up in very vulnerable situations where they could be victims of neglect and abuse?

That is a major failure of the State. I want to know whether, if this Bill is passed, the State will be guilty of a crime if it fails to provide the necessary supports, protections, resources and services for all our children, but particularly for our most vulnerable children, those with special needs, disabilities and from poor backgrounds. The State should be liable for those sorts of failures. Will it be a crime for us in this House, or for members of the public, not to report the Government for its criminal negligence when it comes to the protection of our children? One must wonder whether the raft of legislation coming through, all, on the face of it, formally and nominally good, all heading in the right direction and well-intentioned, is not just window dressing if we do not actually provide the resources and services required. The policy in regard to the provision of those resources and services, housing, psychological assessment, all the things that would protect children, is that they are being systematically cut and will be cut again in the budget of December and the one after it.

I ask the Minister and the Government to be consistent. This Bill is fine, as far as it goes. I would like to see the Children First Bill introduced as well but it will mean very little unless it is backed up with the resources and services our children, our most vulnerable citizens, require in order to be genuinely protected.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand I am sharing time with Deputy Seán Kenny.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is correct.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which is just one of a number of Bills aimed at protecting some of the most vulnerable in our society. It is unfortunate that legislation such as this is not already in existence but I am pleased to see this Government implementing what is long overdue.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Boyd Barrett who made a great case for special needs provision. I agree with him but I have one question for him. Will he give us one way in which we can raise the money he spoke about, which is needed? It would be great to have more special needs facilities, more housing and all the items he mentioned. Where will the money come from? He should not give us the usual line he gives us week in, week out, about not paying the bondholders.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was the Deputy's line before.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fact is, if we were not dealing as we are with the banks there would be no money to pay for the social welfare or for any of the special needs. That should be kept in mind.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We could start by not paying the-----

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would be the very first to stand up and state that the number of special needs teachers should be increased. There is a whole host of such issues. The bottom line, however, is there must be money. Where will it come from? I ask the Deputy, because he is so good at lecturing us, to give us one way in which we could reasonably get that money. He has never come up with that. He comes into the Chamber, week in, week out-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We could get ten special needs assistants from the salary of the head of the VHI.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is always somebody about whom the Deputy is resentful.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----giving us the same story, not to pay this one, not to pay that one. The reality is he has never given a common sense way of raising that money and that is a fact. It is time to do things and I agree with the Deputy these are all needed but let us come up with an honest and constructive way of doing this. It is as simple as that and I will wait for it.

As the Minister and many others have stated, the purpose of the Criminal Justice Bill 2012 is to close an existing loophole in the law. Under the current legislation it is an offence to withhold information in respect of a serious criminal offence. However, this excludes sexual offences. For that reason the Government has brought forward this Bill to ensure that all serious offences, including those of a sexual nature, must be reported to the Garda. I hope and expect that this will make some difference in the protection of children and vulnerable adults in particular.

We can all agree that the stories and revelations contained in the Ryan, Murphy, and Cloyne reports were shocking to say the least. It is sad that reports like those were needed to shock this House into action, and some of the responsibility for the abuse suffered must fall on the State, but lessons have been learned and the introduction of this Bill is proof of that. What is clear from the statements made by victims is that if those who had knowledge of sexual offences committed against children in the past had informed gardaí, many subsequent crimes could have been prevented. There is no stronger argument for this Bill than that.

Many of those reports refer to clerical and institutional abuse but the fact remains that most abuse occurs within families. This was something we in the justice committee raised at the time and I know the Minister has also acknowledged that fact. We cannot ignore the fact that many families will still refuse to disclose abuse in an effort to protect themselves and although this Bill will make that an offence, there is still a great deal of work to be done to reduce and eliminate abuse taking place in the home. Anybody who withholds information on the abuse of children or vulnerable adults should and will be punished severely under this Bill. Where information is not disclosed, without reasonable cause, offenders can face penalties of up to ten years imprisonment. Given the lifetime of damage that can be done to a victim, I welcome the type of penalties included in this Bill for those who fail to protect them from further or repeated abuse.

I also want to address a related issue, which has come up regularly in my constituency of Tipperary South, that of religious privilege and the nature of confidentiality between a priest and his congregation. This Bill will not change the use of that privilege. As it stands, religious privilege has been relied on in cases dealing with civil matters. However, dealing with criminal cases is a different matter and it is up to the courts to decide when this privilege can or cannot be used.

It is important to note that this Bill does not deal entirely with the issue of sexual abuse in the State. The children first Bill, although separate, will address the issues in the HSE concerning the protection of children and vulnerable adults. The Garda can only do so much in this area. While they may be able to investigate a criminal offence against a child or adult, it is the role of the HSE to provide the necessary supports and monitoring of children at risk. I hope to see the children first Bill before the House as soon as possible. It is badly needed if we are to properly address the problems in our health service. It will require that the relevant persons in a position to assess children at risk must provide the HSE with the necessary information to monitor the children in question. It will also require the HSE to provide the right supports to a child who may have been abused. This was a real problem in the past and I hope it will be addressed in that Bill once and for all. It is important that the HSE would only be allowed to operate in conjunction with the Garda on any case with which they may be dealing and I would like some allowances to be made for that in the upcoming Bill.

I want to reassure my constituents that this Bill applies to everyone in the State, and it does not target a particular group or organisation. It is a logical step in the effort to further protect our children from sexual abuse, an issue on which we can all agree. I want to mention the people who have been at the heart of this campaign to protect our young and vulnerable people. In particular, I want to thank the victims and survivors of abuse who have spoken out and made their voices heard on this matter. I know personally that some people in south Tipperary have spoken out about their own experiences and I say well done to them for that. They may have been let down in the past but I want them to know that they have made a real difference to the safety and security of our children in the future.

I commend the Minister on bringing this Bill before the Cabinet and the House.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The primary purpose of this Bill is to close an existing loophole in the law. Under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, it is an offence to withhold information in respect of a serious criminal offence. However, that provision of the 1998 Act specifically excludes sexual offences. This Bill is before the House in order to ensure that there is an obligation on persons who have knowledge of all serious offences, including sexual offences against children or vulnerable adults, to inform the Garda.

I am certain all Members of the House agree that the content of published documents such as the Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports all provide what can only be described as a litany of profoundly shocking revelations that concern the sexual abuse of children. It is also particularly relevant to this Bill that these reports also contain shocking revelations regarding the utterly disgraceful failure to report abuse to the authorities. The fact of all of these matters is that if those who had knowledge in the past of sexual offences committed against children had informed gardaí, many children who subsequently became victims of abuse may have been protected from clerical sexual predators.

What of the revelations contained in the Report of the Independent Child Death Review Group? It is clear that crimes against children are not confined to the church - it is obvious that the State also has failed children and vulnerable persons. We can also see cases - very serious cases - of vulnerable adults in institutional care being subject to awful sexual and physical abuse. As political representatives, we have not, as a group, done enough to prevent these things from happening during the past decades and it is time now that we did. Closing this loophole would be a start. All the revelations to which I have just referred make it a compelling case that this loophole be closed. There should be no arguments here, and I would like to see all sides of the House vote in support of this legislation, regardless of party affiliation.

This Bill must also take into account a further unpleasant truth - the fact that the balance of evidence suggests that the majority of abuse of children,or vulnerable adults takes place in the person's own home. Despite the awful damage done to children and vulnerable persons at the hands of clerics, the State and institutions, it is important to re-affirm that we are not just concerned with issues of sexual abuse by persons in these entities. It is important to state that the Bill applies to all persons and all organisations in all sectors of society. It is very important that legislation is produced that affords protection from abuse to children or vulnerable persons in any scenario and in any location.

Under the provisions of this Bill, it will be an offence to fail to disclose to the Garda Síochána, without reasonable excuse, information concerning certain serious criminal offences where such offences are committed against a child or a vulnerable adult. These "serious offences" are listed in the Schedules to the Bill. They will carry a penalty of imprisonment of five years or more. They include most sexual offences and offences such as assault causing harm, causing serious harm, cruelty to a child, abduction of a child, manslaughter and murder. The Bill also establishes some limited defences for persons charged under the Bill for persons such as a parent or guardian or a medical professional who is acting in the interests of the health and well-being of the child or vulnerable person.

Section 2 creates the offence of withholding information on serious offences against children, and there are a number of provisions in this section. First, it is only an offence to withhold information where the person knows or believes that an offence has been committed and the person has information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the offender. This means that a person is not under any obligation to inform the Garda regarding any kind of vague rumours, innuendo or suspicions. They only commit an offence if they have substantive information regarding an offence and fail, without reasonable excuse, to disclose that information to the Garda. Subsection 2(2) of the Bill provides that the Bill will only apply to information that a person receives or becomes aware of after the Bill becomes law. I understand that this was decided after consultation with the Attorney General, who came to the decision that it would not be feasible to make it an offence to withhold information where that information had been received before the Bill was enacted. While I can understand the point of view that anyone with any information should disclose it, no matter how old that information might be, in my view the Bill would be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge if there were to be a retrospective element to it. Making the law retrospective and applicable to information received by a family member, or to a person who provided support to a victim many years ago, would in many instances be unjust. This is where there would be a risk of the Bill becoming vulnerable under the Constitution. It would potentially criminalise individuals who had in good faith decided that it was not appropriate to report an offence to the Garda Síochána at the time that they became aware of it, but who would not be able to show that their decision meets the revised standard now required in this Bill. However, I welcome the fact that the new law will therefore apply to non-disclosure of information received after the Bill is passed, although it may relate to something that happened before enactment. This ensures that in regard to future actions, behaviours and responsibilities there is certainty and clarity in the law.

Section 2 of the Bill also provides that the victim cannot be guilty of any offence if he or she chooses not to disclose the offence against them. This exclusion was welcomed during the consideration of the Bill by the joint committee. Subsection (3) of section 2 confirms that the victim of any offence covered by the Bill cannot be guilty of the offence of withholding information where he or she does not report the offence to the Garda Síochána. Subsection (4) of section 2 also provides that the Bill is without prejudice to any right or privilege that is recognised in law. In that regard, this provision is simply to allow the courts to use their normal discretion in considering issues of privilege. There has been much media comment suggesting that this Bill has an effect on the seal of confession or sacerdotal privilege. As is the position with regard to the 1998 Act, there are no defences in this legislation which would specially apply to information received in the confessional nor is there any specific provision with regard to the confessional. It will continue to be a matter for any court before which a person is prosecuted to determine whether any particular privilege exists or applies in the circumstances of any particular case. It also must be borne in mind that existing provisions in the criminal law for the protection of children continue to apply. This includes section 176 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which makes it an offence for a person with authority or control over a child or abuser to intentionally or recklessly endanger a child by causing or permitting a child to be placed or left in a situation which creates a substantial risk to the child of being a victim of serious harm or sexual abuse. It is also an offence to fail to take reasonable steps to protect a child from such risk while knowing that a child is in such a situation.

It is worth stating that the issue of sacerdotal privilege has never arisen with regard to the offences prescribed by the 2006 Act nor in relation to the offences in this Bill which are currently covered by the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. It should be borne in mind that the issue of confession does not arise in regard to the many cases of criminal offences identified in the Ryan, Murphy or Cloyne reports. These reports all relate to complaints of abuse made to the church authorities by the victims or by family members or by members of the public.

Nothing in the Bill will impede any victim or any other person at any time going to the Garda Síochána to report an offence. The defences in the Bill solely relate to circumstances where the victim chooses not to do this, or does not have the capacity to do it. The defences are also necessary to take account of the fact that many children or vulnerable persons who are victims of sexual abuse are at a very young age and are often too traumatised by what has happened to them to be able to make an immediate report to the Garda Síochána.

In submissions to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, reference was made to the issue regarding victims of abuse being without the capacity to report offences against them owing to their age or some other vulnerability. Such victims should be able to rely on another person to act on their behalf. The Bill provides that where the victim does not have the capacity to form a view as to whether the commission of the offence should be disclosed to the Garda, and the offender is not a family member, then the parent or guardian can make known, on behalf of the victim, that the victim does not want the offence to be reported to the Garda. An important safeguard in this circumstance is that the parent or guardian concerned must have reasonable grounds for acting on behalf of the child or vulnerable adult and must show that in so doing, he or she is acting in the best interest of the child. They must also show that they had regards to the wishes of the child. These provisions are set out in subsections (2) to (7) of section 4.

There is a presumption in subsection (2) of section 4 that a child under 14 years of age does not have the capacity to decide themselves whether to report an offence. A child of any age may, if they wish, choose to report an offence and nothing in the Bill prevents this. The law would be inconsistent if it allows a person of 14 years or over, to give evidence under oath, but does not recognise them as having capacity to determine whether information in relation to an offence against them should be disclosed.

In making these provisions, the intent is to ensure that the Bill will not discourage a victim from seeking appropriate treatment at a time when he or she is too traumatised by what has happened to go through the additional trauma of making a report to the Garda. It is therefore necessary that in cases where the victim is very severely traumatised that a treating medical professional can decide that it is not in the interests of the victim's health and welfare to report the offence at that time. It is important to note that the medical professional will still be under an obligation to notify the HSE of any abuse of a child under the Children First guidelines which are to be placed on a statutory footing by the Children First Bill.

This Bill is one element of a suite of legislation to protect children and vulnerable persons to which the Government is committed. This Bill has been drafted to complement the operation of the upcoming Children First Bill and the National Vetting Bureau Bill. I appeal to all sides of the House to support this crucial Bill.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this legislation and also his colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald who deals with this area. This legislation, together with other legislation such as the Children First Bill, the National Vetting Bureau Bill, the new child protection and welfare proposals and the proposed referendum, represents a shift in attitude on the part of the State which is very welcome. Many reports have been issued in the past, going back as far as the Kilkenny incest report, dealing with matters relating to children and the abuse of children and vulnerable adults. We were aware of the situation but unfortunately, little or no action was taking arising from those reports. Even at this stage in 2012, we are only now beginning to put in place the architecture of legislation necessary as a first step.

The culture of silence held sway over many years and it is not acceptable; it is not good enough nor was it ever good enough and it should never have been tolerated. There needs to be a complete cultural change, not just by organisations working in the area of child protection but also among the general public. I refer to recent surveys such as that carried out by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must interrupt the Deputy and I am aware he is sharing time with Deputy Joan Collins.