Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and wish her the best of luck in her new brief. It has been correctly pointed out that she is a good choice for the job. I hope that, despite the times in which we live, resources will not become an excuse for delaying important initiatives. We are discussing an area in which delays in providing for the needs of children are unacceptable. Much of what Mr. Shannon proposes in his excellent report does not primarily depend on the availability of resources. He calls for extensive legislative action and determination of purpose. He has done us a favour and established a reputation as a man of independence. The recommendations made in his fourth report are practical and, important as the constitutional amendment on children will be, he has focused on a number issues which do not relate directly to the amendment. It is important to focus on the many objectives that can be achieved through legislation.

On the mandatory aftercare of children, the clause in the Constitution from which this derives is that the State shall sometimes occupy the place of a parent. What parent of a troubled child would abandon him or her at the age of 18 years? If the State is in the business of providing care, it must carry an onus to continue that care beyond the age of 18. That is an area in which promises have been made but not delivered on. It is vital that we proceed beyond section 45 of the Child Care Act which deals with the issue as one in respect of which there is discretion to place an obligation on the State to provide aftercare. This need is brought into sharp focus when one considers the report Mr. Shannon is compiling on the children who died while in the care of the State. Of the cases he is investigating, 30 involve children who died in aftercare or, more accurately, post-care settings. This is a life and death obligation on the State.

With respect to the Minister, she was vague in her reference to discussions with the Garda on the question of joint interviewing. The experience of child sexual abuse units suggests joint interviewing takes place as the exception rather than the rule. It is not only a question of double trauma or upset for a child because there is also potential for inconsistencies and a reduced chance of a successful conviction where joint interviewing is not practised. We need to move to a situation where there will be joint interviewing. The protocols in this respect are general and aspirational. There must be oversight by a senior official in order that he or she knows the extent of joint interviewing and the reasons it is not being practised.

The increase in the number of disclosure orders pertaining to counselling could lead to a reduction in the number of victims who report or seek counselling. This is a sensitive issue because it is important that people be entitled to a fair trial and so on. Legislation is needed and this would mean a balancing act between providing for the circumstances in which applications for disclosure of records would be considered and the need to guarantee a fair trial for people. The failure to legislate is leading to a decrease in the numbers of people reporting and seeking counselling. This is a problem.

The soft information issue was dealt with by Mr. Shannon and the Minister. The Ferns Report recommended interagency review groups. It makes sense, for example, in the context of clerical sexual abuse, that agencies should share information that falls short of knowledge of a criminal offence but which could none the less lead to people being protected with each other. There cannot be interagency co-operation if there is not thorough legal protection for the exchange of soft information. One only has to consider the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in Britain. The Bichard inquiry found that had the information that was available about the murderer been exchanged, those deaths might have been prevented. We do not want to examine the issue of soft information in the future through the lens of what might or might not have happened had we legislated in time. We do not want a death on our hands. It is important we legislate to guarantee that officials are protected when they exchange such information. The HSE engages in the exchange of soft information but Mr. Shannon questions whether it has sufficient statutory protection for this.

I refer to the issue of the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services. I am delighted that the movement of opinion in this area is towards criminalisation a lá the Swedish model. Human dignity cries out for such legislation. I would like the Minister to make a firm commitment that a Bill will be before the House in due course that will criminalise the purchasers of persons in prostitution. That will have child protection benefits.