Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, to the House in introducing this important Bill, which has cross-party support. I welcome the very comprehensive view given by the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, in an earlier speech. It is very necessary and will put in statutory format practices that are already ongoing in vetting procedures required under the Children First national guidelines. As the Minister of State indicated, approximately 350,000 vetting applications will be processed this year by the Garda vetting unit in accordance with those guidelines. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure we have a statutory framework for what is an ongoing practice.

Senator Bradford referred to the justice committee hearings which took place to discuss the heads of this Bill in September 2011. I echo his comment that this is a useful process, where the Members of Dáil and Seanad have an opportunity to examine in depth the heads of a Bill before it is drafted with the assistance of stakeholders. We heard in September last year from 12 organisations, including sports groups like Swim Ireland and the GAA, children's groups like the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo's, and other groups like the Teaching Council and the Irish Universities Association, the INTO, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Rape Crisis network. These are a variety of groups with front-line experience, and we were very impressed with the vetting procedures already followed by them in the course of their work. That applies both to groups which started as voluntary organisations and those who carried out different statutory functions.

We were impressed by the vetting procedures already in place and we heard some useful points from the groups that came to us. We heard about potential problems with the draft of the Bill and I am glad the Minister of State has indicated that the report of the committee was taken into account in formulating this Bill. It seems much of the wording of the Bill has changed compared to the heads that we had.

There are a number of recommendations on which I would like to focus that were made by the committee and addressed by the Minister of State. Senators van Turnhout and Power referred to the issue of portability, which the justice committee raised in last November's report. The committee argued that the legislation should provide "for portability of vetting whereby a vetting outcome for a person who is vetted could be shared within data protection requirements with another organisation to cut down on multiple applications for vetting of the same person and reduce the burden on the Garda vetting unit". We are all aware of that burden. The Minister of State provided a very appropriate response in indicating that this may not be feasible, as a person vetted for a position with an employer may gain subsequent convictions prior to applying to a second employer. I agree that in considering the protection of safety of children is paramount, and that should overcome any practical issues in trying to cut down multiple applications. That is a fair response to the point.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality also raised concerns, as the Minister of State indicated, about information from other jurisdictions, which was identified by organisations as an important issue. We heard there was good co-operation between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK in sharing information on the vetting process but this was not always the case with other countries. I am glad the Minister of State has given a very clear response in that respect and that separate legislation will be brought forward, the criminal records (information systems) Bill, to provide for enhanced co-operation in exchanging criminal record information with other states. That is important because many organisations were concerned about it.

Another issue that exercised the committee membership was exemption from the working of the Bill. I am glad to see the use of the phrase ad hoc has now been removed. Many groups had difficulty with its use regarding exemptions, with persons being exempt where there was occasional or ad hoc voluntary or assistance work with organisations dealing with children or vulnerable adults. Many people argued that this was too vague and arbitrary, and a tightened set of exemptions in section 3 is a great improvement.

I was interested in Senator Power's comments about childminding not being covered. Senator Bradford indicated that section 3 appears to cover it but section 2 seems to exclude the activity, as the definition of a relevant organisation does not include an individual who employs a person to work with children in the course of a private arrangement. That is the difficulty identified. The definition covers the provision of relevant worker activities for the benefit of the individual or a child or vulnerable person who is a member of the individual's family. It seems that a childminder hired in a commercial sense in one's own home may not be covered. It may be useful to get clarity from the Minister of State in that respect.

It is an interesting point as the issue arose in the justice committee when we considered head No. 5 of the Bill, which was a specific statement that the "provisions of this Act shall also apply to persons providing accommodation in their private home for children or vulnerable adults other than family relatives". I know Barnardos supported the inclusion of people running small-scale crèches for a small number of children, which is perfectly legal and facilitated under other laws. Apparently, the practice may not be covered, although the legislation may have tightened this up somewhat. The only exemption appears to be in respect of a person employing somebody for the benefit of their own child and it is somewhat unclear. Play dates are excluded, which I am glad to see, and there are some cases where we must be sensible.

The Minister of State has also indicated that babysitting and private tuition are excluded. As with childminding, there can be a range of activities; childminding can involve a grandmother caring in her or a child's home for a child which should not be covered, but private tuition can extend to a long period with a person who may be involved with a number of tuition arrangements. We must consider what should be covered and there must be greater clarity in that regard.

There were other issues raised at the committee but they have been dealt with by the strengthened version of the legislation we have before us. Senator van Turnhout raised the issue of due process and concerns about previous convictions, which forms another element of the justice committee's report. We questioned whether it would go too far to have very minor traffic convictions disclosed. I accept, in the interests of child protection, the view that it is better to be overly inclusive in that respect, and the spent conviction legislation would go some way to addressing those concerns. Spent convictions would be covered under the soft information process.

The re-vetting issue is crucial and I hope we will revisit it on Committee Stage. Section 20 is strong but it still leaves discretion to the Minister with regard to time limits. The organisations expressed concerns about that and they wished to see the process tightened. We heard that the Garda vetting bureau backlog was ten weeks but the Minister of State has indicated it is now eight weeks. Extra resources will be required.

To reiterate the thoughts of the committee, we were very pleased to note in our hearings that many of the organisations which took part in the process had, in advance of the legislation, introduced procedures that in many cases go further than required by the Bill. Vetting procedures are already in place and it is important and welcome that they are being put on a statutory footing at last.