David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In general I welcome the Bill. It is a question of balance and everybody has accepted that notion. There is no question or doubt but that all of us want to protect children and people of my age realise how devastatingly innocent we were after seeing the recent disclosures. None of us understood the pervasiveness, extent or degree of abuse of children by swimming coaches or television stars. I was shattered to see reports that Uncle Mac, whom I remember from the 1950s as the genial voice of BBC radio's "Children's Hour", is now under grave suspicion.

All our illusions in that regard should be gone.

The Bill puts the entire vetting procedure and the use of Garda criminal records on a statutory footing. The question of soft information in the Minister of State's contribution concerns me. What exactly is soft information? Some of our journalistic colleagues seem to be a little confused in that regard. I refer to a Mr. Paul Cullen who stated in an article in The Irish Timesthat four years ago an Oireachtas committee recommended that vetting procedures be placed on a statutory basis and that legislation be introduced to regulate the way criminal convictions and other soft information is used for child protection purposes. I would have thought that criminal convictions were hard information and to use the word "other" suggested soft information is the same. It is described in the Bill as special information. I would be concerned if the existence merely of gossip, for example, and this is placed under the legislation on permanent record to be held somewhere and therefore it is a permanent black mark at least to the degree of suspicion against somebody, was placed on a par with actual criminal conviction.

One has to take into account again the question of balance because we live in a common law jurisdiction where one is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. That is a very important human rights safeguard and it is significant that Dr. Maurice Manning, the recently retired chairman of the Human Rights Commission and former leader of Fine Gael in this House, expressed concern on this when he stated:

Once a criminal conviction is imposed, it follows the individual for life and can inhibit their access to education or employment, their ability to obtain licences, insurance and housing and can place restrictions on their travel. For a person who is convicted of a minor offence or fined, to have to reveal that conviction for three to seven years seems entirely disproportionate.

It was interesting that several of my colleagues, many of whom have a clear commitment and long track record in this area, expressed some degree of concern.

With regard to the question of traffic offences, for example, I suppose a minor traffic conviction or even a medium traffic conviction is appropriate if one is driving a bus but it is not important just for children; it is important for everybody else. If one has a track record of drunk driving, breaking red lights, driving without insurance and tax or whatever and one has an accumulation of offences, one is a danger to everybody. On the question of one's age or other status such as disability, it might make it more tragic if an accident occurs but any civilian will be killed if somebody drives inappropriately because they have not been properly vetted in this way. I do not see the point of that, particularly for minor traffic convictions.

I share the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues about the vetting procedure and the resourcing of it. I would like to know about the quality of the vetting. How good is it? Is it a cosmetic exercise? I do not know how long it takes but we are told there are 350,000 to be done per annum and there is a backlog of 100,000. I am not good at mathematics unless they are round figures but even if they take, say, half an hour to vet one person that is 150,000 hours. If we take it that people work a five hour day, that is 30,000 days before we get the extra 100,000 in two sectors. I am not sure it is being done adequately and that we have the resources or the person power, to be politically correct, to do this work appropriately.

There is also the question of private tuition. I would think private tutors could be fairly beastly and capable of inappropriate behaviour towards children. Why are they exempt?

There was an interesting article in a newspaper last week in which a woman was quoted as saying that she stands on the side of a hockey pitch once or twice a year and as a nominated parent she has to be vetted, whereas the woman up the road who looks after three under-age children on a regular basis does not have to be vetted. That is the kind of anomaly that could be teased out in the Seanad, but it is a rather worrying one.

I am pleased that the idea of balance to which I referred appears to be addressed by the Minister in the sections of the Bill which give the person who is the subject of the information the opportunity to have a copy of the information and to challenge the proposed disclosure. That is important and it goes some way towards meeting my concerns because that is democratic. If somebody accused of something, unlike in other areas of the law which survive where somebody can be accused and then denied access to the information, which I always thought was crazy, has the opportunity to correct that, then that is a good development.

Following on from what I said, the Minister of State stated in her contribution that it was the Government's view that it was not appropriate or feasible for the State to require vetting in regard to a person's private family arrangements. I reiterate that a great deal of abuse takes place within the family, of which, therefore, we must be aware.

I am interested in the cost of the vetting procedure because that will affect it. We hear of cutbacks every day and my concern is that if we are to have vetting, it should be fair, proportionate and balanced and should include people who are most likely to offend or to be a threat or a risk to children. It should not bother with people who are not, and it should be effective, efficient and properly resourced. I am not convinced that the Government, in the current economic climate, will resource it properly. Many worthy measures have been passed by this House and the other House including, for example, the guardian ad litemwhich, tragically, has not been properly resourced or maintained. That would be a worry.

I welcome the Bill. I am sure it is not perfect because very little in this life is perfect but we must monitor it. Perhaps there should be a clause in the Bill to review its operation because it is a new procedure and it contains this slightly worrying idea of soft information which I hope will not just be gossip. What we all want to do is protect children and I very much hope this Bill will do that and that the correct balance between the rights of the individual and the obvious and appropriate desire to protect children will be found and maintained by the Government.