John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions to the debate and their support for this important legislation. The points that were raised have been noted and will be brought to the Minister's attention.

This is an important Bill. It is another step in fulfilling the Government's commitment to ensure the required measures are in place to provide for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons. A significant element of the Bill concerns the use and disclosure of so-called soft information. When enacted, the Bill will ensure relevant information which gives rise to concern regarding a person working or seeking to work with children is available and disclosed in the appropriate manner.

The disclosure of such information will follow a defined procedure set down in the Bill ensuring that individuals who are the subject of such information have the right to defend their name. The Bill also seeks to ensure that information such as vague rumours, innuendo or false allegations cannot form part of the vetting process. This is an important feature of the Bill as recognised by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children which called for legislation to ensure such information could be stored and not disclosed by the Garda Síochána and other agencies for the purposes of child protection.

I wish to make some preliminary responses on a number of issues. The issue of babysitters and childminders being exempt from vetting was raised. We need to consider the fact that there are many private childminding arrangements where people employ neighbours' children, family members, in-laws or nannies in the child's own home. There are also many arrangements, formal and informal, where people will leave a child with a neighbour or a relative for childminding. Currently, under the of the statutory Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations 2006, a person carrying out a preschool service shall ensure appropriate vetting of all staff, students and volunteers who have access to a child. The Bill will also create the requirement that childminders or nannies employed with an agency must be vetted by that agency as this would fall within the definition of an employment. This is covered by the Bill. Any parent who wants to hire a childminder or nanny who is vetted can, therefore, do so through an agency. I would, however, pose the question whether it is appropriate or feasible for the State to extend this requirement and effectively prevent parents from making their own arrangements for the care of their children. In preparing the Bill it was considered that this would not be either appropriate or feasible.

It also has been suggested that organisations might exchange vetting disclosures. The Bill does not make such a provision. First, it is considered that organisations would not be willing to do so in many cases. More important, however, under the Data Protection Act, personal data cannot be used for purposes that were not disclosed at the time the data were obtained. The Data Protection Acts already apply to the collation of criminal records data by the vetting unit and the Acts also apply to the collation of soft information in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. The Data Protection Commissioner, therefore, has an inspection and oversight role in regard to the use of both the criminal records database and the soft information database which will be established under the Bill. I should add that the reason there is no provision for use of personal public service numbers in regard to vetting is because of data protection considerations. The use of PPS numbers in this way would be outside the scope of the current legislation in any case because the Bill provides for the use of a passport number and the mother's maiden name - that is, the personal identification number - in addition to the usual information regarding identity. The vetting units are satisfied that the use of PPS numbers would not be necessary.

I wish to refer to the issue of making vetting disclosures portable between jobs in order that a person vetted to be a J1 volunteer would not have to submit a separate vetting application to apply to be a nurse. Similar points were raised during the debate in the other House but it should be recognised that once there is a time lapse between the two applications for two different jobs, any conviction incurred under the first application would not be contained in the vetting disclosure. There is, therefore, a potential danger posed to children or vulnerable persons by such an approach. This issue is much broader than is encompassed by the Bill. Portability of vetting would be contrary to the provisions of the broad range of Acts which require vetting at the time a person is being considered for appointment. The Bill does, however, provide for each vetting applicant to be given a unique ID number. This would then be used when duplicate vetting applications are received in time in respect of individuals instead of each application being treated as a new application. The previous vetting record will be used and any additional information that has arisen since the last application will be added to the disclosure. This is expected to speed up significantly the process of repeat applications concerning the same individual.

The Minister is also aware of the need to continue to ensure the bureau is satisfactorily resourced and the need for it to provide an effective service. The Minister is also considering bringing forward an amendment to the Bill which will require the chief bureau officer to report directly to the Garda Commissioner. This will ensure any urgent issues relating to the management and operation of the bureau are brought to the attention of the Garda Commissioner without delay. The Minister also engaged in discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ensure adequate funding to meet the new demands of the Bill. Equally he will continue to ensure this is prioritised. In September there were a huge number of applications from schools and teachers everywhere, which is a reason for the delay. September is the busiest month of the year but the vetting bureauis doing a very good job.

In regard to the issue raised by Senator Jillian van Turnhout, if the organisation, of necessity, had to have a volunteer at short notice to fill a vacancy, it can go ahead under the provisions of section 3(1)(c). The organisation is not obliged to conduct a vetting where a person is giving assistance on an occasional basis. It should be borne in mind that once the Bill is enacted, organisations that are compliant with the Bill will be able to cite the provisions of the Bill in any defence in a legal action where a person fails to secure a position due to criminal convictions.

Senator Norris raised the issue of the appropriateness of dialogue in connection with major road traffic offences.It should be borne in mind that speeding or parking tickets are not disclosed as they are fixed penalty offences which are not a criminal offence. They would only become a criminal offence where a person does not pay the fine.

Senator Paschal Mooney asked the time taken to process a vetting application. The vetting time was six weeks but it is now takes up to eight weeks to process applications. The Minister is acutely aware of the need for vetting to be conducted as speedily as possible. However, there is always a surge in applications in September. The Minister is having discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who is conscious of the funding requirement. As a matter of policy, the Department does not propose providing vetting directly to self-employed persons. Self-employed persons must be vetted via third parties. The policy objective is that self-employed persons are not responsible for either making disclosures on their own behalf or for deciding on their own behalf whether they are fit persons to be employed working with children or vulnerable persons. This is provided for in section 13(3)(c). Self-employed persons can apply for vetting either through the organisation which is engaged in a service, such as a school or community organisation, or through an umbrella organisation which represents them for the purpose of vetting.

In response to the comments on re-vetting, I advise the House that the intention is that re-vetting will commence once the retrospective vetting of teachers and health workers has been completed. It is sensible not to prioritise re-vetting of persons already vetted until everybody who requires vetting has been vetted at least once.

The points raised by Senators Hayden, Ó Clochartaigh and Mooney will be taken on board by the private secretary to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. The Minister is anxious to get as many views as possible. As a far-sighted Minister he wants to get the Bill right.

I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill. As I have mentioned, the matters raised will be brought to the attention of the Minister and no doubt there will be further opportunity for discussion and amendments as the Bill progresses through the House. I commend the Bill to the House.