Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also tabled an amendment to deal with this issue. The difficulty I have is there is one big anomaly in the vetting and protection of children. The Child Care Act 1991 distinguishes three groups. Everyone is in agreement that the first group under section 58(a) are the relatives of the child or children or the spouse of such relatives but that is not what we are seeking to amend. We are referring to sections 58(b) and 58(c), which concern a person taking care of one or more preschool children of the same family and no other such children in that person's home, or a person taking care of not more than three preschool children of different families in his or her home. A total of 92% of victims are abused by either a direct family member, somebody known to the family or somebody trusted by the family. The fact that the children are being minded in their home means they are members of a high risk group and, therefore, we need to explode the "stranger danger" myth. The reality is a child is most likely to be abused by someone known to, and trusted by, the family.

I agree with the Minister that there is a major difference between an informal, occasional child minding arrangement and an ongoing arrangement for a monetary consideration, which is what we are concerned with. I listened carefully to the Minister's argument and I could use the same argument not to vet tennis coaches because they often engage in one-on-one training of children in a private arrangement with their families. I do not know why the Minister is protecting this group. This sector is unregulated. The Minister said the parents would have to vet. Why can such child minders not have to become a member of a professional organisation such as Childminding Ireland, or Early Childhood Ireland. Why can those organisations not vet on behalf of the parents? There are ways around this. Parents need to know the person minding their child in their home, as opposed to a public place or somewhere other people can interact with them, has been vetted. These minders are members of a high-risk group and that is why I tabled an amendment. I do not say it is a perfect amendment and I will be happy with any amendment that deals with this issue. This anomaly needs to be addressed.