Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

While I understand the intent behind the amendments I am unable to accept them. If accepted, these amendments would contravene the provisions in the Bill that exempt private arrangements from vetting. Furthermore, the amendments would require vetting of persons who provide any level of childminding for any period of time. This is simply not practical.

The Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations 2006 require vetting for all persons working in child care facilities that provide a service for three or more children. The National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill also requires that any agency or relevant organisation providing childminding, nanny or au pair services must apply for vetting disclosures in respect of the persons they employ to provide such services.

The "relevant organisations" definition deliberately excludes private arrangements made by parents to have their children minded outside of regulated child care services. This is for two reasons. First, it is not practical or feasible for the State to seek to police all private childminding arrangements. If a parent chooses a grandparent, an in-law, a neighbour, a nanny, an au pair, a sibling or a family friend to mind their child, whether that person is paid or unpaid, the parent is free to make child care arrangements that are appropriate to their circumstances. Second, it is not the intention to criminalise parents for making such arrangements. It is, therefore, not feasible to require vetting disclosures in respect of such private arrangements.

The Senator said, and I hope I do not misquote her, that she did not intend that a neighbour's child who was minding young children in their home would come under this requirement. My experience as a parent over many years was that when a neighbour's older child was babysitting, they were usually paid for the activity. That is a commercial arrangement, although it may not be the commercial arrangement that would be put in place between adults.

The Senator's first amendment proposes to insert the words, "in their individual capacity, engages in the provision of child-minding services for reward for any period of time". Both my children are now adults but the amendment would mean that if I had a ten year old child and an 18 year old son or daughter of a neighbour was going to engage in childminding and I was going to pay them an appropriate sum for a few hours of childminding, I would have to have them vetted. If I did not have them vetted, I could be committing a criminal offence because I had not complied with the provisions of the Bill. We would be making it impossible to continue the informal childminding arrangements that have gone on for decades, if not centuries, in homes throughout this country and most countries around the world. This is why private arrangements must be excluded from the Bill.

Private arrangements are not always of the type where a co-operative and well meaning aunt, uncle or grandparent will give of their time free. They frequently involve a neighbour's child or a younger relation who gets on well with one's children but who would be happy to earn a few euro childminding. It would be impossible to include this within the vetting arrangements. The principle behind the legislation is that people can still make private arrangements of the nature that were made in years gone by. Parents have, of course, personal responsibility to ensure that any individual who minds their children is appropriate, mature and with judgment enough to care for them properly. There are areas into which we cannot introduce State regulation, nor should we introduce the possibility of criminal penalties being imposed. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendments.