Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We discussed this difficult issue on Second Stage and we all appreciate a balance must be struck between ensuring the safety of children, which is a paramount consideration, and ensuring the legislation is reasonable. The Minister is correct to point out that reward cannot be the criterion. I know as a parent this is not just about a neighbour's child baby-sitting my child.

Many people have informal arrangements, which are nonetheless commercial arrangements because there is a reward involved, where one has a neighbour minding one's child for an afternoon or for a few hours a week. We must be reasonable about what is required of parents and the Minister is right in that regard. I am also conscious that, as Senator van Turnout said, children are often at risk from people we would never envisage vetting, including relatives and other people living in the family home. We need to be conscious of all of that.

The definitions in the Bill are somewhat complex. I believe that some of the matters Senator Power rightly said should be covered are in fact covered. For instance certain types of au-pair arrangements where somebody is au-pairing as part of a course of education or training are already covered. Senator Power spoke about a professional nanny service, which is different from a neighbour minding one's child for a couple of hours a week, but they are both commercial arrangements. However, a professional company employing nannies is already covered. We need more clarity on what is covered and what is excluded. Some of the things that all of us agree should be covered are already covered but given that the definitions are somewhat complex and one needs to read through sections 2 and 3, and the Schedule, it can be difficult to see what is covered and what is excluded.