Austin Currie
Question:7 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Health and Children whether it is his intention to introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse ; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15786/97]
Other Questions. - Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse.
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin
Question:21 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Health and Children when he proposes to implement the Government's commitment in relation to mandatory reporting of child abuse. [15916/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 21 together. As Deputies will be aware from the lengthy consultation and public debate process which was previously engaged in, the issue of mandatory reporting of child abuse is very complex. The Deputy will also be aware that the principal aim of mandatory reporting is to improve the reporting of child abuse so that all cases come to the attention of the authorities as quickly as possible in order to allow intervention in the interests of the child. This will be my focus rather than a narrow focus on legislative change. I am aware of fears that an over-legalistic approach could be counter-productive and could drive the problem underground so that less abuse would be reported.
I propose putting in place agreed protocols on reporting of child abuse by professionals who of course already have a duty of care to their clients. I assure the House that the relevant professional groups will be fully consulted in this regard. Arising from the extensive consultation process on mandatory reporting last year, the previous Government announced a series of initiatives to strengthen arrangements for reporting child abuse and to generally promote and protect the rights of children. I intend to progress these worthwhile initiatives and to build on them. I am confident that these measures, together with continued investment in our child care services, will help to ensure an effective response to vulnerable children in our society.
I commend Deputy Currie on the fine work he did in this area as my predecessor and I hope to continue with this work.
I thank the Minister of State for his kind remarks about my performance, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I wish him the best of luck with some very sensitive decisions he will have to take.
I do not quite understand his reply. Is it his intention not to introduce mandatory reporting? If so, that is a wise decision. He has referred to the consultative process that was engaged in. I published a discussion paper, "Putting Children First", and there were more than 180 submissions as a result of that paper, the majority of which were against mandatory reporting. Is the Minister of State aware that at a forum held in Malahide the vast majority of the 400 professionals attending opposed mandatory reporting? That figure included those who are in daily contact with abused children, such as social workers and public health nurses. Those people's views should be taken into consideration more than those removed from the problem. Is the gist of the Minister of State's reply that he will not be introducing mandatory reporting?
My main objective is to improve reporting on child abuse. That is the objective of mandatory reporting. We propose introducing protocols for professionals rather than legislation. I agree with the Deputy and urge caution regarding past proposals that apply a simplistic, prescriptive, legal solution to a very complex problem.
Consequently, my priority is to establish how existing arrangements for reporting child abuse can be enhanced and how a climate which encourages the reporting of child abuse can be fostered.
This is a truly staggering volte face. The programme for Government this Administration published three months ago was explicit in identifying mandatory reporting as a priority. The Minister of State is saying something quite different today. Nobody doubts that protocols and guidelines need to be put in place, but it was clearly understood that the Government made an explicit commitment to mandatory reporting and the Minister of State is now saying something different.
I am not.
He is, and I am delighted that he is.
We propose to put protocols in place to provide for mandatory reporting. There is no ambiguity about that.
There is. They are two different things.
We do not intend to bring in legislation to do this. There is an unambiguous consensus about the duty of professionals and the public to be alert to child abuse and to report it to the appropriate authorities. We intend to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the reporting procedure.
There are protocols already in place.
To clarify this further, the programme for Government referred to mandatory reporting of child abuse as a key priority. We are moving forward to put protocols in place for that.
There is a difference between what is in the programme for Government and what the Minister of State proposes. Is he aware that protocols already exist? For example, I brought in an agreement between the health boards and the Garda for the investigation of abuse cases, which was a form of administrative mandatory reporting. Mandatory reporting, as we understood it until now, is different from that which the Minister suggested. I notice he did not attempt to define what he meant by abuse. Will he include emotional as well physical abuse? What type of protocol will he introduce in that regard? What is the position on underage sex and the reporting and consequences of that? What is the position of professionals who rely, to a large extent, on confidentiality? If they do not have that confidentiality, they will face a serious problem and we may see abuse cases going underground. These are only some of the questions which must be answered.
I am delighted the Minister has come out against mandatory reporting. That is effectively what he has done, so why will he not admit it? Will the Minister admit that following the work done on this matter and the consultation that has taken place, and given the opinion in his Department, the mind of the Government has been changed? If he does so, there will be a huge sigh of relief among those in the front line in relation to child abuse. The fear that the system will be clogged will be removed and time will not be taken up investigating complaints many of which have no firm basis, as in the experience in other countries, and some of which are made for the wrong reason.
We wish to improve existing procedures for reporting child abuse. We propose to build on the work outlined by the Deputy and have ruled out the possibility of legislation. We are developing child care services to ensure children and professionals may report abuse in the knowledge that the appropriate investigation will take place quickly and effectively, that proper treatment will be provided and that proper support services will be available to victims and families at risk.
As far as I am concerned, all types of abuse come under this heading. An issue about which I have become convinced since being appointed to the Department of Health is that the gap between the haves and the have nots has grown too wide. The amount of mental and physical abuse, neglect, brutality and aggression which thousands of children suffer cannot be tolerated any longer. Too many of our children live in abject poverty, belong to dysfunctional families and are psychologically homeless. These issues are my priority. The priority for the famous Celtic Tiger must be to look after children who are seriously at risk. There is no doubt about the problem with which we must deal. We are not running away from the problem and are dealing with it in a straightforward way and anybody trying to introduce confusion is doing a disservice.
I remind Members this is Question Time and they cannot make statements. Members' contributions must be by way of short supplementary questions relevant to the question before the House.
It is not only poor people who abuse their children.
Hear, hear.
Ministers always have their own style. Is it the Minister's style to ignore his expert group and that of the Minister of State to ignore the Government programme which clearly states that mandatory reporting will be introduced? Is the Minister abandoning that plan by opting for a protocol procedure? What happens if a professional ignores a protocol? How does one make it mandatory? Before the general election, Government TDs attended meetings throughout the country at which they gave undertakings that they would introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse if returned to Government. I am thinking specifically of Fianna Fáil TDs. Will the Minister provide them with a protocol to advise them on how to deal with the questions they will be asked when news gets out that mandatory reporting is not on the cards? I have reservations about mandatory reporting.
I do not see why the Deputy is so concerned since the information I gave is in accordance with her prerogatives and the priorities of those who have spoken. There is nothing wrong with introducing a series of protocols to strengthen existing procedures. As regards sanctions against professionals, we are satisfied the job being done by professionals is as good as that which can be done given the resources available to them. There is no question of sanctions. There is an unambiguous consensus among professionals on the need for the most effective reporting mechanisms. My priority is to improve the services and the resources available to enable the reporting procedure and, more importantly, the response, to be as effective as possible.
How could something be mandatory if it is not legislated for? Is the Minister saying professionals will have some discretion on whether they report abuse to the police? The Minister said his priority is reporting but does he believe reporting a crime in each case is more important than the availability of treatment for the abused? I am sure the Minister must be aware there is often conflict between reporting and treatment.
Is the Minister aware the Fianna Fáil election manifesto promised to implement the recommendations of the Kilkenny incest report added to by the Kelly Fitzgerald report and the Madonna House report stating that they would form a blueprint for the development of responses to child abuse? Is he aware that each report recommended the provision of mandatory reporting? The Minister will be aware the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats programme for Government referred to key priorities, including mandatory reporting of child abuse. Has the Minister discussed his dramatic U-turn — turning his face against mandatory reporting — with his Progressive Democrats colleagues? Will he acknowledge that the only circumstance in which reporting is mandatory is if legislation imposes an obligation on professionals to report? In the absence of legislation, protocols have no mandatory impact whatsoever. Will the Minister not acknowledge that he is playing "word games" with this House to cover up a dramatic U-turn and reneging on an election promise in the area of child abuse?
Of course, professionals will have the option of using their discretion——
But there will be no mandatory reporting.
Professionals use their discretion in the course of their daily work and nobody questions that. This is clearly an effort on the part of the Fine Gael Party in particular to create a controversy where none exists.
The Minister of State has torn his party's manifesto into shreds.
The programme for Government stated that a key priority will include mandatory reporting of child abuse.
The Minister has abandoned that.
We did not say anything about legislation and mandatory reporting is not necessary.
Either the Minister has abandoned his party's manifesto or he does not know what he is talking about.
When Deputy Shatter has finished I will answer him. It is not necessary to introduce legislation to put in place a more effective mechanism for mandatory reporting than that which obtains.
There is at present no provision for mandatory reporting and the Minister has abandoned his promise in that respect.
I request that Questions Nos. 31, 46 and 56 remain on the Order Paper and that written replies not be furnished thereto.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.