I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." With the agreement of the House, Deputy Timmins will share a portion of my time.
Private Members' Business. - Children (Reporting of Alleged Abuse) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill is a modest but important measure. If enacted into law it will add an additional essential building block to the legislative provisions currently in force designed to provide protection for children at risk from or suffering abuse or who are victims of neglect. The Bill's objective is to ensure that no barriers or obstacles exist which prevent reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities. The Bill can properly be described as a "whistleblower's charter" which facilitates the reporting of child abuse by any person who has reasonable grounds for believing a child is at risk.
No extravagant claims will be made by me with regard to the Bill. The measure merely addresses one area of our law which has been ignored by this House for far too long. If we are to have a modern, comprehensive and informed child care system which is responsive to the needs of children and designed to protect the welfare of the most vulnerable children within our community, a great deal more needs to be done than merely the enactment of this Bill. I will return to this theme later.
The Bill will implement recommendations made in a variety of reports and it has widespread support. I will say something about its origins and then refer to its substantive provisions before turning to the politics of the Bill and discussing how it should be dealt with by this House. Finally I will address a number of other issues with relevance to the child care services and the protection and welfare of children.
Many people within the community in their professional or ordinary lives have regular contact with children and on particular grounds may conclude that a particular child or children is or are suffering abuse. A large number of cases of children at risk come to the attention of health boards due to referrals from doctors, nurses or teachers and others whose professional work brings them regularly into contact with children. Other referrals derive from a variety of different individuals as a consequence of what they are told by children or from events they witness and feel obliged to report to the appropriate authorities.
Over ten years ago, when preparing a consultation paper on child sexual abuse, the Law Reform Commission concluded that fear of being sued for defamation is a barrier to the reporting of abuse. In this consultation paper, published in August 1989 and dealing essentially with the area of child sexual abuse, the commission stated that legislation should be enacted expressly conferring immunity from liability for "bona fide reports of child abuse made with due care". In its subsequent report on child sexual abuse published in 1990, the commission repeated its recommendation and stated:
we would emphasise that the need for the statutory immunity arises whether or not mandatory reporting laws are introduced. At present, fear of legal proceedings, though frequently misplaced is operating as a serious disincentive to the reporting of suspected child sexual abuse.
The need for such legislative reform was also reiterated in the Kilkenny incest investigation report in 1993 and by the committee of inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald, whose report was finalised in 1995 and published in 1996. The latter report did not confine this recommended law reform to child sexual abuse and other reports published in recent years by a variety of groups and organisations have stated that fear of legal proceedings can act as an obstacle to the reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect. Similar concerns have been expressed by a variety of professional organisations such as the Irish Medical Organisation and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, both of which have called for laws to grant immunity to either doctors or teachers who, on valid grounds, report suspicions of child abuse to a health board.
It is a policy commitment common to all parties in this House to improve awareness of child abuse among the public and to create an environment which will help facilitate the reporting of child abuse. It is also an objective of all parties in this House to improve co-operation between professionals and agencies dealing with children in identifying and responding to the needs of children at risk. This Bill will help create an environment that facilitates the reporting of child abuse and improves co-operation between professionals and agencies dealing with children who are suspected of being at risk.
The Bill is tabled by me on behalf of Fine Gael to address a fundamental gap in our law that must be addressed. It has the single objective of seeking to ensure that no person who genuinely believes on reasonable grounds that a child is a victim of, or at risk of, abuse is in any way inhibited from reporting such concern to the appropriate authorities by a fear that making such a report may rebound to his or her serious detriment.
Section 1 contains the short title. Section 2 is the interpretation provision. It should be particularly noted in this context that the "appropriate authority" to whom it is envisaged under the Bill that reports of child abuse will be made means "any statutory or non-statutory body concerned with the welfare and care of children and includes each health board in the State and an Garda Síochána", and an "appropriate person" to whom the Bill envisages reports of suspected child abuse will be made means any person who is a member of or an employee of a statutory or non-statutory body concerned with the welfare and care of children and includes an employee of a health board and a member of an Garda Síochána. Under the Bill, cover is provided for those who report suspicions of child abuse to specific non-governmental agencies concerned with the welfare of children such as the Irish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children and Barnardos.
Section 3 provides protection from civil litigation for a person who, acting reasonably and in good faith, reports or communicates that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect or that a child's health, development or welfare is at risk. It should be specifically noted that the phraseology of this section reflects similar provisions in the Child Care Act, 1991 which provide the present statutory basis for the making of care orders and supervision orders under that Act. The protection from civil litigation for a reporter of child abuse or neglect under the section specifically applies to those who "in good faith" make such report to an "appropriate authority" or to an "appropriate person". The good faith requirement directly derives from the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission on this issue which was intended to ensure that the legislation it recommended did not provide immunity from civil liability to those who made malicious and vexatious allegations of child abuse for which there were no reasonable grounds. It is important that such legislation does not provide a licence to make false allegations of abuse and the technical phraseology of the section is designed to ensure no such difficulty can arise.
Section 4 amends the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 to render a dismissal an unfair dismissal within the meaning of that Act where an employee's employment is terminated as a consequence of the employee in good faith reporting that there are reasonable grounds for believing a child is a victim of abuse or neglect or that a child's health, development or welfare is at risk. It is of essential importance that those who work in the professions which regularly have contact with children and those who are employed by sporting bodies and who, on reasonable grounds, suspect a child may be the victim of abuse will not, through threat of loss of their employment, be put under pressure by their superiors not to report their concerns to the appropriate authorities. The need for legislation with regard to sporting bodies has become self-evident in recent days. Under our present law, if someone were dismissed from their employment for making such a report on reasonable grounds, it is arguable that such dismissal would be held to be unfair. However, existing exemptions contained in the Unfair Dismissals Acts exclude the Acts' application to employees of State bodies. The existing protection is grossly inadequate. A specific amendment is required to the l977 Act to establish this principle in clear and cogent terms.
Section 5 is merely a commencement provision. Under it this Bill would become law and come into force one calendar month following its enactment. The Bill comes before the House in the wake of three major court cases concerned with the most gross and barbaric types of child sexual and physical abuse.
Just 11 days ago the North Western Health Board settled the civil damages action brought by the McColgan children as a consequence of that health board's gross negligence in failing, over a period of 14 years, to provide them with the type of protection from their father to which they were entitled. It comes just eight days after Fr. Ivan Payne pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting an altar boy in Dublin and some five days after he pleaded guilty to 11 further charges of indecent assault on a number of children from 1968 to l987. These assaults were committed not only on altar boys but also on children who were patients in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin when visited by Fr. Payne. It is now also a matter of public knowledge that the extraordinary step was taken of placing Fr. Payne in a highly responsible and sensitive position within the Marriage Tribunal in Dublin, subsequent to allegations of child abuse having been made against him.
Also it is just five days since the sentencing to 12 years imprisonment of Derry O'Rourke, who grossly abused his position as national swimming coach, sexually preying on the children under his care. We have learned in recent days what was suspected for some years, that the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, the sport's controlling body, failed abysmally to act on reports that its employees were behaving inappropriately towards children who were being coached and failed to put in place procedures to ensure that the children for which it was responsible were not abused.
I am not saying that if this Bill were enacted none of the horrors experienced by the children who were the victims in each of these three appalling cases would not have occurred. I am simply saying these cases illustrate in a stark and public way the extent of child physical and sexual abuse and the impact of such behaviour on those who are the victims. These cases give stark and public illustrations of instances of abuse that occurred during the l970s, l980s and l990s. Can there be any Member who would not agree that any existing obstacle to the reporting of child abuse should be dismantled and no longer be part of our legal system?
This is a modest but important measure. It is also a brief Bill lacking in complexity with a simple objective. It is proposed as a constructive initiative to reform an aspect of our law relating to children which should have been addressed long ago. It is a measure that deserves the support not only of Opposition parties but of the two parties in Government as well as independent Deputies. I take this opportunity to thank those independent Deputies who have contacted me in recent days to express their support for the Bill. It is of some considerable symbolic importance that all Members use this Bill as the vehicle to join together to express our abhorrence of child abuse and our commitment to ensure all necessary measures are taken to provide the protection for our children to which they are entitled.
I was informed late this afternoon by the Minister for Health and Children that the Government is not opposing this measure. I welcome the Government's constructive response which I assume will be confirmed later this evening by the Minister. Upon the Bill passing Second Stage, there is no reason Committee Stage should not be taken by the Committee on Health and Children at the end of February or early March and the Bill enacted into law by Easter. This would afford the Government parties reasonable time in which to propose any constructive amendments deemed desirable by them to be included in the Bill and allow them to be amply considered in the course of the Committee Stage debate.
A great deal more needs to be done than merely enacting this measure if we are to have a child care system which is responsive to the needs of children and which provides children at risk with the protection to which they are entitled. For decades Governments were paralysed by inaction due to fragmentation of political responsibility for child care services and legislation between a variety of Government Departments. Reforming legislation that should have taken months to prepare took over a decade to enact. Services for vulnerable children were fragmented and lacking in cohesion. Government action was driven by piecemeal fire brigade interventions and lacked the integrated and comprehensive policy overview necessary to ensure children's law and services met the needs that truly had to be addressed.
The previous Government, for the first time, appointed a single Minister with overall responsibility for child care services and legislation whose brief straddled the Departments of Health, Education and Justice. Sadly the Government turned the clock backwards by returning to the old system of fragmenting responsibility for children's law and children's services among a variety of senior and junior Ministers. As a consequence there has been no coherent Government policy in this area for over seven months and we have witnessed Ministers with different areas of responsibility contradict each other on a variety of issues of vital concern to vulnerable children.
I was sorry for the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Liz O'Donnell, a constituency colleague, as she squirmed with embarrassment before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child trying to defend the indefensible. The beneficial consequence of that public and embarrassing event was the announcement that the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Frank Fahey, was being conferred with the same co-ordinating functions with regard to children's issues as previously invested in my party colleague, Deputy Austin Currie, during the lifetime of the previous Government. However, to date no order has been laid before the House devolving responsibilities to him in the same manner as responsibilities were devolved to Deputy Currie when Minister of State with responsibility for children.
It has become clear in recent days that the announcement made with regard to the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is no more than cosmetic window dressing. I would be delighted to be proved wrong in this. As recently as last Thursday, when queried during Question Time on the discrepancies between the statistics detailing reports of child abuse to health boards and the comparatively small number of such cases that had resulted in Garda prosecutions, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, washed his hands of the query and solemnly stated the question of prosecutions was a matter for the Department of Justice and Law Reform and the Garda. It did not occur to the newly appointed ministerial co-ordinator of children's law and children's services that the huge discrepancy between the number of children abused and the number of prosecutions brought was a matter on which he should have had some knowledge and should have been in a position to supply substantive information.
To date the Government's policy with regard to children's law and children's services has been a scandalous disgrace. There is not a policy commitment in the Fianna Fáil or Progressive Democrats election programmes or in the so called programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium, which is being progressed with any sense of urgency or commitment. There is no sense that providing essential protection and services for children is a Government priority.
Before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, it was admitted that the Government, when addressing children's issues, had no overall strategy, despite the enactment and coming into force of the Child Care Act, l991, and the expansion of child care services within our health boards. The criticism voiced in l980, by the task force on child care services in its final report, that during the preceding 150 years services for deprived children and children at risk were initiated and developed piecemeal and were the result of fragmented planning and lacked cohesion, has validity in describing the position today. There is not in place a comprehensive national strategy for children detailing overall ascertainable objectives.
Health boards still lack the resources required to fulfil their obligations under the Child Care Act, l991, and health board staff confronted by annually increasing reports of suspected child abuse and neglect are operating a fire brigade service which is on the verge of disintegration in some parts of the country with the staff employed overwhelmed and unable to cope. As we speak there are hundreds of reports of suspected child abuse made to health boards awaiting investigation and children already reported to health boards as being at risk remain at risk with little hope of their family circumstances being investigated until many weeks have passed following such reports being made.
The essential in-service training social workers require to develop the necessary expertise in this area is still sadly lacking. Health boards remain bereft of the resources they need to fulfil their obligations to children as statutorily prescribed by the Child Care Act, l991.
From comments made last Thursday by the Minister of State, Deputy Frank Fahey, it is clear that at central Government level there is neither the commitment nor the will to provide the comprehensive professional child care services that are so badly needed, nor the political commitment to allocate the essential funding and resources.
Concern was expressed in the House last week, rightly, by the Minister for Health and Children about the tragedy suffered by the McColgan children. Concern has been expressed about the failure of the Irish Amateur Swimming Association to protect children from the paedophiliac tendencies of some of those employed by the association to coach them. We have been informed that the association has been asked to meet with the Minister for Tourism, Recreation and Sport. The calls for an inquiry into the behaviour of the association deserve a swift and positive response from the Government. In the absence of the Government prioritising children's needs; implementing policies long since recognised as being necessary and demanded by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and allocating the resources health boards require to address children's needs, such comments should be seen as nothing but public relations political play-acting and the shedding of crocodile tears.
Despite the horrific inadequacies of the child care service and the failure to provide protection for children, as illustrated by the Kilkenny incest report, the death of Kelly Fitzgerald, the tragedy that befell the McColgan children, the victims of Fr. Ivan Payne and Derry O'Rourke, there is no discernible sense of urgency on the part of the Government to take the initiatives which are so badly needed in this area.
In the absence of any public demand or economic need, the Government reduced capital gains tax in the budget from 40 per cent to 20 per cent. According to the Government's estimate, in a full year this change will result in a loss to the Exchequer of £20 million. At a time of extraordinary economic buoyancy there was neither a need nor any public demand for this change in our taxation laws.
By contrast last Thursday it was admitted on the Government's behalf that, if we are to have the full comprehensive services necessary to provide protection for children, there is a shortfall in Government funding in this area which over a three year period comes to a figure in the region of £100 million. Where are our priorities? If capital gains tax legislation had been left untouched, the income derived over the next three years would have gone a long way towards bridging this financial gap.
I have referred to the lack of a sense of urgency on the Government's part in addressing issues that affect children. This was illustrated by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children at Question Time last Thursday when he informed the House that he had identified the establishment of a social services inspectorate as a top priority with regard to children. He proposes to establish the inspectorate this year. However, no legislation to provide for such an inspectorate is to be enacted for at least three years and no date has been given for when the inspectorate will commence its work.
The establishment of the inspectorate weighs so heavily on the Minister of State's shoulders that thinking about this issue renders it impossible to appoint an ombudsman for children this year. An ombudsman for children was identified as being necessary by the Children's Rights Alliance and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Government's confusion on the issue was clearly illustrated by the Minister of State last December when he announced that the Government did not intend to establish such an office and by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, who informed the United Nations committee six weeks ago that the Government would do so.
The Minister of State with responsibility for co-ordinating children's services it appears is not able to co-ordinate anything on this issue. He informed the House last week that it has "implications for a number of Departments dealing with issues relating to children and it will be necessary to clarify the departmental roles and responsibilities in this regard". Having regard to the redefinition of his ministerial status, I would have expected the Minister of State to be in a position to rapidly unravel these so-called interdepartmental implications. The functions and role of an ombudsman for children are not mysterious. They appear, however, to remain something of a mystery to the Minister of State. It is clear he is not playing a co-ordinating role and appears to lack the capacity to do so.
The reforms needed extend beyond blaming Ministers for policy and children's services failures. There is a need to radically reform the Civil Service structure which is responsible for children's law and services and to provide a central focus for what is often referred to as the permanent government. Is there not something visibly wrong with a Civil Service structure which requires a Minister of State to be accompanied to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child by 15 civil servants from a variety of Departments to ensure they are equipped with all the information necessary to respond to queries raised? Is not the sight of a Minister of State accompanied by so many officials an eloquent, self-evident testimony to the need for basic structural administrative reform? How can there be a co-ordinated system and policies where related issues are administered by so many people who have separate staffs working with them?
The last comprehensive guidelines on child abuse to ensure uniformity of approach by social work personnel attached to health boards were published in 1987. It took the Oireachtas over two years to enact the Child Care Act, 1991, which did not come into operation until four years after its enactment in autumn 1995. In 1995 minor adjustments were made to the guidelines with regard to the procedures applicable for informing the Garda Síochána of allegations of child abuse but the principal guidelines put in place in 1987 remain in force. Due to the substantial legal changes effected by the 1991 Act these guidelines are grossly out of date.
Since the enactment of the Child Care Act, 1991, there have been a number of Governments of different political persuasions in place. Why is it that from the beginning of 1991 to the end of 1997 nothing was done to update at national level guidelines relating to child abuse? Why is it that the Government is only now considering establishing a committee to look into updating these guidelines? Outdated provisions in present guidelines have resulted in some health boards producing their own local guidelines leading to the reasonable conclusion that the nature of the protection afforded to children at risk may vary and depend on the health board area in which a child at risk happens to be resident.
In 1991 the Kilkenny incest investigation report recommended that the Department of Health and Children prepare revised procedures for the identification, investigation and management of child abuse to be contained in new guidelines. The report of the committee of inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald in 1996 also recommended that an agreed national standard and format be established by the eight regional health boards to allow the transfer of information from one board to another where a board is aware that a family whose children are or are suspected of being at risk has moved to another area.
It is scandalous and inexcusable that new national guidelines have not been put in place. The lethargy with which this issue is being addressed makes it unlikely that we will have new national guidelines on child abuse until 1999 at the earliest. This is not acceptable.
A further problem is the absence of coherent research or monitoring by a single Department of the manner in which children's law and services are operating. In the absence of the appointment of an ombudsman for children, it is essential that the relevant Department assumes a more active and dynamic monitoring role in relation to children. For example, in reply to a question last Thursday the Minister of State with responsibility for children's law and services was unable to tell me how many reports of alleged child abuse had been received by the Southern Health Board in 1996 or how many such reports had been confirmed. As a consequence, it is clear as we enter February 1998 that the Minister of State concerned does not know the total number of children in respect of whom allegations of abuse were made or confirmed in 1996. Such information is essential for policy making purposes.
The Minister of State was able to inform me that 2,386 reports of child abuse were received by the Eastern Health Board in 1996 of which 833 were confirmed but he did not have available information on the extent to which the abuse, alleged or confirmed, related to physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect. In the context of policy planning, social work training and the provision of backup services, such information is essential.
Last Thursday when asked by me for the number of applications made to each District Court by health boards pursuant to the Child Care Act, 1991, and the number of court orders made under that Act for the legal year 1 August 1996 to 31 July 1997 the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not have available the relevant statistical information for the Dublin metropolitan district area in which a large number of such applications are brought and granted weekly.
On the same day the Minister for Health and Children did not have available any information on the total number of court orders sought or obtained by health boards under the Child Care Act, 1991, since it came into force in autumn 1995. The response I obtained was that the Minister was requesting the health boards to provide the information sought. It is clear that if I had not raised these issues by way of parliamentary question, much of this information would never have been sought by or, probably, been available to Government. In this day and age it should not be necessary to have to emphasise the need for coherent research and monitoring the workings of our child care system. I would have expected it to be a central function of Government to monitor the workings of the Child Care Act, 1991, to ensure that legislation is working in the manner originally envisaged.
There are other issues that deserve to be addressed for which I do not have time but which will be addressed by my colleagues. There is one specific issue about which this House is in denial and which we must confront. Just as we are entitled to be critical of the failures of the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, we are also entitled to be critical of the failures of the Roman Catholic Church to address the problem of paedophile priests in its midst. We are entitled to ask how it came about that priests who were reported to have abused children were moved from one parish to another in past years and their activities covered up by those in authority.
In the context of Fr. Ivan Payne finally admitting his crimes last week, we are entitled to ask the church why this man was appointed to an extraordinarily sensitive position in the Marriage Tribunal in Drumcondra after it was known he had abused Andrew Madden. We are entitled to ask for public assurances that there is no one in the priesthood in this State who has a paedophile history and who currently has access to children in his work as a priest. I say this as someone who has viewed with great sadness recent events in this area and has some intimate knowledge of the extent of the problem with which Members of this House may not be fully aware. My concern is for all the children of this nation. It is hypocritical of us to call to account the Irish Amateur Swimming Association and to turn a blind eye to the litany of sexual horrors that have been disclosed by a series of court cases in which members of the clergy have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
As someone who works in the area of family law I find the Fr. Payne case particularly appalling. I should make a declaration of interest by stating that the law firm of which I am a member, but not myself personally, represented the courageous Andrew Madden and processed the civil court proceedings brought on his behalf which were ultimately settled in his favour. Without Andrew Madden's persistence and courage, Fr. Payne would never have been investigated by the Garda. He would never have been brought before our courts and successfully prosecuted and would still be sitting in the Marriage Tribunal in Drumcondra, in Archbishop's House, as men and women discussed in his presence the intimate details of their married life to facilitate his determining whether there was any basis for granting them a church decree of nullity.
In making a declaration of interest, I should also state that the law firm of which I am a member is currently representing two people who are seeking financial compensation as a result of alleged sexual abuse by Fr. Payne. What is not generally known is that there are in the region of 120 separate civil actions currently pending against a variety of religious defendants in our courts in which it is alleged by the plaintiffs in those proceedings that they were victims of sexual abuse.
The manner in which the McColgan children were treated during the course of the recent court proceedings by the North Western Health Board is indefensible. We are entitled to ask in this House that no plaintiff who is a victim of sexual abuse be again similarly treated by either a State body or by the church. As the number of such civil actions mounts, the time has come for the hierarchy to address this issue and to determine the church's stance in the interests of the church and those who have fallen victims to abuse, and to do so with generosity, insight and sensitivity. It is an issue that the church, following a number of court cases, was forced to confront in other countries.
It is clear that a wide variety of issues must be addressed if we are to truly have a children friendly society. The Bill I bring before the House this evening is merely a small step in the right direction in addressing one area of concern. It is the first Bill relating to child care we have seen during the lifetime of this Dáil. I hope the debate on its provisions will act as a catalyst for a variety of other badly needed initiatives to meet the needs of our children, and I am pleased the House is not to divide on its provisions. I again thank the Minister and the Minister of State for agreeing that Second Stage will proceed, that the Bill will pass through Second Stage and that we will thereafter move on to Committee Stage. I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Timmins.
Is that agreed? Agreed. There are five minutes remaining for Deputy Timmins.
I thank Deputy Shatter for sharing time with me. Madonna House, the Kilkenny incest case and the McColgan family are phrases that flow off the tongue just like Greysteel, the Miami Showband and Enniskillen. There is only one real difference in all of this horror. The events in Enniskillen occurred in an instant, with no time to call for help.
When we read daily reports of abuse cases we take great consolation from the fact that the events are over. They happened in the past, in the so called good old days. They would not happen now. The perpetrators have been exposed and someone with similar tendencies will have been scared off. We wonder how people let it happen when in hindsight it all seems so obvious. People say that if only they had been there they could have taken action, but the record tells a different story. It appears that the Irish Amateur Swimming Association may have known of complaints about Mr. Derry O'Rourke. Indeed the Triton Swimming Club in Bray has initiated the process of disaffiliation from the IASA in protest at its handling of recent abuse cases. How often have we read about clubs or authorities taking constructive steps to verify rumours of abuse? Not very often. The case usually comes to light when the victims can take no more. There is an inherent reticence in the Irish psyche to complain about or report something to someone in authority. Perhaps the old informer connotation prevents us taking any steps we might wish to take.
Watching children walking to school reminds one of the old Connemara picture postcard of the donkey laden down with turf. Last Friday I was in a friend's house when he weighed the school bag of his nine year old daughter. It weighed one stone. Parents who have the means drive their children to school so that they can avoid the hardship involved in carrying an inordinate amount of school books. We all know this happens but we are doing nothing about it. Some physical damage will almost certainly occur to the children concerned and I call on the Minister for Education and Science to address this problem immediately.
The stay safe programme, when introduced, caused difficulties for some schools and parents. What percentage of schools have not implemented the programme to date? What plans, if any, are there in these schools to facilitate students who wish to attend the programme? What measures, if any, have been taken to discuss the matter with parents who do not wish their children to attend the programme?
A child's welfare should be of paramount importance to this House. The activities of a child, however, straddle many areas and the State's responsibility to its children has been diluted in a departmental haze of health, education and justice. The United Nations report on Ireland's record vis-a-vis the rights of the child was highly critical. It is a sad day when the United Nations has to tell us how to look after our children.
Deputy Shatter's Bill goes some small way on what is a long road to addressing the difficulties of child abuse. Its enactment would give us one less excuse for inactivity. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on how weak we have been in this area. Leaving aside the ISPCC, we do not get many calls from children, the disabled and the elderly but that should not prevent us from putting them at the top of the political agenda.
Deputy Shatter referred in his contribution to the fact that when the Minister of State attended the United Nations, she was accompanied by 15 civil servants. That is one of the main reasons we have such difficulty with regard to the reporting of child abuse and protecting our children. The responsibility is diluted among too many Departments.
If there is time available, I wish to share it with Deputy McGennis.
Acting Chairman
Agreed? Agreed.
Society has been shocked at the horrific reports of child abuse which have come to our attention in recent years. Some of these cases involved abuse which took place many years ago and others, as in the case of the swimming coach, concerned the more recent past. I take this opportunity to offer my deepest sympathy to the victims of this callous abuse. I have great admiration for the courage of the victims in speaking out in this difficult case thus helping to ensure the perpetrator was brought to justice. There is an overwhelming concern to ensure that such depraved events and such exploitation of innocent children will not happen again.
As Minister for Health and Children, I am fully committed to doing everything in my power to protect children from abuse. The programme for Government contains a number of key priorities on the improvement of services to children. These include the mandatory reporting of child abuse and the review of all investigative, therapeutic and prevention services to protect children. I assure the House these commitments will be honoured and legislation on mandatory reporting will be introduced during the lifetime of this Government.
The Government had intended to deal with the subject matter of this Bill, the issue of immunity from civil liability in the context of comprehensive legislation on mandatory reporting. However, as Deputy Shatter has presented this Bill and there is general support in the House for any such measures to improve the reporting of child abuse, the Government is prepared to proceed separately with this matter.
The Government accepts the principle of this Bill, which is to grant immunity from civil liability to any person who bona fide and with due care reports child abuse to an appropriate authority. However, in our view there are a number of problems with how the Bill is drafted to provide for what is a complex and specialised matter. The Government is most anxious to co-operate in regard to Deputy Shatter's Bill to ensure the best legislative proposals are brought forward so that people will be encouraged to report child abuse. On this basis, the Government proposes to accept the Bill on Second Stage and to refer it in due course to the appropriate committee of the House to allow for revised drafting of those aspects of the Bill causing difficulties. The Government wishes to see the maximum possible agreement in regard to the important issues covered by the Bill.
I will deal with the problems with the Bill as currently drafted. In our view the definition of the abuse to be reported which will be covered by the proposed immunity is too broad. Deputy Shatter proposes that the abuse covered by his Bill should be the same as the grounds in the Child Care Act, 1991, for a health board taking a child into care. Those grounds are (a) where a child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or (b) where a child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or (c) where a child's health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected.
I have no difficulty with the first and second grounds being included in a Bill granting immunity to those who report their belief that a child is being abused. However, the third ground which would provide immunity for those who report in good faith that a child's health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected raises major problems. For example, if the reporter considers there is a future risk to the child, he or she would be granted immunity under the Bill if the report was made in good faith. That ignores the fact that in the case of a child being taken into care, the grounds set out in the Child Care Act must be professionally assessed by the staff of a health board and the case must be sufficiently robust to stand up in court before a judge trained to balance the rights of children, parents and public authorities under the Constitution and the legal system. The Law Reform Commission was opposed to such an approach. It did not consider that a suspicion that a child may at some future date be subjected to abuse should be included in any scheme of mandatory reporting or granting of immunity from civil liability.
The term "welfare" is defined in Deputy Shatter's Bill as "comprising the religious, moral, intellectual, physical, emotional and social welfare of the child." I am aware that this definition is similar to that used in the Guardianship of Infants Acts, but as used in this Bill it could encourage indiscriminate reporting. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a case where a well-meaning person could take it upon himself or herself to be concerned with the religious or moral upbringing of a child. That could be covered under the present terms of this Bill.
The Law Reform Commission, which was limited by its terms of reference to consider child sexual abuse only, indicated it would like its recommendations for mandatory reporting and granting immunity to those who report abuse, extended to include non-accidental injury, that is physical injury, to children. It did not propose that reporting and immunity should extend to reports of perceived threats to the religious, moral, emotional or social welfare of the child, presumably because the term "abuse" under these headings is so difficult to define and may lie in the eye of the beholder.
Deputy Shatter's Bill would provide immunity to anyone who reports child abuse to an appropriate authority which his Bill defines as "any statutory or non-statutory body concerned with the welfare and care of children". I have no argument with Deputy Shatter that health boards and the Garda Síochána are "appropriate authorities" for the purposes of reporting child abuse. However, should the definition include any non-statutory body concerned with the welfare and care of children? Such a definition could conceivably include every creche, boy scout or girl guide troop or junior football team in the country. Are such organisations appropriate bodies to deal with reports of child abuse? Is it fair to expect small voluntary organisations to receive such reports? What are they in turn to do with them? They do not have the expertise of health boards in this regard. In the interests of ensuring a professional and consistent response to reports of child abuse, such reports, in our view, must be made to a statutory body such as the health boards or the Garda Síochána. Even then, should the report not be made to a designated officer of a health board or a designated garda, who is trained in the handling of such reports and has sufficient regard to the confidential nature of the information received?
Deputy Shatter's Bill provides immunity from civil liability for those who, acting reasonably and in good faith, report child abuse to an appropriate authority. The Bill does not define the phrase "acting reasonably and in good faith". The Deputy departs from the wording recommended by the Law Reform Commission which proposed immunity for those who bona fide and with due care reported child abuse. It seems that the phase "with due care" imposes a greater responsibility on the incautious reporter who, under Deputy Shatter's wording, might feel secure in reporting information which he or she may have been told by another person for malicious reasons.
I can think of few more damaging accusations against anyone in our society than that he or she abused or abuses children. Under the Constitution, a person is entitled to the protection of his or her good name. Article 40.3.2 provides that: "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen." The Supreme Court has held that the State has a duty under this Article, by its laws, to prevent the infringement of personal rights. While it is obviously important to protect the child's constitutional rights, it is also important to protect the personal rights of the parent from unsubstantiated attack. This Bill allows anyone "reasonably and in good faith" to report to any group "concerned with the welfare and care of children" an allegation of abuse or an allegation of likely abuse. There are no criteria in the Bill to define an action which is taken "reasonably and in good faith". We have to assume that it will be up to the person making the report to decide what it means. Thus, the Bill seeks to protect a person making a report who makes an allegation, using his or her own definition of reasonableness, to any group in the country concerned with the welfare and care of children and seeks to confer complete immunity on that person from any liability to the child, the parent or any other party for that matter. What of the trauma suffered by the child's parents if an unfounded allegation is made against them? What of the loss of the parents' good name? I am not convinced that the Bill, as presently structured, strikes the right balance between the need to protect those who report child abuse with due care and in good faith and the need to protect the good name of our citizens.
We believe the immunity proposed is too wide. Deputy Shatter's Bill proposes not only that anyone who, acting reasonably and in good faith, should be under no civil liability for reporting but that no civil proceedings should be initiated against him or her. On a technical point, I have been advised that the wording "no civil proceedings shall be initiated" should be replaced with "it shall be a defence."
Section 4 provides that persons in employment who believe on reasonable grounds that a child is a victim of abuse or neglect cannot be dismissed from their employment as a result of reporting such belief. It appears to be the Deputy's intention that all employees, not just employees of the health boards and members of the Garda Síochána, should be afforded this protection.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which has responsibility for the administration of the unfair dismissals legislation, while sympathetic to the objective of this proposal would have some doubts as to its effectiveness in achieving its stated intention.
At present, officers of a health board and members of the Garda Siochána are excluded from the coverage of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, such persons having access to their own disciplinary and grievance procedures. The Bill proposes that such persons be brought within the coverage of the unfair dismissals legislation, specifically and solely for the purpose of their protection from dismissal in circumstances where they make reports of their belief that a child is the victim of abuse or neglect.
This is a complicated and cumbersome approach to providing for the protection of persons finding themselves in such circumstances. In addition, it is not comprehensive in that, even if proceeded with, it would only protect persons from direct dismissal. It would not provide safeguards for persons who are not dismissed but who are otherwise victimised by an employer, for example, by being demoted, or by being ruled out of consideration for promotion etc.
Accordingly, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, while being supportive of the idea in principle, would have reservations as to whether this proposal would operate effectively in practice. They would want to examine the drafting in detail as well as considering whether there might not be alternative approaches better suited to achieve the objective sought.
In his explanatory memorandum Deputy Shatter suggests that the Employment Equality Bill, 1997, should be amended to provide protection from discrimination for a person who believes on reasonable grounds that a child is a victim of abuse and reports this belief.
That Bill which is currently before the Seanad, prohibits discrimination in employment on nine distinct grounds — sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the traveller community. It is intended to proceed with enactment of the Bill to provide protection against discrimination on the nine grounds. Any extension of the scope of the proposed legislation beyond those grounds at this point would give rise to an unacceptable delay in processing the Bill, which has been awaited by the interests concerned for some time.
Section 6(4) of the Bill provides for review of its provisions after enactment and within a two year time period of its coming into operation. The question of extending the scope of the Bill will be examined in this context, including, if it remains appropriate, protection from discrimination in employment for people who comply with future statutory obligations relating to mandatory reporting of child abuse. If, when mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is introduced, it places a statutory obligation on a person to report such instances to an appropriate authority, with a related statutory immunity and protection, it would appear superfluous to provide additional protection in employment equality legislation as suggested by Deputy Shatter.
I will be bringing proposals to the appropriate committee of the House concerning amendments to the Bill. However, I would like to make some preliminary comments which may be helpful. The definition of what constitutes abuse is very important and this is one of the key issues to be teased out in preparing this legislation. I will return to this point later.
Another important issue is to whom people should report. In my view, reporting should be to the statutory authorities — the health boards or the Garda. The health boards have statutory responsibility for the protection of children under the Child Care Act. They have the experience and expertise to deal with these sensitive reports and to make judgments on what action should be taken. The current guidelines issued by my Department stipulate that all reports should be to a designated officer in each community care area. One obvious advantage of this approach is that very often a pattern may emerge where a number of people express concern about a particular family. The fact that the reports come to one central point facilitates the identification of such a pattern. There are strong policy arguments therefore for the centralisation of the receipt of reports.
I would like to stress to the House the complexity of drafting legislation to introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse. A detailed consultation process was carried out during 1996. The discussion document contained 17 questions on key issues in considering whether or not to introduce mandatory reporting. The question of granting immunity from civil liability was one of those questions. The discussion document states:
It can be argued that fear of legal proceedings operates as a disincentive to the reporting of suspicions of child abuse. The purpose of granting an immunity would be to encourage reporting by professionals.
Over 200 submissions were received in response to the discussion document. There was widespread support for granting an immunity to all professionals who reported abuse in good faith. The issue of extending this immunity to all persons and not confining it to those mandated to report was more contentious but again many submissions supported this measure.
I have referred to the fact that 17 questions were posed in the discussion document on mandatory reporting. The first and most crucial question is the definition of abuse. I have already outlined the difficulties posed by Deputy Shatter's Bill in terms of the very broad definition of alleged child abuse. In its consultation paper the Law Reform Commission referred to the fact that the phenomenon of over-reporting was associated particularly with expanded or over broad reporting laws. It states:
If mandated reporters are obliged to report potential as opposed to actual cases of abuse, or if the definition of abuse is vague or uncertain, professionals may seek to protect themselves and avoid prosecution or penalty by reporting every possible case of abuse, leaving it to the health board to distinguish between fact and fiction. The answer may lie in ensuring that the definitions of reportable elements of abuse be as specific and as simple as possible.
The general principles put forward by the Law Reform Commission are also relevant in this context. It states:
The law should be specific enough to discourage over-reporting, whether by the overzealous or the defensive reporter; it should, on the other hand, be broad enough to facilitate identification of children who are genuinely at risk. It should be based on a definition of child sexual abuse which lays down a minimum rather than an optimum standard of care towards children. This derives from the need to recognise that methods of child care may properly vary between different families, and that the capacity of the child care services to respond to reported abuse is limited by finite resources. Finally, a mandatory reporting law should be readily understood and easily applied.
I would like to remind the House that the Law Reform Commission's recommendation referred to immunity for persons reporting child sexual abuse only. Other types of abuse, particularly emotional abuse and neglect, are far more difficult to define. What would be the position concerning children begging? Experts refer to the "threshold" of abuse, or in other words the stage at which it is considered necessary for the statutory child protection agencies to intervene.
What would be the position concerning corporal punishment by parents? The Irish College of General Practitioners in its submission gave the example of a harassed mother with a crying, cranky child in a doctor's waiting room. She slaps the child and he cries further. The doctor sees this and knows that physical abuse has taken place. Would he be obliged to report this?
Another difficult issue linked to the question of definitions is the position concerning reporting of underage sexual activity. At present the age of consent to what may be termed lesser forms of sexual activity is 15 years and the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 17 years. The discussion document asked whether all underage sexual activity should be subject to reporting. Most submissions felt that subjecting consensual underage sexual activity between two young people to mandatory reporting would not be advantageous.
However, the situation was seen to be different if there was a large age differential between the two people or if there could be seen to be any other abusive element to the activity. Some organisations believed that all underage sexual activity should be reported and the issue of consent examined in each instance. This is an issue which needs to be clarified so that people know the circumstances considered to constitute abuse.
The Law Reform Commission recommended that all reports should be made to a designated officer, a director of community care, within each health board. It considered it should also be open to a mandated reporter to submit his or her report to the Garda. In the discussion document the question was raised whether there were circumstances in which reports might be made to other agencies, such as the Medical Council, An Bord Altranais or the Dental Council.
As a further indication of the complex nature of child abuse, I refer to recent research findings on our child protection services. The social studies department in University College Cork carried out research with the Mid-Western Health Board on how the Child Care Act, 1991, works in practice. In a recent paper on this research Dr. Harry Ferguson looked at the balance between child protection work and family support and treatment oriented services. He found evidence of a trend of a narrowing of social work services relating to child protection. His study showed that information relating not just to child abuse but to a broad range of child care problems flows into social workers in the health boards. Some 45 per cent of referrals in his study were categorised as child welfare type cases. That is to say they did not involve allegations of immediate threats of harm to children in the sense of abuse by their caretakers or others. Thus, these welfare matters relate to children not receiving adequate care, as opposed to adequate protection. Very often they tend to concern issues of parenting style.
Dr. Ferguson concludes that:
There is a real tension within the system because of how community care social work has effectively been reconstituted to deal with child protection while at the same time teams are receiving information and accepting referrals that apply to a broad range of adversities to children.
Research by Ms Helen Buckley and others in the South-Eastern Health Board mirrors these findings. Findings from this study showed that clients referred to the South-Eastern Health Board's social work service are likely to be experiencing both financial and material pressures, as well as significant personal or family difficulties including mental health problems or problems with the management of their children. This research showed that families who were referred for child abuse reasons were more likely to receive an ongoing supportive social work service than those referred for other reasons, even if those reasons impacted negatively on their children or their capacity to care for their children. The research points to the desirability of a more holistic approach to the problems of families in need.
It is important to stress that the objective of introducing immunity from prosecution is to encourage people to report child abuse. In 1987 there were 1,646 reports of child abuse to health boards. By 1996 this had increased to approximately 8,500 reports — an increase of more than 400 per cent. There is no doubt this increase in the number of reports is linked to a greater awareness among both professionals and the general public of the existence of child abuse. This growth in awareness has been due in no small measure to the many shocking cases of abuse coming before the courts.
The Government is taking a broad approach to improving the reporting of child abuse. I take this opportunity to outline a range of measures we are taking in this area. Deputies will be aware that during 1996, following the publication of a discussion document on mandatory reporting, there was considerable debate and discussion on the issue. This process included debate on other aspects of child protection services and was most useful in teasing out the principal pros and cons of the argument.
A conference on the subject was held in September 1996 which was also helpful in terms of open constructive debate. The contributions to the conference reflected the broad range of opinion from organisations as diverse as large statutory and professional organisations to individuals with particular viewpoints. It was agreed by all that further development of our child care services was required to ensure that children and professionals can report abuse in the knowledge that appropriate investigation, treatment and support services are available to the victims.
In response to the views expressed by a large majority of child care professionals and others who participated in the consultative process, the previous Administration decided on a series of initiatives to best promote and protect the rights of children and a commitment was given to evaluate their impact over a three year period. This Government has reiterated its commitment, outlined in An Action Programme for the Millennium, to introduce mandatory reporting during the lifetime of the Government.
This is a complex sensitive area where we will proceed with due care and caution. As I have previously told the House, we will implement and build on the worthwhile initiatives which arose from the previous consultative process. I will outline these developments and the progress made in implementing them for the information of the House. First, my Department has agreed with the regional health boards that designated officers, to be known as child care managers, be appointed in each community care area to co-ordinate inter-agency approaches to child protection and to manage services for children in that area. Funding for half of these posts was provided last year and I have provided further funding in 1998 to complete this process. This fulfils one of the main recommendations of the Kelly Fitzgerald report. These managers will play a pivotal role in strengthening and developing our child care and family support services in the future. Second, my Department has requested health boards to arrange for the establishment of regional and local child protection committees which will co-ordinate policy developments, review procedures and monitor inter-agency and inter-professional responses to child care issues. They will also serve to enhance working relationships between social workers, gardaí, the probation service, medical practitioners, nursing staff and other relevant professionals who have a common aim to protect children. Third, health boards are also expanding multi-disciplinary training. This has also been identified as a useful means of increasing inter-agency and inter-professional approaches to child protection. Additional funding was approved in 1997 towards the expansion of this form of training. Fourth, it had initially been suggested that the review of the 1987 and 1995 child abuse guidelines would be a matter for the Social Services Inspectorate. However, I have decided to establish a working group to address this issue now. I will make an announcement shortly regarding the terms of reference and membership of the group. The working group will be representative of all the key statutory and voluntary agencies and will have an independent chairperson. Fifth, the previous Government had proposed a public information campaign to heighten awareness of child abuse. I have allocated £100,000 to the Children's Rights Alliance in 1998 as a contribution towards the cost of an awareness campaign on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sixth, the provision of support services by health boards for the victims of past abuse has been assisted by the provision of £100,000 in 1997. Seventh, the Department of Health and Children has asked health boards to ensure that funding to voluntary agencies dealing with children is conditional on those agencies having procedures in place to deal with allegations of child abuse. I am informed that most voluntary agencies with responsibility for children in the health area have well developed procedures in place and work closely with health boards when such allegations arise.
This is an area about which we cannot be too careful and it is relevant to all voluntary agencies working with children. My colleague the Minister, Deputy McDaid, is stepping up efforts to ensure effective procedures for dealing with allegations of child abuse are in place in all sports clubs. I would like to support his call for clubs and sports organisations to ensure that proper attention is given to the care and security of children involved in their sports. These organisations should offer a safe positive and encouraging atmosphere for their young members.
The Department of Education and Science has a major role to play in educating children about the danger of abuse and how to protect themselves. I am conscious of the major strides in promoting awareness which have been made as a result of the introduction of the Stay Safe Programme. The Department of Education and Science, in conjunction with the Department of Health and the regional health boards, has introduced the Stay Safe Programme into primary schools. Its aim is to prevent child abuse by equipping parents and teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect the children in their care. Children are taught safety skills in the normal classroom context and these skills are reinforced through discussion with their parents. This programme has the support of all the main interests in education and most especially managerial bodies, teachers and parents. This level of satisfaction with the programme is reflected by the fact that 80 per cent of schools have implemented the programme. There is a nation-wide network of part-time teachers who are targeting schools that are currently not teaching the programme.
Recently, the Stay Safe Programme material has been updated in line with the guidelines of the National Council for Curriculum Assessment on social personal and health education. The introduction of the updated Stay Safe pack to primary schools throughout the country will take place during this school term. Arrangements are also being made for the development of further teaching materials on the theme of personal safety skills for children with learning difficulties.
A working party has been established by the Department of Education and Science, representative of all the interests in primary education, to examine the procedures for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse. My Department and the health boards are represented on this working party.
The brief of the working party is comprehensive and is worth outlining to the House. It is to review existing guidelines in light of experience, particularly as they relate to disclosures to teachers and to revise them as necessary; to consider the particular mechanisms needed to cope with any allegations against school personnel; to explore the mechanisms that would ensure offenders are not re-employed in schools; and to produce new guidelines for dealing with allegations or suspicions of child abuse which concern school employees and personnel.
I fully appreciate the motives of Deputy Shatter in bringing this Bill before the House. It is important to have maximum co-operation to ensure that we have the best possible legislation on this issue. I am confident the approach the Government proposes, involving consideration by a Committee of the House, will ensure this is achieved.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Upton.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I commend Deputy Shatter for introducing it. It is a comprehensive Bill which seeks to address one aspect of an issue which is causing grief and heartache in our society. In common with the rest of society, Members of this House have been shocked and disgusted at the revelations over recent years of physical and sexual abuse of a considerable number of children. We have been disgusted by the horrific details of cases which have come before the courts and been reported in the media. We have been shocked by the prevalence of abuse that has become clear over recent years.
I express my deep admiration of and gratitude to those victims of abuse who have had the courage and strength to speak out against their abusers. They have shown enormous bravery and their actions have led to the conviction and imprisonment of evil and pernicious individuals. Their actions have also brought the issue of child abuse to the forefront of public consciousness. Many of these victims have spoken out in the face of enormous personal and social pressures. Often they have to do so in an adversarial court situation which is not equipped to deal with the myriad of emotional and psychological implications of sexual abuse. Thanks to the actions of these victims, child sexual abuse is now at the forefront of the political agenda where I hope it stays until the matter is dealt with adequately.
Political answers need to be provided to the problems which have come to the fore in recent years. This Bill is an important part of that process. As an Opposition Bill, it seeks to implement the recommendations in the 1990 Law Reform Commission report on child sexual abuse, the recommendations repeatedly brought to the attention of policy makers in the 1993 Kilkenny incest investigation report and those made by the committee of inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald. It also seeks to fill the legislative vacuum which undoubtedly exists at present.
Before coming into office, the Government parties were in favour of the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. They went before the electorate with this as one of their core policy commitments and promised to introduce it. They portrayed this as a straightforward and simple issue and sought support on the basis of promises to provide quick fix solutions. However, when they attained office, the complexity of the issue soon dawned on them. They realised that a more considered approach was necessary and that there were considerable funding implications to be considered.
This Bill provides comprehensive legislative reform. It is important to ensure that people who have reason to suspect that children are being abused report their concerns to the appropriate authority. It is traumatic for an individual who suspects or realises that abuse is taking place. It is imperative, therefore, that people can report their concerns in the full knowledge that they will be immune from legal action after they make their report.
This Bill will have two meaningful and constructive effects. It will protect people who report alleged abuse or ill-treatment from legal action and it will send a clear and definitive message to the public that we are serious about protecting our children from the perpetrators of evil and damaging acts. We need to create a culture in our society where the safety and protection of children is of paramount concern and where citizens feel safe if they report their fears and concerns to the appropriate authority. This Bill will create such a culture of openness.
Child abuse is no longer a taboo subject among the public. People are deeply concerned about the issue and want the State, the health boards and other agencies to implement policies to protect children and convict those who are guilty of these horrific crimes. This Bill will assist in that process. However, it is important to note that it will provide no protection for those who maliciously make false allegations of abuse. Many Members have encountered individuals against whom false and damaging accusations of abuse have been made by persons who wished to inflict damage on their personal or professional lives. Individuals, who are the victims of such malicious allegations, are plunged into a nightmare which can impinge on every aspect of their lives. This Bill will afford no protection in law to individuals who make such claims in bad faith. This Bill has managed to strike a careful balance.
I am concerned that the Bill seeks to confer immunity on people who report suspected abuse to the appropriate authority. According to the Bill, the appropriate authority will be a statutory or non-statutory body. I would prefer if it was restricted to a statutory body which understands how the law works and would be in a position to report such abuse if necessary. I am concerned about the number of different people to whom such abuse may be reported. There could be difficulties attached to conferring such immunity on people who report suspected abuse to non-statutory bodies. I hope that will be reconsidered.
It is also important that the Department of Health and Children realises the extra workload which the passage of this Bill and the culture of openness it seeks to create will place on the child care services in the community. I am not suggesting that should stop people from reporting child abuse because we all have a duty to work towards an open culture which has been sadly lacking for many years. However, we must do so in the full knowledge that there are significant cost implications involved. The Minister mentioned the need for us all in this House to recognise that and to give the necessary priority to spending in this important area.
Considerable progress was made during the lifetime of the last Government in implementing the Child Care Act and providing extra resources for child care workers and other support services. This initiative must continue and we must also ensure that our commitment to tackling child abuse remains a priority. The Labour Party has always made the argument that we must invest in services such as child care if we want to create an equal and just society in which families and people can thrive and where the instruments of the State will protect them if they are violated in any way.
I welcome the comments made by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Fahey, during Question Time last week about child care and child abuse. It is important that we quantify the current demand and provide the resources necessary to meet it.
In the event that the Government accepts this Bill it is likely that the volume of reports to health boards of alleged abuse and mistreatment will increase significantly. The strain that this will place on our services as they currently exist will be considerable. At the moment there is severe strain on resources and personnel. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has come to understand and appreciate this problem and is starting to take the necessary steps to analyse our current level of service provision and to seek funding from the Minister for Finance to augment and improve the services available to children in danger. He can be assured of support from this side of the House in doing that.
It is possible to take a cynical view of the lead-in time to introducing mandatory reporting. Cost implications could be used as an excuse for long-fingering its introduction, but I am not accusing the Minister of that. He is making genuine efforts to come to grips with this considerable problem and to put in place a coherent plan to tackle it and lead us to a point where we will be able to introduce mandatory reporting. Deputy Shatter and I will be interested to hear reports of progress made in that area from time to time. It would certainly be our duty to question what progress is being made and to ensure that this item does not slip off the agenda. It is Deputy Fahey's duty as Minister and our duty as Opposition Deputies to keep working at this until such time as the services are adequate. It is imperative that everybody in this House and people outside the House who have an interest in the welfare and protection of children ensure that this issue is given priority and the necessary funding. We have a responsibility to ensure that child protection is a priority issue for this and all future administrations. We have a duty to support Ministers who are making serious and diligent efforts to legislate and to provide funding for child support, and we have a duty to castigate those who fail to do so. The children of this country deserve nothing less. Equally, we have a duty to support Opposition politicians who make serious and diligent efforts to legislate for this area. This Bill from Deputy Shatter is a genuine attempt to assist in that process. Minister Fahey is treating the issue in a serious and diligent way. His job would be made easier if the Progressive Democrats were not snapping at his heels every step of the way.
There are clearly no easy or quick solutions to the ill-treatment of children. We have in place a framework that seeks to support victims of abuse. Legislative reforms need to be introduced to augment our current body of law and this Bill is an important step in that direction. However, legislation alone will be of no use to families where the horror of child abuse occurs unless resources are targeted at improving our current level of responsible support. The Minister is aware of what could be described as a close to crisis situation which obtains in the Eastern Health Board area. I have heard of health board social workers literally having to prioritise cases of suspected child abuse. Many cases that I would regard as significant and urgent are not necessarily regarded as such by health boards. I have come across many cases of people being put on a waiting list for two or three months until a social worker can be allocated to them.
The area of personnel dealing with reported child abuse needs urgent attention because many social workers working in health board areas where the problem is most acute are under severe stress and have extremely heavy workloads. There is proof of that in the difficulty health boards, particularly the Eastern Health Board, have in recruiting and retaining staff in the services. In one area of Dublin City where there are significant child care problems a reasonable service is provided at the beginning of the year, which is in September, because the social worker posts are filled and people are seen reasonably quickly. However, come January or February, social workers have moved on because they cannot stand the pressure of the job any longer. In addition the many other services we are developing are trying to attract social workers to jobs which are less stressful and which often pay more money. Social workers leave to take up these jobs and the services are left understaffed, with all the implications that has in the context of child welfare. Urgent action is needed in this area. I am concerned that we are not training sufficient numbers of social workers and general health staff to work in this area, in the probation and welfare services and in the many new services which are being developed. The fact that social workers are leaving the services compounds the problem because the workload is increased for the people who remain. It is quite unsatisfactory and I am seriously concerned about the situation in a number of community care areas in the Eastern Health Board region.
For many years we ignored the growing problems in the area of child welfare. This Government, like the last Government and its predecessor, has been engaging in a process of catching up, trying to put in place much needed services which were not provided in the past when they should have been. Now we have problems which are close to being out of control. In the process of catching up we are discovering increased demands in the various areas which we are not capable of meeting. We have to start providing important new services and the significant resources that are required, but I am seriously concerned that very little in terms of resources and staffing is going into family support services when there are so many cases where early intervention would have made a huge difference. Neglect is a huge and often unrecognised problem and in this context there is a need for adequate supports for parents. We are doing very little in that area and ending up with very serious problems at a later stage. There is a concentration on the fire brigade type of service, and we are not doing enough in the area of prevention. I will return to some of those issues later.
I welcome the Minister's announcement tonight in relation to the establishment of a working group to review the current guidelines. In relation to the Bill, I hope Members of this House will work constructively together to ensure that appropriate legislation and resources are provided for our voluntary and statutory agencies who deal with child abuse on a daily basis. This Bill forms a very important part of this process. It can be difficult for a Government to accept Opposition legislation, but we did so when Fianna Fáil was in Opposition, and this is a genuine attempt to deal with an aspect of an issue which is of concern to us all. I recommend this Bill to the House.