Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1998

Vol. 493 No. 4

Other Questions. - Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Bill, 1998: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following:

"(1) The Chief Executive Officer of each health board shall, immediately upon the coming into operation of this Act, appoint officers of the board to be designated officers for the purposes of this Act.".

The background to this amendment to section 2 is that on Committee Stage the Minister of State restructured aspects of the Bill, particularly with regard to health board personnel to whom allegations of child abuse can be made in circumstances where the person making the allegations is immune from civil liability. It was envisaged originally that a health board would appoint an officer to be a designated officer to receive all such complaints from members of the general public, teachers, members of the medical profession et al. It was indicated, however, in a useful and constructive discussion on Committee Stage that there were a wide variety of health board personnel to whom the general public considered it was appropriate to make reports of child abuse, including community nurses, social workers, hospital nurses and members of the medical profession.

The Minister of State indicated in response that it was the view of chief executive officers of health boards that a broad category of personnel should and would be designated by them. The amendment seeks to ensure this. Under the Bill, as it stands, a chief executive officer can appoint one or more officers to be designated officers. It would not be adequate to appoint only one officer to be a designated officer. The amendment would ensure there would be an obligation on chief executive officers to appoint a number of personnel. This would be in accord with the Minister of State's expressed view on how we should proceed. I hope he will see fit to accept it.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. Fahey)

The form of wording to be used to allow for the introduction of the designated officer of a health board for the purposes of this legislation has been the subject of considerable debate. It was necessary to amend the Deputy's original proposal which would have allowed a broad reporting structure compared to that proposed in the Bill. My amendment will restrict the persons to whom one can report while enjoying the protection afforded by the Bill to employees of those agencies, namely, the health boards and the Garda Síochána, who have a statutory obligation and the professional training to respond. This was the fundamental point at issue and is one of my central amendments to the Bill as originally proposed.

The chief executive officers of health boards have confirmed that they intend to appoint the widest possible range of personnel to be designated officers. I see no merit in amending the section, especially as I have given a commitment to communicate with the chief executive officers who have assured me of their co-operation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Shatter

I regret that the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment which seeks to ensure that what occurs in this area complies with the wishes of the House. The Minister of State can issue all the instructions he likes and make all the comments he wishes to chief executive officers but under this legislation they will not be bound to appoint more than one officer to be a designated officer. There is no reason the Minister of State should not accept this amendment, other than the usual obstinacy which one experiences when one suggests that legislation should operate in the way envisaged. I have expressed reservations previously about the manner in which the Minister of State is limiting immunity under the Bill to specific reports of abuse. He is mistaken in dealing with this aspect in this way.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to confer a legal obligation on the Minister for Health and Children to publish guidelines. When we dealt with a similar amendment on Committee Stage the Minister of State did not want to include it in the legislation. He is not willing, apparently, to accept amendment No. 1. If he does not accept amendment No. 2, much of what he said will be meaningless in a statutory sense.

I can only express my disappointment at the approach taken. I am concerned that health boards may deal with this differently. There are eight health boards. Following the reform of the Eastern Health Board, there will be ten. We have an obligation in passing important legislation such as this to ensure consistency.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(3) The Minister for Health and Children shall publish guidelines describing the category of persons who shall be appointed designated officers as provided for in subsection (1) of this section.”.

This amendment which deals with a related matter would give statutory force to any instructions the Minister of State might issue to chief executive officers to ensure a broad category of health board personnel can be the recipients of allegations of child abuse in circumstances where the person making the allegations is not at risk of civil liability provided they act in good faith and reasonably and their actions are not motivated by malice. If the Minister of State were to accept this amendment to a great degree, it would resolve some of the difficulties outlined. I hope he will accept it.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy and I have agreed on a number of improvements to the Bill as originally drafted. I rejected this amendment on Committee Stage, however, as I considered it to be unnecessary and excessively prescriptive. It was the subject of a lengthy discussion and my views are well known.

I have gone a considerable distance towards meeting Deputy Shatter's concern that the categories of persons to whom reports may be made should be as flexible as possible. In that context, I gave a commitment to communicate with the chief executive officers of the health boards on the subject of officers of the boards to whom reports might be made. I repeat that I do not doubt their co-operation in this matter. This type of communication is a strength of the Bill in that it does not restrict us to a narrow list of persons or professionals to whom reports may be made. I will not, therefore, be accepting the amendment.

Ms Shortall

I support amendment No. 2. The Minister of State has fallen into the trap of considering how things stand at present and of making comments in light of discussions he has had with the current chief executive officers of the health boards. That would be fine if the position were to remain constant. However, in drawing up legislation, we must provide for the future when a different Minister may hold office and when different chief executive officers may be employed by the health boards.

The Bill should prescribe the manner in which we intend to proceed for the foreseeable future. In five years, the personnel may have changed. At that stage, if problems arise in respect of reporting procedures or if the guidelines are not being followed, there will be no point in quoting a conversation which took place in 1998. That is not adequate. We must be clear about what is expected of people who have responsibility in this area. For that reason, it is essential that clear guidelines be laid down from the outset. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Mr. Shatter

With respect, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the Minister of State's obstinacy and obstructiveness in respect of these issues. Having originally introduced the Bill, I have sought to deal with matters on a consensus basis so that this measure can pass speedily through the House and provide additional protections which do not exist in the current legal system. To a degree, the Bill has been redrafted to satisfy the Minister of State and his officials. That has been my experience on a number of occasions regarding Private Members' Bills and I do not know whether it derives from the possessive views of Ministers in respect of their offices or from the views of the officials in their Departments.

It is utterly absurd that the Minister of State will not accept the amendment. He stated that he intends to issue some form of guidelines to chief executive officers. The amendment would give him a statutory right and obligation to issue such guidelines, with which chief executive officers in each health board area would be required to comply. They would also be obliged to appoint a number of people as designated officers who would be in a position to deal with or be the recipients of allegations of child abuse in circumstances where the person making those allegations is immune from civil liability.

Neither the Minister of State nor I can predict the action which might be taken by the chief executive officers of different health boards in this regard in the future. Any instruction he issues will have no legal effect or statutory implication of any nature. We could face a situation where the various health boards will deal with this problem in different ways and some of them may have an adequate number of designated officers while others may not.

In dealing with issues of child abuse, health boards currently operate under the 1987 guidelines. However, three of the health boards — it may now be four — have shown initiative by developing child abuse guidelines which are superior to the national guidelines. The effect is that children receive a different and better level of protection within some health board areas which have been more active and dynamic in updating guidelines and procedures. The amendment is designed to ensure that these issues are dealt with uniformly.

I hope I am wrong and there will be no need for the amendment. There is no point in my pressing the amendment beyond a voice vote because I am sure it will be defeated. There would then not be adequate time to deal with other amendments of equal importance which must be discussed. I predict that time will prove the Minister of State wrong with regard to the way he is dealing with this issue. I hope he is willing to accept that responsibility. In five to seven years when his successor is appointing another tribunal or commission to investigate why allegations of child abuse were not followed up or communicated in a health board area which led to the victims of that abuse not being given protection, I hope the Minister of State will come before the House and accept responsibility for his foolish approach to dealing with a basic amendment which achieves an objective that Deputy Shortall and I believe to be desirable.

From what he stated earlier, the Minister of State apparently wants to achieve exactly what the amendment is designed to achieve. However, there is no point in saying that he wants to take a certain course of action. As legislators, we have the opportunity to incorporate in the Bill provisions to provide essential protection for children. There is no basic reason why the amendment, which is not a party political measure, should not be accepted.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Shatter will be proved wrong because guidelines with a legislative base do not necessarily have a greater standing than other guidelines given to health boards in respect of their daily operations. I do not accept that guidelines must be given a legislative base. I am satisfied that the negative aspects of such a proposal would be as strong as its positive aspects.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must draw the Minister of State's attention to the fact we are on Report Stage and Deputy Shatter has already replied to his earlier contribution.

Mr. Shatter

It is total nonsense to suggest that the proposal has any negative aspects.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Shatter

How can the Ceann Comhairle come to the conclusion that the amendment is defeated when two Members support it while only one opposes it?

An Ceann Comhairle

My decision is guided by precedent. If the Deputy doubts my opinion, there is a remedy available to him.

Mr. Shatter

Yes, but I assume the Minister of State would call on his battalions to vote down the amendment.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy should grow up.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"4.—(1) A person who, apart from this section, would be so liable shall not be liable in damages in respect of the communication, whether in writing or otherwise, by him or her to a member or members of the governing body of a sport or of the committee of a sports club of his or her opinion that a child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated or sexually abused by a member of or an employee of such governing body or sports club unless it is proved that he or she has not acted reasonably and in good faith in forming that opinion and so communicating it.

(2) Where a report as described in subsection (1) of this section is made, a meeting of the governing body or relevant committee, whichever is the case, shall forthwith be convened and if the committee finds that there are grounds for the complaint, it shall immediately furnish the details of the complaint to a designated officer of a health board an/or a member of the Garda Síochána and the complainant shall be advised of the finding of the committee and the action, if any, taken or to be taken by it as shall the person in respect of whom the complaint is made.

(3) The action taken as referred to in subsection (2) of this section may include amongst other things the suspension from sporting, coaching and training activities of the person in respect of whom a complaint is made and the governing body or relevant committee which suspends any person following receipt of a communication to which subsection (1) of this section applies shall not be liable in damages to such person for so doing if it is proved that it acted reasonably and in good faith in taking such action.

(4) The reference in subsections (1) and (3) of this section to liability in damages should be construed as including a reference to liability to be the subject of an order for any other form of relief.”.

This is a particularly important amendment. On Committee Stage the Minister reduced the extent of the protection by narrowing the scope of the Bill in so far as it extended civil immunity to those who make allegations of child abuse reasonably and in good faith. Since the Committee Stage the Murphy report on the abuse of children involved in swimming has been published. As the Bill stands, if I believe my child has been abused I can report the issue to a health board or to the Garda and, if I am acting reasonably and in good faith, I will be immune from civil liability.

The effect of the Bill as amended is that if my child is a member of a swimming club and I believe the coach of the club is abusing my child or other children and if I decide to report that to the committee of the club or the governing body of the sport, I will be at risk of being sued. If I am sued for defamation the court may decide that I have behaved properly and I may not be liable for damages. I would also be at risk of being threatened by the coach against whom I make the allegation that he will get a court injunction to prevent me pursuing the issue. The committee of the club or the governing body of the sport would also be open to that threat.

Swimming is not the only sport in which there have been problems with the sexual abuse of children. This problem has affected the GAA, football clubs and a range of other sports clubs. It so happens that it is in swimming that there have been recent shocking revelations. The Murphy report is clear in its conclusions. Commenting on how those properly accused of child abuse successfully suppressed allegations made against them by threats of civil proceedings the report recommended, "A complainant should be assured that the reporting of such a complaint is privileged and, accordingly, will not be defamatory unless it is made with malice.". The report further stated:

Consideration should be given to the provision of statutory immunity to protect persons who, in good faith, complain of possible sexual abuse of children.

Other than to establish whether there are grounds for a complaint in relation to child abuse it is not appropriate for individuals, club committees or the Association [in this case the swimming association] to carry out internal investigations.

They should suspend judgment and, having determined that there is a reasonable basis for the allegation made, inform the health board and/or the Garda.

The Bill aims to provide protection for persons reporting child abuse. The amendment I propose is designed to implement the recommendations of the Murphy report referred to in paragraphs 3.5, 6.8 and 6.9 of the recommendations of that report. If we pass the Bill without incorporating this provision we will effectively reject the recommendations of the Murphy report about which there has been so much publicity and in respect of which there has been agreement on all sides.

I attended the Oireachtas committee which discussed the report with the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation on the day it was made available. I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that this Bill is a vehicle to provide for this essential protection for those who report child abuse. It is primarily a protection for children. It is about ensuring that where children are being abused, allegations of abuse are taken seriously and those who may be abusers cannot use the legal system to frighten off people who seek to protect children at risk.

The Murphy report was categorical in its view that part of the difficulty in the context of the swimming clubs and the association dealing with the complaints made to them derived from the threats of writs. There were many other problems in the way in which parents who made complaints were dealt with. However, we should legislate for this part of the problem. Never again should a parent whose child is participating in a sports club, who suspects the child is being abused and who reports that suspected abuse to the committee of the club or the sport's governing body be threatened with the possibility of writs and court proceedings to deter them from pressing the complaint. It is the duty of the House to ensure that never happens again.

It is appropriate that in the last week before the summer recess the House has an opportunity to give a stamp of approval to the Murphy report's recommendations by incorporating this section in the Bill. The section also has the additional effect that if the governing body of a sport or the relevant committee of a sports club receives a complaint which it determines to have a basis it is in a position to suspend the person against whom the complaint has been made without being threatened with civil action.

The provision does not envisage that the committee or governing body should conduct a full and final investigation into the allegation. I accept the Murphy report's recommendations that it is not appropriate for them to do so because they do not have the expertise. However, it is appropriate that they make a finding as to whether there is a basis for the allegation made and, if so, that they refer the matter to a health board and the Garda.

I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment and, having exchanged cross words on the previous amendments, we can join across the floor and incorporate this provision in the Bill. If we do so we will have done a good day's work in addressing issues of immediate concern which have been so sadly highlighted in the context of the many children who suffered at the hands of swimming coaches.

Mr. Fahey

We were shocked by the appalling revelations of the independent inquiry and I appreciate Deputy Shatter's motivation in proposing this amendment. However, much of what the Deputy says makes the case for the Government's approach to the Bill. Why would any parent report a suspicion of abuse to the chairman of a football or youth club rather than to the health board or the Garda? We are trying to put in place a comprehensive structure so that we can have effective reporting of child abuse and the reports are brought directly to the attention of the statutory agencies involved. We are trying to improve the protocols, procedures and regulations governing this type of reporting. If the swimming debacle showed anything, it showed that the system broke down because reports made by parents were not acted upon by the swimming authorities. It is for that reason we feel very strongly that any individual who has a suspicion, be it a parent or a member of a committee, should report it to the relevant statutory authority, namely the Garda Síochána or the health board.

I would remind the House that arising from the publication of the Murphy report the Government decided on a number of actions. The report has been submitted for urgent consideration by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Sport and Recreation. This committee had already been considering the matter of the protection of children in sport. The first meeting of that committee was held on Friday, 26 June and the lessons to be learned from this important report and the practical implementation of its recommendations for all sports clubs are being examined. The Government decisions on these matters were taken on 12 June. I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill already encompass the concerns of the swimming inquiry as expressed in recommendation 6.8 of the report: "that consideration should be given to the provision of statutory immunity to protect persons who in good faith complain of possible abuse of children". I am satisfied that that principal recommendation in the report is covered by the amendment we introduced to Deputy Shatter's original proposal, which he accepted. His main concern was with the fact that we were designating child care managers only, and the part of the debate that took place on that day was about that. Why were all the concerns he now raises not brought up then?

I have been extremely conscious of the need to channel reports to the most appropriate agency with all appropriate speed. That is why I brought in my amendments to the Bill as originally proposed. We are most anxious to encourage the general public to report any concerns to the statutory agencies competent to deal with such reports. They are the health boards and the Garda Síochána. We do not welcome or want excessive third or fourth party involvement of persons who have no training or expertise in that area. That was essentially the problem in the swimming association. What Deputy Shatter is now asking is that we should impose on volunteers, ordinary parents who are involved in sports clubs, a quasi-judicial function to sit in judgment and decide whether or not to report.

Mr. Shatter

That is utter nonsense. The Minister of State is a disgrace. It is unfortunate that he is not better briefed by his officials. He is talking rubbish. It is a disgrace to deal with such a serious issue in this way. Does he even know what he is talking about?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter will have an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr. Shatter

Is the Minister of State rejecting the Murphy report on behalf of the entire Cabinet?

Mr. Fahey

No. I am implementing this aspect of the Murphy report.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister of State is rejecting it because the manner in which he is referring to it is gross misrepresentation of what it contains.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should continue in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Shatter is attempting to impose a quasi-judicial function on ordinary people.

Mr. Shatter

That is complete nonsense. Does the Minister of State even understand it?

Mr. Fahey

Will the Deputy allow me to continue?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter should allow the Minister to make his contribution. Deputy Shatter will have two more opportunities to speak if he wishes.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Shatter is seeking to impose on volunteers in clubs a quasi judicial function to sit in judgment and to decide whether or not to make a report.

Mr. Shatter

That is nonsense.

Mr. Fahey

We do not consider that the most effective way to deal with the reporting of child abuse. The most effective way for anybody who has a suspicion is to go to the Garda Síochána and the health board. We have the protocols and we are putting additional resources in place.

Mr. Shatter

Are they not supposed to tell the committee of the club that they have someone in the club who is abusing children?

Mr. Fahey

That is exactly what happened in relation to swimming. The governing body of swimming failed in its duty.

Mr. Shatter

Are they supposed to wait months while other children are abused? Is that what the Minister of State is saying? It is outrageous.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked Deputy Shatter to restrain himself.

Mr. Shatter

Are they not supposed to tell the club, which is responsible for employing the coach?

Mr. Fahey

They are supposed to go immediately to the statutory agencies.

Mr. Shatter

And what should they do about a club——

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate cannot continue on the basis of crossfire. I have pointed out to Deputy Shatter that he will have two further opportunities, if he so wishes, to speak in the debate.

Mr. Shatter

Will the Minister take a question under the new Standing Orders?

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would allow the Minister to continue. He will then have two minutes and subsequently unlimited time to make a full reply.

Mr. Fahey

They are supposed to go to the statutory authorities who have the duty and the responsibility to take whatever action is necessary, including recommending suspension or any other action that is necessary. That is the way to go. Why go around the house when one should go directly to the statutory agencies who have the responsibility, the powers, the resources and the training to investigate such reports and make immediate decisions? That is the problem with Deputy Shatter's approach. We are quite satisfied that we are implementing the Murphy proposal——

Mr. Shatter

Has the Minister asked Dr. Murphy?

Mr. Fahey

——that consideration should be given to the provision of statutory immunity to protect persons who in good faith complain of possible sexual abuse of children. That is provided for by the amendment we have put down.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter can now avail of a two minute contribution in which he can put to the Minister whatever questions are relevant to the amendment and the Minister will have two minutes to reply. The Deputy can then make a full reply.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister might tell the House where in this report it is suggested that immunity from civil liability for the making of such complaints should apply only where the complaint is made to a health board or to a member of the Garda Síochána. I can tell the Minister the answer to that. It is nowhere. If a child is being sexually abused by a coach, are the parents to be told to tell the health board or the Garda Síochána but to keep it secret from the committee that employs the coach and, while the Garda take a few weeks to investigate the matter, leave the coach to abuse other children and that the committee should take no action whatever?

Is the Minister aware of the implications and the foolishness of what he is saying? Is he aware that he is doing more than simply protecting the bailiwick of the Department of Health and the structural perceptions of the Department? If my child were being abused by a football or swimming coach and I reported it to the Eastern Health Board, how speedily would somebody investigate that, not just to protect my child but to protect all the other children in the club? The Minister might answer in the context of a reply to a Dáil Question as recently as June 1998 in which we were told that at the end of December last there were 379 reports of child abuse made to the Eastern Health Board that have not yet been investigated.

Has the Minister of State any perception of what he is at? Has he asked Dr. Murphy if that is what he meant? It was the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation who appointed Dr. Murphy to carry out his investigation and produce his report. Has the Minister of State asked Dr. Murphy whether what he is now doing meets his recommendation? Does the action he is now taking in this House accord with the views of the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and other members of Government? Has the Minister of State requested the Cabinet's agreement to jettison the recommendations of the Murphy report, an extraordinarily serious step for a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Children to take?

Ms Shortall

I respect Deputy Shatter's intention in tabling this amendment but I do not agree with the approach. A more considered approach is needed to recent events as well as to the Murphy report. There is immediate and widespread concern about this issue but it is not necessarily a good idea to come up with immediate responses, and it strikes me that this is a knee-jerk response. There is an element of mandating people to report. We have had that debate to some extent but it needs further consideration. Why should these provisions apply only to sporting organisations? Surely they would apply to youth organisations or private educational establishments, for example.

As the Minister of State said, a Dáil committee is examining the recommendations of the Murphy report and I look forward to those recommendations being implemented at an early stage. That is a more appropriate approach to take than including some of them under this Bill, however well intentioned the amendments.

Ms Fitzgerald

In dealing with this issue we should make it as easy as possible for parents and children to report incidents of child sexual abuse. We should not put barriers in the way of children or parents reporting such incidents. If the abuse occurs when children are attending a sports event or are involved in a club, the people to whom they would like to report the incident may be committee members or coaches. If those people then take action and report what has been told to them, they should be absolutely sure that the reporting of the complaint is privileged. That is vitally important. That is what the report recommended when it stated that a complainant should be assured that the reporting of such a complaint is privileged and, accordingly, will not be defamatory unless it is made with malice. The report also states that consideration should be given to the provision of statutory immunity to protect persons who in good faith complain of possible sexual abuse of children.

We must do everything possible to make it easy for people to report and to ensure the complaints are taken seriously when they are reported. While I accept the health boards and the statutory agencies are the more formal bodies to which complaints can be reported and dealt with satisfactorily, currently there are long waiting lists. That raises questions about delays in action being taken once the complaint has been made in the setting where it occurred, as happened in the particular cases currently under investigation. We should remove the barriers and make it easy for people to take action.

People are concerned that their complaints might be seen as malicious — I have come across that many times in schools — and that prevents them reporting incidents of abuse. The result is that they err on the side of passivity and do not take action. We should give protection to people who hear about these complaints and who report them in good faith.

I am disappointed there is not all-party support for the amendment on this side of the House. We should reduce barriers and make it easier for people to report by giving them the legal protection proposed in Deputy Shatter's amendment.

Mr. Fahey

Unfortunately there will be more barriers and I do not understand why the Deputies cannot see that. If someone immediately reports the incident to the Garda or the health board, there is nothing to stop the club involved from immediately suspending the coach on foot of that report. That is the normal procedure. However, Deputy Shatter is trying to set up a second tier in that the governing body or the committee of a club would be given responsibility to convene a meeting of the club, determine if there are grounds for the complaint, advise the complainant thereof, perhaps suspend the person involved and then decide whether they should go to the health board or the Garda to make a complaint. Why put that onus on volunteers in a sports club when it would be more appropriate to go immediately to the Garda or to the health board? Deputy Shatter is putting up major barriers by the approach taken in his amendment. There is nothing to stop a club imposing an immediate suspension as a result of a report to the Garda. I assure the Deputy that the Garda and the health boards——

Mr. Shatter

Who will tell the club — the Garda or the complainant?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State has only two minutes to reply.

Mr. Fahey

——will immediately investigate such complaints, particularly in the light of what has happened. The Deputy must understand that the real problem in the swimming case was that the complaints were made to the governing body but the governing body failed to report them to the Garda or to the health board.

Our approach is simple. We want to create a culture where people are empowered, if they have any suspicion of abuse, to go to the statutory agencies who have been given the responsibility to examine those reports and deal with them effectively. As I said in this House on a number of occasions, we want to put the best and most efficient set of procedures in place which involves more resources so that there can be an immediate response to those reports.

Murphy said that consideration should be given to the provision of statutory immunity to protect persons but the report states that qualified privilege protects the person making the complaint. The report did not say that the provision of statutory immunity was mandatory. I am satisfied that the people Deputy Shatter is trying to protect are already protected in the Bill.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister's approach is beyond comprehension. I am extremely angry at the way he is dealing with this matter. I wonder if his colleagues understand the implication of what he is doing — I am not sure he does.

I want to give the lie to what the Minister of State has said. This proposal does not create any additional barriers. If a child is being abused by a coach in a sports club, under this legislation there is nothing to stop the parent going directly to a designated officer in a health board or to a member of the Garda Síochána. This amendment does not prevent a parent from making a decision to do that and for the Minister of State to suggest otherwise is not just mischievous but dishonest.

It is most regrettable that the Minister has adopted an obscurantist and deliberately mischievous approach. He is not dealing honestly with the Murphy report which applies to swimming in the context of putting structures in place to ensure clubs deal correctly and responsibly with allegations of abuse. The recommendations it makes could apply equally to other clubs. Paragraph 3.5 states:

Where a complaint of sexual abuse is made [to a swimming club] the committee, in the first instance, should deal with the complaint in an expeditious manner. If there is, in the opinion of the committee, no grounds for the complaint, they should so inform the complainant. If the committee finds that there are grounds for the complaint they should inform the IASA Child Protection Officer and the Health Board and/or the Gardai.

Paragraph 6.7 states:

Any complaint of whatever kind made to the Branch or to the Association in relation to child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, should be taken seriously and acted on as a matter of urgency. It should not be dealt with on the basis of the complaints procedure at present.

There is also a recommendation on the provision of statutory immunity.

If my child was abused in a sports club I would regard myself as having a number of responsibilities. The first would be to report the matter to the Garda. Of equal importance would be to report it to the health board, but I would be very sceptical of the capacity of the Eastern Health Board to respond with any degree of speed. Six months later it might investigate the complaint.

Mr. Fahey

That is incorrect.

Mr. Shatter

There are more than 400 cases outstanding that have not been investigated, and the Minister is aware of that.

Mr. Fahey

All cases are investigated.

Mr. Shatter

They are not. There is a list and somebody decides what should be given priority without first visiting families. That is what happens in practice. If I made a complaint to the Garda it would conduct an investigation, which it would regard as confidential. It would not immediately report the entire episode to the committee of the club involved. It would try to interview the person against whom the complaint was made and see if there was medical evidence that a child had been abused. It could take the Garda many weeks to make real progress.

My third obligation would be to tell the committee of the club that my child had been abused. As the law stands, if I did that, I would be at risk of being civilly sued by the coach against whom I made the allegation. As Murphy reported, the coach might threaten the committee if it relayed that information to anybody else that it might be injuncted.

Murphy makes very clear recommendations. The Minister did not answer the question I asked. Did he contact Roderick Murphy to find out whether he agrees with this amendment? He did not, and he does not know whether he agrees with it. If the Minister looks at the report he will know he is misrepresenting it and narrowing the scope of the recommendation. He is seeking to deprive parents of an immunity to which they are entitled if their children are abused in a sporting club and they want to report it to the committee of the club.

The attitude of the Minister is a disgrace. It is dishonest to suggest he is implementing the Murphy recommendations. I am astonished that within two weeks of publication of the report key recommendations in it are rejected by the Government.

Mr. Fahey

If the Deputy reads the first line in paragraph 6.8 he will see how wrong he is. It states: "A complainant should be assured that the reporting of such a complaint is privileged. ..". Can it be more simple and straightforward than that?

Mr. Shatter

That is related to the next sentence which deals with the implementation of immunity. That is not a separate privilege that has been invented suddenly. The privilege derives from the immunity that is recommended should be enacted into law, as contained in the second sentence of that paragraph. Excessive legalism in dealing with a practical issue to confuse what is contained in this report is a disgrace. It sticks in my craw to hear Deputy Shortall tell the House that this amendment is precipitate, that we should not implement Dr. Murphy's recommendations with speed, that we should do what we always do with reports, let them gather dust, primarily on the shelves of the Department of Health and Children. We did so with the Kilkenny incest report and the Kelly Fitzgerald report. Most of the recommendations in those reports have not been implemented. Deputy Shortall recommends that the Murphy report should equally gather dust. It can be deliberated on ad nauseam by the Joint Committee on Tourism, Sport and Recreation which does not have expertise on child protection issues.

Amendment put.

Tá
Barnes, Monica.	Burke, Liam.
Barrett, Seán	Burke, Ulick.
Belton, Louis.	Carey, Donal.
Boylan, Andrew.	Clune, Deirdre.
Bradford, Paul.	Connaughton, Paul.
Bruton, John.	Cosgrave, Michael.
Bruton, Richard.	Crawford, Seymour.
Creed, Michael.	McGrath, Paul.
D'Arcy, Michael.	McManus, Liz.
De Rossa, Proinsias.	Mitchell, Gay.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Dukes, Alan.	Naughten, Denis.
Durkan, Bernard.	Neville, Dan.
Enright, Thomas.	Noonan, Michael.
Farrelly, John.	O'Keeffe, Jim.
Finucane, Michael.	Owen, Nora.
Fitzgerald, Frances.	Perry, John.
Flanagan, Charles.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Gilmore, Éamon.	Reynolds, Gerard.
Gormley, John.	Ring, Michael.
Hayes, Brian.	Sargent, Trevor.
Higgins, Jim.	Shatter, Alan.
Higgins, Joe.	Sheehan, Patrick.
Hogan, Philip.	Stanton, David.
McCormack, Pádraic.	Timmins, Billy.
McGahon, Brendan.	Yates, Ivan.
McGinley, Dinny.

Níl
Ahern, Bertie.	Jacob, Joe.
Ahern, Dermot.	Kelleher, Billy.
Ahern, Michael.	Kenneally, Brendan.
Ahern, Noel.	Killeen, Tony.
Andrews, David.	Kirk, Séamus.
Ardagh, Seán	Kitt, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.	Kitt, Tom.
Blaney, Harry.	Lawlor, Liam.
Brady, Johnny.	Lenihan, Brian.
Brady, Martin.	Lenihan, Conor.
Brennan, Matt.	Martin, Micheál.
Brennan, Séamus.	McDaid, James.
Briscoe, Ben.	McGennis, Marian.
Browne, John (Wexford).	McGuinness, John.
Byrne, Hugh.	Moffatt, Thomas.
Callely, Ivor.	Moloney, John.
Carey, Pat.	Moynihan, Donal.
Collins, Michael.	Moynihan, Michael.
Coughlan, Mary.	O'Donnell, Liz.
Cowen, Brian.	O'Donoghue, John.
Cullen, Martin.	O'Flynn, Noel.
Daly, Brendan.	O'Hanlon, Rory.
Davern, Noel.	O'Keeffe, Ned.
de Valera, Síle.	O'Kennedy, Michael.
Dempsey, Noel.	O'Malley, Desmond.
Dennehy, John.	O'Rourke, Mary.
Doherty, Seán	Power, Seán
Ellis, John.	Roche, Dick.
Fahey, Frank.	Ryan, Eoin.
Fleming, Seán	Smith, Brendan.
Flood, Chris.	Smith, Michael.
Foley, Denis.	Treacy, Noel.
Fox, Mildred.	Wade, Eddie.
Hanafin, Mary.	Wallace, Dan.
Harney, Mary.	Wallace, Mary.
Haughey, Seán	Walsh, Joe.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Woods, Michael.
	Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Sheehan; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Fahey

I am prepared to accept amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Shortall.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 6 p.m. I am required to put the following Question in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day: "That amendment No. 5 and the amendments set down by the Minister for Health and Children and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Shatter

As this is a Private Members' Bill moved by me, I am pleased the Bill has been passed and I urge the Government to ensure Seanad time is made available at an early stage. I deeply regret the vote that has just taken place. It was a fundamental mistake and it is most unfortunate that the Minister of State, within two weeks of the Murphy report on swimming being published, has rejected fundamental recommendations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not appropriate to comment on a vote that has already taken place.

Mr. Shatter

It has been my experience with previous Private Members' Bills that there has never been a difficulty from the Chair in doing so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to comment on a vote that has taken place.