Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 1. I propose that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 be taken together by agreement.
Protection for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Bill, 1998: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 1. In page 3, between lines 31 and 32, the following definition inserted:
"‘the Minister means the Minister for Health and Children;".
These amendments are proposed to ensure that health boards will, immediately on the Bill coming into force, designate the officers of the health boards to whom reports of child abuse should be made and provide for the Minister to make a direction in writing to the chief executive of the health board requiring him or her to appoint specified categories of people. I welcome the fact that this amendment is being made to the Bill. In the context of the rearranging of this measure, I proposed on Committee Stage that the Minister so deal with matters and that in the context of health boards he designate the categories of people to whom reports of child abuse could be made. I expressed concern that if that was not done there would be a lack of uniformity in approach among health boards. The Minister, for reasons best known to himself, resolutely opposed amending the legislation during its passage through Dáil Éireann. I welcome the fact that the Minister has now recognised the need for such provision in the Bill.
The direction the Minister makes to the chief executive should ensure that not only those who fall within particular specified categories, such as public health nurses, social workers and medical practitioners, are granted the privilege the Bill extends to ensure a person reporting abuse is not open to civil liability when acting reasonably and in good faith. It is important that the categories of persons to whom reports can be made and who fall within the protection of the Bill be publicly known. I ask the Minister to confirm that the direction made to the chief executives of health boards will be published and not be a secret direction or guideline. This will ensure the general public is aware of the categories of people who can be designated officers. I hope that each individual health board will make known to the general public the names of the designated persons, so that somebody who urgently needs to report a concern that a child is the victim of physical or sexual abuse or is likely to become a victim, does not find himself or herself lost in a bureaucratic labyrinth on contacting the health board, with his or her call answered by a telephonist who does not know who the person should be referred to. There is a need to ensure wide public knowledge to whom reports should be made and that teachers in schools and medical practitioners know to whom it is appropriate to make reports so as to ensure concerns about children are made known to a health board.
It is also essential to ensure that not only people feel they may report their concerns about child abuse but that the health boards to whom reports are made respond immediately to such reports. There is an overriding concern that our health boards lack the personnel and the capacity to respond speedily to reports of child abuse. I would like the Minister to assure the House that the resources being provided to each health board for 1999 will ensure a person who in good faith reports to a health board that a child is the victim of abuse and believes intervention is required will know not only to whom to make such a report but that it can be made in confidence, that the health board will respond and act on those reports and that the necessary interventions required to assess the position will be available and, where necessary, a visit to the family concerned will occur. Where required, speedy court action should take place, although that may not be necessary in a number of instances.
There is concern that there is a mounting waiting list in some health board areas, in particular the Eastern Health Board area which was last reported as having in excess of 1,000 cases of reports of child abuse awaiting detailed assessment and investigation. The Minister might clarify the current position in that regard. In the context of these amendments, he should put on the record the categories of person he envisages will be designated by him. It is not sufficient for the Minister to simply move these amendments. He should place on the record the persons he envisages will fall under the categories of designated officers to whom reports of child abuse should be made.
The purpose of agreeing to amendment No. 1 in the Seanad was to insert a definition of the term "Minister" as "Minister for Health and Children". This was not required previously, but is necessary now because of the proposed insertion of amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 2 was agreed in the Seanad because, as I pointed out on Second Stage in this House, I accepted in good faith and at very short notice an Opposition amendment designed to ensure the speedy implementation of this Bill when enacted. I made it clear that is my firm intention but, unfortunately, I was subsequently advised that the amendment which I accepted might conceivably give rise to questions about the legality of the appointment of designated officers in the future. Accordingly, when I was informed of this possibility, I instructed my officials to have the offending section redrafted to copperfasten the designation of officers of the health boards.
At the same time, I was also cognisant of the considered contributions of a number of Deputies on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil who advised me that I should amend the legislation to allow the Minister to give directions to chief executive officers of the regional health boards under this section. I gave this matter careful consideration and, in the interests of ensuring a uniform approach to the granting of immunity to reporters under the terms of this Bill, I proposed the amendment of section 2 to allow a direction to be given to the chief executive officers as regards the officers to be appointed as designated officers.
This amendment agreed in the Seanad will mean, in effect, that prior to the commencement of this Bill, chief executive officers will be asked to designate a broad range of categories of staff to be designated officers for the purpose of the Bill. As I reported previously to the Dáil, I had arranged for consultations with the chief executive officers on this point. Again for the information of the Dáil, I will outline the main categories of health board officers envisaged at this stage. They include social workers, child care workers, public health nurses, hospital consultants, non-consultant hospital doctors, especially those employed in accident and emergency, all other medical, dental and nursing staff employed by the health board, community welfare officers, speech therapists and occupational therapists. Officials in my Department are currently finalising lists of categories of staff to be designated with the personnel officers of the health boards. We would be happy to consider any proposals Deputies may have.
I am satisfied these are the professionals in whom the public is most likely to confide or express concerns. In practice, these staff will then pass on the reports immediately to the relevant child care staff in the health board who in most cases will be the child care manager. As I said on numerous occasions, I am anxious to have as wide a range of personnel as possible within the health boards designated under this section.
We have gone as far as possible in meeting legitimate concerns about the immediate and uniform implementation of the legislation through this revised section 2. I am happy to commend it to the House.
I confirm for Deputy Shatter that those who are designated will be made available publicly so that people clearly understand to whom they may report. Amendment No. 6 is a technical amendment and was necessitated to ensure consistency of nomenclature throughout the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 2. In page 4, lines 5 and 8, subsection (1) deleted and the following subsections substituted:
"(1) The chief executive officer of each health board shall
(a) immediately upon the commencement of this Act, and
(b) thereafter from time to time as occasion may require (including a case in which a direction is given under this section), appoint one or more officers of the board to be a designated officer or designated officers for the purposes of this Act; in making any such appointment the chief executive officer shall comply with any direction under this section for the time being in force.
(2) The Minister may give a direction in writing to the chief executive officer of a health board requiring him or her to appoint to be designated officers each person falling within a category or categories of officer of the board specified in the direction.
(3) The Minister may give a direction in writing to the chief executive officer concerned amending or revoking a direction given to him or her under this section (including a direction under this subsection).".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 4. In page 5, subsection (6)(a)(i), line 28, "6" deleted and "12" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (6)(a)(i), line 33, "12" deleted and "6" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (6)(a)(i), line 34, "6" deleted and "12" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (7), line 12, "for Health and Children" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Section 5. In page 6, lines 34 to 36, subsection (3) deleted and following new subsections substituted:
"(3) Notwithstanding section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted within 2 years from the date on which the offence was committed or, if later, 2 years from the date on which evidence that, in the opinion of the person by whom the proceedings are brought, is sufficient to justify the bringing of the proceedings comes to that person's knowledge.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the person bringing the proceedings as to the date on which the evidence referred to in that subsection relating to the offence concerned came to his or her knowledge shall be prima facie evidence thereof and in any legal proceedings a document purporting to be a certificate issued for the purpose of this subsection and to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed and shall be admitted as evidence without proof of the signature of the person purporting to sign the certificate.
The Minister of State should put on record the purpose of that amendment.
Before dealing with this amendment, I particularly welcome the broad acceptance by Senators of the new offence of false reporting of child abuse which I introduced. I do not wish to resume the debate on this issue at this stage, but I am happy it is there as it gives an essential balance to this legislation. In agreeing to amendment No. 7, the Seanad accepted my proposal to increase the length of time available for the institution of summary proceedings regarding the person who alleges he or she has been the victim of a false or malicious report of child abuse. Prior to its acceptance, the Bill stated that such proceedings should be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence.
During the Second Stage debate in the Seanad I listened carefully to Senators comments regarding this issue and I understand the intention behind a Labour Party proposal which, unfortunately, I had to reject in favour of my own amendment. What both Senators and I sought was an extension of the time limit for bringing a complaint under the section. I was pleased to bring forward my own proposal which I believe meets the concerns of Senators.
Section 5(3), as agreed in the Seanad to amend, allows for a period of two years from the date on which the offence is committed or, if later, two years from the date on which evidence that in the opinion of the complainant is sufficient to justify the bringing of proceedings comes to that person's knowledge. In layman's terms, section 5(4) will allow for a certificate to be produced by the complainant to the effect that evidence came to his or her knowledge at a particular time and that this evidence be accepted by the courts. I consider this amendment meets all the concerns of Senators which are legitimate and well made. I am happy to commend it to the House, if Deputies agree.
I do not want to re-fight old battles, but I want to put on the record that this section which the Minister has insisted be included in the Bill and which was supported by the Labour Party will prove to be most unhelpful in practice and will be used as a weapon by some persons accused of child abuse to intimidate people who have made complaints. If there is an application to take a child into care which could, for a variety of reasons, be unsuccessful, the person who made the complaint will render himself or herself liable to criminal prosecution. I am also concerned that, in the unfortunate and unpleasant emotive warfare which occurs between estranged spouses in marriage breakdown, this section may be used by people with obsessive personalities as a tool of war in circumstances where, in a matrimonial custody dispute, one spouse alleges the other has sexually or physically abused a child.
It is misplaced to insert the section in the Bill at this time. When it was debated in the House, I urged that, in the context of what we are achieving with the Bill in other ways, if the Minister was insistent on inclusion of the section, it should be subject to a provision that it would not be brought into operation for a period of two years from the time the Bill commenced so that we would have experience of the legislation working and be in a position to ascertain if the section was required. If it was judged to be so, it could then be brought into operation by ministerial order. I hope my worries about it are proved to be wrong. I have no interest in scoring political points in the context of the measure. Earlier amendments strengthen the Bill and are of great value but this criminal provision is misplaced. I am concerned that, in seeking to provide a balance, we are providing a weapon which may be used by people who have abused children to try to deflect persons with genuine concerns from making complaints. I am worried about that and hope my worries and concerns are wrong.
Nonetheless, it is important the legislation is put on the Statute Book. I recognise in the context of numbers in the House and the Government and the Labour Party supporting the provision that there is little point in calling a vote on the matter and I am anxious we proceed with enacting the rest of the Bill. I suggest we may have to revisit the section if it is discovered there are difficulties in the area. In the context of monitoring how well the legislation functions, perhaps it might be ensured that health boards, in their annual reports, state how useful the legislation has been and if section 5 has impeded their work in the child care area.
I appreciate the Deputy's concerns but his worries are unfounded. I am confident the provisions in the amendment are adequate. Should there be a problem, we would be happy to revisit this element of the legislation. There will be close monitoring of the implementation of the legislation through the health boards and we will be in constant contact with them in that regard. Should difficulties arise, I would be happy to revisit these issues.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 6. In page 6, lines 37 to 40 deleted and the following substituted:
"6. —Section 3 of this Act is in addition to, and not in substitution for, any privilege or defence available in legal proceedings, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law in force immediately before the passing of this Act, in respect of the communication by a person to another (whether that other person is an appropriate person or not) of his or her opinion that
(a) a child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or
(b) a child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected.".
In agreeing this amendment in the Seanad, the intention was to clarify that the statutory immunity offered under the provisions of the Bill was designed to complement any common law privileges which already existed. A worthwhile debate occurred on the subject.
I have already outlined my determination to ensure the central thrust of the Bill — to encourage reporting to statutory authorities — is not diminished. This is good reporting practice and allows for trained personnel to investigate reports and to make objective decisions regarding allegations. I have ensured the widest possible grouping of health professionals is available for the purposes of receiving reports of child abuse. It is also in response to Deputy Shatter's earlier points about the waiting period, the efficiency of investigations, the speed with which they are conducted, the level of treatment provided where necessary and the referral of such cases to court that we have gone to some considerable effort to ensure proper reporting protocols. The group established to review the guidelines will report in February. Additional funding has been made available to reduce waiting times and ensure a quick and effective response, especially in the Eastern Health Board area. People who report child abuse to those individuals will enjoy the benefits of immunity offered by the Bill. The immunity is also enjoyed by those who report reasonably and in good faith to any member of the Garda Síochána.
On Committee Stage in the Seanad, we discussed the possibility of parallel reporting to both statutory authorities and to the chairman of a club or organisation. I have been advised that to introduce requirements in this manner would amount to mandatory reporting. It would pre-empt the work in progress on legislation in this area and would go outside the remit of the Bill, which is primarily concerned with protections for those reporting as distinct from the reporting process per se. People who report concerns about child abuse reasonably and in good faith within a club can avail of the defence of qualified privilege under common law. Since we last debated the Bill, I arranged to meet Dr. Roderick Murphy, who chaired the independent inquiry into matters relating to child sexual abuse in swimming. He assured me he was happy with the approach taken in the Bill to the granting of a statutory immunity for people reporting child abuse. He agreed that reports to statutory authorities should be encouraged. However, it is appreciated that reporting to health boards or the Garda cannot be seen in a vacuum. Most organisations providing services for children now have their own written procedures for dealing with allegations of child abuse, and my Department and other Departments are actively encouraging those who have guidelines to review them and those who do not to introduce them as quickly as possible. A person who reports an allegation to statutory authorities will, in most cases, also feel a duty to pass on the information to a person in authority in the organisation.
I emphasised in the House and in the Seanad that, in this situation, a person who reports reasonably and in good faith is covered by the defence of qualified privilege under common law. Section 6 as agreed on Report Stage in the Dáil on 1 July provided a saving provision in this regard. I listened with interest to what Senators said on Committee Stage in the Seanad and accepted that the wording of section 6 might not be easy to understand. As a non-legal person, I am especially conscious of the need for as much clarity as possible in legislation. Accordingly, to make the issue clearer, I provided for an expansion of section 6 in the amendment which the Seanad agreed to on 26 November. I was also conscious of the last debate on this issue in the Dáil, especially with Deputy Shatter.
I am confident the amendment will reassure people concerning internal reporting procedures. Along with the administrative measures I have already outlined to deal with delays in treatment of employees accused of abuse, this is an effective and pragmatic approach. I accept there are many related issues which need to be carefully teased out when it comes to the drafting of mandatory reporting legislation. At this stage, I am pleased to commend the amendment to the House.
I welcome the movement from the Minister in providing a broader provision in this regard. It must be seen in the context of the changes made to earlier sections which, instead of providing for one or two designated officers in a health board being entitled to take reports of child abuse under the legislation, it now provides for a whole category of different people. I welcome the link between the two in this amendment. In the context of clubs, such as sports clubs, the Minister said that if someone believes the child to be a victim of abuse and reports his or her concerns to an appropriate member of the club, the person making that report has a form of privilege extended to the report made. Privilege is based on reporting in good faith and not acting maliciously.
When dealing with the modified version of the Bill as dealt with through the Department of Health and Children I considered it more appropriate to make explicit provision in relation to sports clubs, particularly in light of the contents of Dr. Murphy's report. I am still of that view. I fully accept that what the Minister is doing will substantially improve the position. I also remain of the view that there is no reason we could not have provided for the explicit, as opposed to the implicit, protection in the context of sports clubs that I proposed be included in the Bill on Report Stage. Nevertheless I welcome the fact that there has been movement from the Minister's side. If there is widespread knowledge in the community of the categories of people who come under the umbrella of being an appropriate person or a designated officer of a health board, some of my concerns will be addressed. Those concerns will only be addressed if there is a guarantee from the Minister that in the event of a parent, member of a sports club or a victim reporting that abuse has occurred to a designated officer of a health board there will be an immediate response from the health board. If the health board lacks the capacity to respond speedily, reports of abuse will be ignored for months and the perpetrator of the abuse may continue to abuse children even after reports have been made.
What is the current position regarding health boards, particularly the Eastern Health Board? We are entitled to know. What is the backlog in the context of the health board responding to reports of abuse? In respect of the Eastern Health Board, how many reports of child abuse is the health board in receipt of that have not yet resulted in an investigation commencing and family assessments being undertaken? If the Minister has that information in relation to other health boards perhaps he would put it on the record.
Of the 15 Private Members' Bills I have published, this is the fourth which will be enacted into law. While the Minister and I have had some strong words on this measure I welcome the fact that it will be enacted. I welcome the fact that we will be able to debate its provisions on the floor of the House. I had great reservations as to what would be its ultimate content as we went through Committee Stage, in the context of the Department's approach. We now have a better Bill following the Seanad amendments. This Bill is only one of a number of steps that must be taken to tackle the problem of child abuse and children at risk. It is one further step in the right direction. I thank the Minister for not adopting the kneejerk response which many Private Members' Bills get, agreeing to accept the principle of the Bill and allowing it to proceed to the position where it will be enacted this afternoon and become operative early in the new year.
Unfortunately I cannot provide the specific information requested by the Deputy on waiting list times in the Eastern Health Board or other health boards but I will be happy to make that information available to the Deputy. I understand the situation is improving, particularly in the Eastern Health Board area. The appointment of child care managers which were long overdue will add significantly to the ability of the Eastern Health Board to deal more effectively with reports of child abuse. Given the recent significant allocation to the Eastern Health Board there should be a much better response.
The emphasis is on intervention and attempting to prevent abuse in families at risk. It will have an immediate impact in dealing with family situations which would ultimately become much worse and give rise to more serious problems. While we have taken the first step, the challenge is to expand that intervention approach right across the country. We are starting in some of the disadvantaged areas where there is a high risk of abuse, mainly physical and emotional abuse which unfortunately is not being tackled effectively.
I thank Deputy Shatter, Deputy Shortall and other Deputies for their contributions to the Bill. One will not get a kneejerk reaction to good legislative proposals on this side. While we did have some strong words I agree with Deputy Shatter that we have compromised on what is good legislation. I thank him for his initiative in introducing the legislation which the Government was happy to go along with. The Government amendments have improved the Bill considerably and some of the amendments we have accepted have provided further improvements. The Bill is balanced. It enhances our efforts to ensure quality in the reporting mechanism. That can only be done by introducing a culture of reporting to the statutory authorities who have the ability to respond quickly and effectively. I am happy that principle remains central to the Bill. I have no doubt the original intention of the Bill will be greatly enhanced as the Bill is enacted and comes into operation in the New Year. I thank Deputy Shatter and Deputy Shortall for their contributions. I thank also my officials who have worked tirelessly in getting this Bill right. I am happy with this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.