I wish to share my time with Deputies Sexton, O'Connor and Seán Power.
Private Members' Business. - Protection of Children: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Enright on Tuesday, 16 December 2003:
That Dáil Éireann
–concerned at the lack of appropriate vetting procedures for those who, through either paid employment or voluntary position, have substantial unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults;
–noting the findings of the Irish Social Services Inspectorate report for 2002, that found that vetting procedures in Ireland were unsatisfactory and needed urgent attention; and
–disturbed by the dangers and exploitation faced by children today as highlighted in the recent RTE "Prime Time" programme;
calls on the Government to expand the role and function of the central vetting unit, and commit the necessary financial and human resources to the unit, to ensure that:
–all health board employees, or employees at any facility or service in receipt of health board funding, are vetted before taking up employment that gives them substantial unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults;
–all teachers and all other school staff, either full or part-time, are vetted before taking up employment;
–charities and voluntary sporting and youth organisations have access to vetting procedures for their staff and volunteers before appointing any person to a position where he or she would have substantial unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults; and
–information about people who are guilty of sexual misconduct, including the downloading, distribution or creation of child pornographic material, or of physical or emotional abuse, substance abuse, or theft from a child or vulnerable adult, is captured by the central vetting unit and made available to relevant prospective employers on a structured and controlled basis.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
–welcomes the establishment in January 2002 of the State's first ever central vetting unit within the Garda Síochána;
–commends the provision of additional human and other resources to enable establishment of the unit;
–recognises the success of the central vetting unit both in eliminating all backlogs in processing vetting requests and in reducing the average time to process a request to approximately one week;
–notes the continued implementation of the formal agreement between the health boards and the Garda Síochána to ensure the vetting of prospective employees in the health service and in certain facilities funded by the health boards who would have substantial unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults;
–notes that Garda vetting is and has been available to children's residential centres and special care units for many years;
–endorses the decision to establish a working group on Garda vetting to examine the complex issues associated with enhancing the nature and extent of the services of the central vetting unit and looks forward to the outcome of its deliberations soon;
–approves the Government's commitment to supporting the Garda Síochána in every way possible in tackling crime, and particularly the abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children, and also by facilitating and promoting a programme of legislative change and reform within the criminal justice system, in order to meet the challenges of present day crime;
–commends the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, which provides for a package of measures aimed at protecting children from sexual exploitation by,inter alia, making it is an offence for any person to knowingly possess child pornography for the purpose of distributing, publishing, exporting, selling or showing it, punishable on conviction on indictment by up to 14 years imprisonment;
–welcomes the obligation under the Sex Offenders Act 2001 that requires a convicted sex offender to inform his prospective employer of the fact of the conviction and that failure to do so is an offence attracting a maximum penalty of up to five years imprisonment;
–commends the introduction, as provided for in the Sex Offenders Act 2001, of a notification procedure or tracking system for all convicted sex offenders, which extends to any sex offenders entering this jurisdiction from abroad;
–notes that the criminal records of all persons convicted in relation to crimes perpetrated against children and vulnerable adults, whether of a sexual nature or not, are available to the central vetting unit during the process of vetting; and
–recognises that vetting is not the sole answer to ensuring applicants' suitability for posts and that there will continue to be a particular onus of care on employers to maintain good employment practice both during the recruitment stage and in ensuring adequate supervision arrangements post-recruitment.
(Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. B. Lenihan).
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I consider that my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, dealt in an informed and open manner yesterday evening with the legitimate issues raised in relation to vetting and child protection generally. However, I would like to reiterate some fundamental issues. The Opposition motion essentially calls for two things: first, the extension of Garda vetting to organisations not currently encompassed by existing arrangements; and, second, the incorporation, within the Garda central vetting unit, of an entirely new vetting register akin to the one in Northern Ireland. Once the central vetting unit had become fully operational and all its backlogs had been cleared, it was always envisaged that the remit to the unit would be extended on a phased basis to other groups. This was because it was recognised that there were good grounds for extending the vetting arrangements to additional organisations.
Although expanding the provision of vetting services clearly has resource implications, it would be wrong to suggest that it is simply a question of providing additional resources; there are also critical issues of policy and legislation. To illustrate this point, we can examine the possible legal difficulties surrounding the Opposition's proposal for a vetting register, which, it is proposed, would comprise information on individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults not on the grounds of criminality but on the grounds of employment history. Under current arrangements, Garda vetting is, in the main, carried out on an administrative basis. In particular, there is no statutory underpinning for the Garda Síochána to hold information from the Courts Service relating to convictions recorded against a person.
The Garda Síochána operates this system on the basis of legal advice from the Attorney General, in which a clear distinction is drawn between so-called hard facts and soft facts. Hard facts are conviction information and information relating to pending prosecutions where the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering a file. Soft facts are allegations, rumours, complaints, unsavoury associates or generalised anti-social activity. The Attorney General has advised that, as a general rule, although hard facts are disclosable, soft facts are not. In giving this advice, I understand issues of natural justice apply. Although Deputy Enright certainly goes to great pains to introduce, for example, appeal mechanisms and so on in her proposal for a register, it is unlikely that these would be sufficient to overcome the aforementioned legal concerns of the Attorney General. Accordingly, the best thing to do would be to await the outcome of the deliberations of the working group which has been examining this and many other complex issues relating to vetting.
I would now like to turn my attention to a number of very specific matters raised in the debate yesterday which I believe warrant a clear and unequivocal response. Questions were asked in relation to whom and under what circumstances the Garda Síochána would realise information about convicted sex offenders from the so-called sex offenders register. I can inform that House that, generally, the Garda Síochána does not release this kind of information as a matter of course but may do so on a case-by-case basis where exceptional circumstances warrant. The register is, above all, a mechanism by which the criminal justice agencies can manage risk and monitor convicted sex offenders with a view to preventing recidivism. It is not a means of advising the public at large of details of individuals included in the register.
Although only tangentially related to the issues of the motion, it is only right to respond to some very inaccurate comments made yesterday about the incidence of and response to rape and sexual assault cases. Provisional Garda statistics showed an increase of 42% in the number of sexual assaults during the third quarter of 2003. However, it is worth noting that in the same period rape offences showed significant decreases, with rape of a female offences down by 20% and section 4 rape offences down by 64%. The overall figure for sexual assaults in the first nine months of this year shows an overall decrease of 5%, or 76 fewer instances over the same period last year. The Garda Commissioner has also stated there has been a 13% decrease in the number of sexual assaults for the 12 months ending 31 October 2003. In addition, overall, the category of sexual offences shows a decrease of 20% in the same period.
Recent newspaper reports, reiterated yesterday, have claimed quite inaccurately that a woman is raped every 90 minutes. It has already been clarified in the House in response to questions that this figure is not taken from the Sexual Assault and Violence in Ireland report. The SAVI report published in March 2002 found that 7.8%, or almost 1 in 12, of female victims of adult sexual assault reported their experiences to the Garda Síochána. However, this figure refers to all forms of sexual assault, including, for example, indecent exposure. It is not restricted to the crime of rape. It is worth noting that one of the most common reasons for adults not to disclose some forms of sexual abuse was that they thought them to be too trivial. The reporting rate of 7.8% contained in the SAVI report refers to the lifetime experience of the women interviewed, rather than their experience taken on an annual basis. The claim that a woman is raped every 90 minutes, therefore, which is a newspaper extrapolation, cannot be relied upon.
The eight recommendations made in the SAVI report have implications for a range of State agencies, not only those in the criminal justice sector. I am pleased to say considerable progress has been made in addressing these recommendations, in so far as they relate to the criminal justice area. The first two recommendations are that a comprehensive public awareness campaign on sexual violence be developed and that a range of information materials be developed and made available in appropriate settings and formats.
As the House will be aware, in 1997 the Government established a national steering committee on violence against women. Part of the remit of the committee is to raise awareness of the various forms of violence against women, including rape and sexual assault. Since its establishment, the committee has conducted a number of campaigns concerning rape and sexual assault which are intended to increase public awareness of the issue as well as being measures to prevent such crimes. The campaign in 2002 highlighted the dangers of drug-assisted rape and the steps that could be taken by friends and other persons if such a situation occurred. The committee also launched an information leaflet for victims of rape and sexual assault in July 2003. As recently as yesterday, on behalf of the committee, I launched a poster campaign aimed at raising awareness of the general issues of violence against women in the run-up to Christmas.
The report recommends that barriers to the disclosure of sexual violence should be addressed. Rape and sexual assault are serious offences which can have a traumatic effect on the victim. It is critically important that victims of such crimes continue to be encouraged to come forward and report these crimes to the Garda Síochána. I am satisfied that the Garda Síochána and, in particular, its domestic violence and sexual assault investigation unit encourages, in liaison with the Rape Crisis Centre, early reporting by victims. In accordance with the victims' charter, all victims of sexual crime are to be treated with special sensitivity by the Garda Síochána. In this regard, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre is involved in the provision of training for gardaí on how best to deal with victims. In addition, the Sex Offenders Act 2001 provides for separate legal representation for victims of rape and other serious sexual offences in particular circumstances.
The eight and final recommendation of the report is that a consultative committee on sexual violence be established. The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women is composed of most, if not all, of the statutory and non-statutory organisations dealing with the issue of sexual violence and best placed to pursue the other recommendations contained in the SAVI report. I trust the record has now been set straight on some of these important matters.
In my brief intervention to support the Minister of State's amendment I would like to expand on some of the issues raised in the debate so far. Much concern, rightly, is directed towards the Internet and its associated use in terms of child pornography. Child sexual abuse, child pornography and paedophile activities are not crimes that began with the Internet. There is no doubt, however, that the Internet, with its ease of communication and the relative anonymity of users, is both a tool that facilitates the rapid dissemination of child abuse images and a mutual support structure that allows paedophiles and others to pool information to avoid discovery, providing, in effect, new ways to commit old crimes. In Ireland there are robust measures at the disposal of the Garda Síochána and the criminal justice system to deal with those involved in such activities. However, combating these crimes on-line, in particular, is a more complex issue, involving many jurisdictions and differing legal systems with little or no controls in place.
Chat rooms such as those featured in the recent "Prime Time" programme are only one of a number of ways of communicating on the Internet with others of a similar legal or illegal interest. I understand so-called Internet relay chat is not under the control of any single organisation and although some chat facilities are offered by Internet service providers and major web portals, the majority of web-based chat services are lower level hosted services set up and run by a wide range of organisations not part of the Internet service provider industry.
Few chat rooms are hosted on Irish servers. Only one of the Internet service providers, an Internet Service Provider Association of Ireland, ISPAI, member, facilitates chat rooms, and only one in controlled conditions. For example, Eircom.net, the biggest single Internet service provider with more than 70% of the Irish market, took a corporate decision years ago not to host any chat rooms. There are no chat rooms on its servers.
It is known that there is a defined hierarchy in trading in child abuse images on the Internet. Producers produce the images; traders may aid and abet the production of the images but are more involved in their distribution. Then there are collectors. There will also be an overlap between them. There are various techniques for evasion at every level.
I understand images of victims are held only on national databases or by individual police forces, making their use in international investigations very difficult leading to duplication of work, waste of resources and inefficiencies in tracking down the perpetrators of the crimes and their victims. I further understand the G8 countries and the European Union are developing an international child pornography image database, to be operated by Europol and Interpol, which will be used by police authorities in member countries in the investigation of international child pornography cases. I am aware, too, that the Garda Síochána also holds a database of abuse images for investigative purposes. In general, it is strongly felt that a proliferation of such databases in private hands, even for research purposes, should be avoided.
In recent times there has been a shift in emphasis in the investigation of these images away from concentration on gathering evidence for prosecution of the perpetrator to the identification, rescue and rehabilitation of child victims. The identification of children in the images is vitally important because it can lead to identification of the abuser and other children being or are at risk of being abused. In Ireland, the Copine Project, referred to last night, under Professor Max Taylor at the Department of Applied Psychology, University College Cork has done extensive work on the identification of child victims from Internet images. The project monitors the Internet for new images on a daily basis, and is an acknowledged centre of expertise worldwide. Professor Taylor has assisted governments and police forces worldwide in this area. I understand he also assisted the Canadian Government in its preparations for G8 discussions on the issue. He featured on the recent "Prime Time" programme and is a member of Ireland's Internet Advisory Board referred to last night by the Minister of State.
With regard to statutory controls in Ireland, we have broad-ranging and innovative provisions thanks, in the main, to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 which amended the law relating to the protection of children against sexual abuse in two main areas: it created a new offence of trafficking children into, through or out of Ireland for the purpose of sexual exploitation, with penalties on conviction of up to life imprisonment; and it created several child pornography offences, with penalties on conviction ranging from five to 14 years imprisonment.
The Act defines child pornography for the first time in Irish law. The definition is wide-ranging, including representation of children, or persons depicted as children, engaged in explicit sexual activity, or children or such persons depicted as children witnessing any such activity by any person. It also includes images of children whose dominant characteristic is the depiction for a sexual purpose of their genital or anal regions. The definition includes images on the Internet as well as information on the Internet which indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
The Act is generally held up as model legislation for dealing with child pornography and in practice is working well. It is justified on the basis that even possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime. If persons did not view, exchange or collect child pornography, there would be few victims. Much child pornography can involve the most horrendous abuse. It can also be justified on the basis of the effect it has on some persons who possess child pornography. Although not all persons who possess child pornography will necessarily go on to abuse children, many will, and it is almost certain that all child sex abusers possess child pornography which can be used as part of the process of grooming of children for abuse.
At the international level, an EU framework decision on child pornography is in preparation. It will define constituent elements of criminal law common to all member states, including effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. It follows the decision on child pornography on the Internet, a measure under the EU Third Pillar, namely, co-operation in justice and home affairs, which invites member states to take a number of steps to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement against child pornography on the Internet and encourage collaboration between law enforcement authorities of the member states.
Ireland's non-statutory controls comprise three measures to combat the illegal and harmful use of the Internet with particular emphasis on child protection, namely, the Internet Advisory Board, the hotline for reporting child pornography and the self-regulation system for the Internet service provider industry in the form of a code of practice and ethics. The Internet Advisory Board supervises a system of self-regulation by the Irish Internet service provider industry. In answer to questions raised in the House yesterday about the merits of self-regulation, I understand the board is conducting a review of the effectiveness of self-regulation after a number of years in operation.
The hotline provides a central point of contact for members of the public who become aware of child pornography on the Internet in Ireland. The hotline attempts to identify the source and, if the material is hosted in Ireland, will request the relevant Internet service provider to remove it. The hotline liaises with the Garda Síochána, as appropriate. If the material originates in another jurisdiction, the hotline will notify the relevant authority there which can take appropriate measures. A report to the hotline on chat rooms would be investigated in the same manner as that relating to other Internet services, for example, websites, e-mail messages or attachments, pornographic spam and so on.
A number of references were made during last night's debate to the thorough manner in which information was gathered both in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and how effective these measures had proven to be in contrast to what was referred to as the worrying limitations of our vetting procedures. In the amendment proposed by the Minister of State to the Fine Gael motion, attention should be drawn to the paragraph which states vetting is not the sole answer. Today's conviction in the United Kingdom of Ian Huntley for the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells should alert us all to the need to recognise that good practice in ensuring suitability of applicants for posts of responsibility where access to children is involved is also required and that vetting alone does not guarantee protection for the most vulnerable in society. Vigilance and an overall strategy under the legislation in place and the constant revision, facilitation and promotion of reform in the criminal justice system to meet the challenges of present day crime are what are required.
On a personal level, I believe the motion is well presented and the research excellent. No one in this House will be found wanting when it comes to the protection of a child. It is merely a difference of opinion on the way this should be implemented.
The Deputy should support the motion.
Deputy Sexton's contribution is a reminder that this is a sombre occasion. Private Members' Business is often about political point scoring, which is fair in a democracy, but the subject of tonight's debate is one all Members will agree should have our considered attention. I hope any additional measures the Government considers necessary in this regard will have the support of the entire House. Like Deputy Sexton, I compliment my colleague, Deputy Enright, on the fine work she has done on this issue. My praise has nothing to do with the season of goodwill.
While I do not normally get involved in finished business, I wish to correct some of the comments made last night because they created the impression that the resources allocated to the paedophile investigation unit of the Garda Síochána were inadequate. When I checked today, I learned that the unit was established by the Garda Commissioner in late 2002 and is located in the domestic violence and sexual assault unit, based at the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Harcourt Square. I am informed the domestic violence and sexual assault unit has a staffing complement of one detective inspector, three detective sergeants and 11 detective gardaí, while the paedophile investigation unit comprises one detective sergeant and three detective gardaí. In addition to these resource commitments, personnel from the mainstream units of the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation augment the units as the volume of work requires.
Suspected criminal cases involving the use of the Internet are complex. All such cases which come to notice become the subject of investigation. Cases in hand are at various stages of the investigative process and will, I understand, result in files being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Deputies will be aware that the deployment of Garda resources is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is satisfied that the Commissioner keeps all aspects of Garda operations and resource requirements under constant review and responds to developments in criminal activity in deploying his resources.
Having been struck by images from the Soham trial at the Old Bailey today, this is a good day to have this debate. Everyone who has been engaged in community work, including many Deputies over the years, understands the importance of vetting. My first involvement in community activities was as a youth worker on Francis Street in the inner city. I later became involved in the Community Games and the International Youth Federation. Everyone involved in this area is aware of the issue of child abuse.
Speaking a year ago on the occasion of becoming the first chairman of the South-Western Area Health Board, I noted that our legacy must be to guarantee the safety of children to ensure that in 30 or 40 years we will not be discussing difficulties similar to those we experienced in the previous century. Following the revelations of institutional abuse during the past ten years and with the media reporting daily on the crimes being committed against young people, it is important that we, as legislators, also remember that, thankfully, a large percentage of our children will never have to experience exposure to these crimes. The social services provided by the health boards must continue at all times to follow best practice and vetting. In addition, a vital component of both recruitment and placement should be supported by training and management supervision.
A country finds itself in an uncomfortable position when all its care workers, teachers, voluntary community workers and health workers need to be vetted, which was the message emanating from the Opposition benches last night. The good being done by the majority of those involved in community associations, the child welfare sector and our schools must not be overshadowed by the deeds of a minority. We must ensure protection, but at the same time we must not stifle the good work which occurs day after day in our constituencies.
It is possible for all organisations involved with our young people's development to have, as most already do, a set of guidelines and procedures on best practice and for complaints and responses to be investigated and reported on. Given the career path of many Deputies, it is a pity some colleagues are advocating the application of draconian measures to all in response to the crimes of the few.
Times have changed in the residential child care sector. Guidelines have been introduced and the work of the Irish Social Services Inspectorate needs to be publicly supported, acknowledged and the organisation congratulated. This support should include health boards taking voluntary, public and speedy responses to correct without delay any fault or potential difficulties identified by the inspectorate.
When researching for this contribution, I took the opportunity to read the Irish Social Services Inspectorate's 2002 annual report, some of the contents of which I would like to mention. The report states that while there are standards on safeguarding child protection, the safety of children and young people is best served when health boards ensure staff are vetted, trained, supervised and supported. This sentiment, that vetting should form part of wider supports, is worthy of the support of the House.
The safety of children and young people is further enhanced when their rights are respected. The report indicates that good safeguarding practice was evident in 19 of the 22 centres inspected. This is a most encouraging finding, although I do not ignore the fact that three of the centres did not reach the required standard. The report also states that good practice includes awareness among care staff of the need to monitor each other's practice and discuss and-or report any concerns which may arise. It noted evidence of some defensive practice, namely, care workers working in a manner aimed more at avoiding allegations of abuse than ensuring the safety of the children and young people, an issue on which I have no doubt the inspectorate will be able to offer guidelines.
Although 12 of the 23 centres were found to have child protection policies, only four had policies on safeguarding. Some of these were inadequate, with one described as "seriously flawed" and another as being "in need of major revision". Nevertheless, the absence or inadequacy of policy did not necessarily translate into unsafe practice. In two centres, staff expressed concern for the welfare and safety of children and young people arising from the behaviour of a resident of the centre, while young people reported bullying in four others. Of these, two had introduced strategies to deal with the bullying problem, while the response in the others was ad hoc.Like the inspectors, I am concerned that such incidents, even when serious, were rarely seen as child protection issues as required under “Children First”, the national guidelines for the protection and welfare of children. This is an area in which members of the Committee on Health and Children could seek to have the health boards report on their achievements and insist on timescales for implementation if no such arrangements are in place in the relevant health board area.
One of the key parts of the report was a section which considered some of the responses of children in care. When asked directly, the vast majority of children said they were safe and had confidence in their carers.
I pay tribute to the various organisations which do so much good work in this area. The groups with which I have had a great deal of contact recently include the National Office for Victims of Abuse, NOVA, and the Aisling Centre on Ormonde Quay in Dublin, which deals with the healing of institutional abuse. Given that many other Deputies have also had extensive contact with organisations involved in this area, it is important on an occasion such as this to pay tribute to their work and wish them well.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cowley, Finian McGrath, Gormley and Crowe.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
A number of important points have been raised during Private Members' Business tonight and last night. How the central vetting unit deals with requests from health boards, schools and voluntary organisations is just one of the important issues. A far greater cohort of children in the community are now being cared for in crèches and playschools. Children are cared for by au pairs and childminders, both in their own homes and in those of the people who mind them. When children are cared for in other people's homes, often there is access to the house by a number of other adults. To be truly effective there would need to be an international vetting unit, given that so much child care is now being provided by foreign nationals, from within the European Union and outside but that would never really work.
It is important for all parents to check on how their children are getting on with their childminders. As the Minister of State has pointed out, the Garda will not release details on everybody as regards whether they are on the sexual offenders register when people are checking out their childminders. A better solution must be found if children are to be protected. No vetting unit can be 100% effective and it is no substitute for vigilance by parents. Children do not go home and say they have been abused. It is the way they behave and react to the abuser that is often the first indication that something untoward is happening. Fellow workers are important also because they may notice certain behaviour by colleagues which may lead to the detection of abuse incidences. It is not satisfactory for employers just to be given clearance from a vetting unit.
Deputy Sexton alluded to the Soham trial concluded today in the United Kingdom. It was considered that an effective vetting system was in operation but unfortunately perpetrators of abuse against children are highly manipulative and can easily get around most legal safeguards such as those we have in Ireland. A truly effective vetting unit would intrude greatly on the civil rights of child care workers. Ian Huntley had no previous convictions but was arrested a number of times for sexual encounters with under age girls. At one stage he was arrested in his twenties when he had a girlfriend who was 15. These facts would never have appeared on his file on the grounds that within a democracy civil liberties were deemed to be paramount.
The vetting system under debate would intrude greatly on people's civil rights. I do not believe it would be tolerated in most countries. Even known sexual offenders can travel freely to some degree across Europe. There is child prostitution tourism in some Far East countries. People are allowed to travel freely to the countries concerned, even though it is known what is going on. If the known sex offenders cannot be restricted, what hope is there as regards those who do not show up in the system as yet?
The media can sensationalise issues. We have to be careful as legislators because we are expected to be somewhat more rational. There has been enormous coverage, for instance, of clerical sex abuse, yet clerical abuse cases only account for a small fraction of the total. Long after the spotlight had been placed on the issue of clerical sex abuse, however, the Catholic bishops still maintained a relatively benign attitude towards it.
Like Deputy O'Connor, I would like to say we should be careful about what we do, lest we intrude on the good names of thousands of child care workers who provide a fantastic service. We do not want to see people driven from voluntary organisations because of the fear they might be labelled as perverts.
I welcome the debate and will be supporting the motion which is about the protection of children from sexual exploitation and child pornographic material. I pay tribute to the vast majority of people who work with children such as teachers, classroom assistants, youth workers, child care workers and coaches of football teams who make a massive contribution to society. It is essential we recognise their valuable work and contribution to the community as a whole. Many have taken major risks in the interests of the child. In many instances it takes courage and integrity to deal with these difficult cases. I worked with many abuse cases in my previous job as a teacher. It is extremely distressing and upsetting. On top of the abuse one has threats, violence and intimidation. Hence I have great respect for those who take risks in the interests of the child.
Many a night I could not sleep when I thought about some of the horrific situations into which children had to go each day after school. The sad thing was that the only positive part of the day for such children was school. That is the reason it is important to ensure all our schools are places of sanctuary for children at risk. We need to be there for them in a professional and caring way. That is the reason we should pay tribute to and thank all those who work with children.
I pay special tribute to foster parents. These great and wonderful people are saving thousands of children each day. I know the excellent work they do from direct experience. With all due respect to institutional care, foster families were and are the best scenario for vulnerable children. We should never hold back as regards financial support for them. In legislative terms they should be given maximum help and assistance as that is the way forward.
We should be cautious, lest the minority of offenders set the agenda for the rest of society. We may have gone over the top with some of the new practices to protect staff and children. For 20 years I trained an under-13 Gaelic team and had to drop the pupils home after matches. This was common practice for many years. All of a sudden the climate changed and we were all warned about the potential for allegations etc. I found this sad and unsafe at times, as people advised me to drop children back to school from where they had to walk home, be collected or get public transport, while some of us were passing by their homes. Needless to say, I did not take this over the top advice.
We and society as a whole should not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need common sense at all times. I emphasise this as regards staff. At all times we have to be safe and vigilant. We cannot label people. I urge the House to support the motion.
Táim an-bhuíoch don seans cúpla focail a rá ar an rud tábhachtach seo. Ba mhaith liom ar an gcéad dul síos comhghairdeas a ghabháil d'Fhine Gael don obair a dhein sé mar gheall ar an rud seo a chur suas. Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil do gach duine i bhFine Gael mar gheall ar seo.
I am happy to speak on this important motion. I congratulate Fine Gael on the work it has done in putting it on the agenda. Deputies have mentioned Ian Huntley and the terrible situation that pertained in Soham. Every father and mother was chilled to the bone by the events that occurred there and the fate of those two innocent children. The verdict is known to be murder. It is now known that this man was someone who should have been detected but was not. The reason he was not detected is put down to human error.
It is within our hands to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. Each and every parent worries every time his or her child goes out. As a GP dealing with many people who return to live in Ireland, I often hear the words: "It is wonderful. Children can play outside in this country without fear of this happening." Unfortunately, that is not the case. We are catching up with other jurisdictions, through the Internet and so on. By itself, the Internet is not the problem. It provides the opportunity for people so-minded to exploit children. That is what it is all about.
An extremely important debate has been opened in the Chamber tonight over the balance between the right of the individual and the right of the person not to be harmed. I am referring to the right of people under the Constitution to live their lives without being harmed. How does one balance the wonderful work being done by so many in looking after young people, in sport, leisure etc. with the risk of abuse? It would be terrible if these awful events clouded or took away from the wonderful work people do or in some way tarred them with the brush of suspicion now associated with those who work with children. What priest will now go into the sacristy with the altar boys? It just does not happen any more. People's perspective has utterly changed.
We have a responsibility to put in place proper systems that work effectively. The system in Northern Ireland is said to be better than ours, as is the system in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, this terrible event happened. Having a system is just one part of the equation. The other is ensuring the system works and is effective. Clearly, it did not work in this case. Too often, lack of resources is the reason for a job not being properly done. Temporary staff, for example, are not subject to the same rigorous assessment as those seeking full-time employment. That is a loophole which must be tackled.
I support this important motion. Society has changed over the years. Many children are in crèches and playschools. Even at weekends children are sent to drama classes and so forth. The reason is that parents are extremely busy. Generally, they are working. The introduction of individualisation encouraged more mothers out of the home. That is the nature of our economic system. Many would say it is regrettable but that is the type of society in which we live. For that reason the motion is extremely important.
I would be inclined to amend the motion. Rather than discuss the future and vetting people before they take up employment, many of those currently employed in institutions and schools should undergo vetting procedures. Statistics show that while the vast bulk do an outstanding job and can be trusted, there are people in the institutions and clubs mentioned in the motion who engage in child abuse. If we are to have a safe society, they should be subjected to a thorough vetting procedure.
The vetting procedure is only as good as the database or technology. What type of information should go into the database? There have been references to the Soham trial. It was a horrifying case. There were many recriminations about Mr. Huntley and how he should have been caught. It is a difficult situation. We must consider what should be put in a central database. Should allegations be put into it or simply convictions? I believe the police should have had the allegations on its database. That would have led them to Mr. Huntley reasonably quickly, although it might not have prevented the killings. Certainly, convictions must be put on the database. It is a difficult issue.
One can ruin a person's career, and his or her life, by making an allegation of this nature. We recently heard the harrowing story of a Christian Brother whose life had been shattered after a false allegation had been made against him. The allegation was a fabrication but the Christian Brother said he could never work again because, as far as most were concerned, there was no smoke without fire. What does one do in such a situation? Child abuse is a heinous crime but to allege that somebody is a child abuser is also heinous.
We need to explore what technology offers. It is becoming more advanced. Lie detection is now a more exact science. It is even possible to carry out brain scans to find out if people are telling the truth. These possibilities should not be dismissed; we should examine them. It is now becoming a necessity. Everybody has experienced the problem of spam and viruses being received by their computers. Most of the spam is of a pornographic nature, yet it is on our computers. It is not child pornography but something many, including the secretaries in Leinster House, find offensive. I am told by experts that it is relatively easy to plant this on somebody's computer and make an accusation against them. These are difficult issues.
A child abuser cannot be cured. I have heard people say they can go to therapy and be cured. In fact, that is their sexuality and how they are defined. It is simply a lost cause. For that reason, we must know when somebody convicted of child abuse is living in the community in order that we can protect our children.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. I am disappointed but not surprised by the Government's decision to oppose it. It is regrettable that it is not willing to compromise or accept good ideas and proposals when they are put forward. The Government appears to instinctively feel the need to oppose any Opposition motion no matter how positive or close to its own proposals it is.
Many speakers have referred to the "Prime Time" programme on child pornography and the scale of the problem it apparently exposed. Earlier today police in Spain arrested 27 people in a crackdown on child pornographers. It yielded an enormous quantity of material, including thousands of images stored on computers. That many of these images appear to have come from countries in South and Central America, Asia and Sweden underlines the international scope of the problem. Child pornography and its practitioners do not recognise borders.
The vetting system in the South is years behind that in place in the Six Counties. A co-ordinated, all-Ireland, common approach to the issue is not only practical but necessary. Of course, we must be careful that in protecting the children of the State we do all we can to avoid trampling on civil liberties. One need only look at the tabloid campaign in Britain of naming paedophiles. It led to the suffering of innocent people because their names were similar to those of the paedophiles.
Last summer I met representatives of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children shortly after the launch of the campaign in August to highlight its concerns about child protection. Many Deputies will have seen the stall outside the ISPCC offices in Molesworth Street and I hope they took the opportunity to sign the petition. During the meeting I was disturbed to discover how inadequate the vetting procedure was for adults working with children and youths. People who stopped at the stall were also probably shocked to discover that people such as teachers were not automatically vetted to ensure they did not have convictions for sex offences. The Fine Gael motion identifies some of the key professions where vetting is vital.
Last night the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, referred to the working group set up to examine extending the vetting arrangements. He also outlined the amount of work done. He claimed the group's report will be published in January 2004. I am a little suspicious about that deadline. When I asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in September when the report would be presented, I was told it would be ready in November. When I asked again at the start of November, he said it would be ready in a couple of weeks. Now the deadline is January 2004. I do not doubt that a great deal of work has been done and that the report will be comprehensive. However, the delays that have occurred are intolerable when the issue is of such importance.
Last night Deputy Deasy pointed out that only 10% to 12% of the 300 sex offenders in prison participated in sexual rehabilitation programmes. He correctly described this as disturbing. He went on to suggest that there was a need to pressurise sex offenders into becoming involved in these programmes. I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that rehabilitation cannot be forced but the problem has more to do with the limited number of spaces available. If the 300 sex offenders wished to get onto the rehabilitation programme, unlikely as it is, there would be no space for them. A total of 16 offenders are recruited to the sex offenders programme on an annual basis. This is a pathetic figure and an absolute disgrace.
Vetting of adults in the workplace, no matter how thorough, ignores the fact that the vast majority of child abuse cases are not workplace linked but take place in the home, the home of friends or with someone parents trust. Most incidents go unreported by victims.
It is not often one gets a chance in life to right a definite wrong or put something right in place. For all Members of the House, it is one of those days when we can do so. The motion on keeping children safe, to coin a phrase, "does exactly what it says on the tin". For years Members of the House and beyond have paid lip-service in fine words to doing exactly what is proposed in the motion but for reasons best known to themselves it has not happened. I am not here to give a history lesson, just to say, "Shame, that it must stop now." Overwhelming evidence compiled over the years has proved beyond doubt that this is exactly what needs to be done. The motion should be agreed to. The extra funding required which does not amount to millions of euro should be provided and the necessary changes in legislation implemented for the motion to work.
Members of the House must decide what is important. They must not become engaged in the normal political nonsense of opposing suggestions because they come from the wrong side of the House. Will they take the proposals at face value, ensuring the House delivers an early Christmas present to all children in the community, not just those in care but all those who take part in the local athletic club, football club or attend the local swimming pool? We are not talking about children from the developing world – not that it should make a difference – or even visiting children but about all children – black, white, rich, poor, sick and healthy. They are our children – brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews. They are the ones we meet each day, the children for whom many of us claim to live our lives.
The protection of children is what the motion is all about. Will we play political football with the issue while allowing children to remain in an environment shaded with doubt as to whether our peers are fit for the job we entrusted them to do? I say to those in charge that the decision is theirs and theirs alone. However, for children's sake, if not for their own sake, they should think with their heart and head and add constructively to the debate to ensure the motion is passed and implemented quickly.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Enright, for her commitment and the work she has put into the subject. Those of us who know her and have studied the motion can see the genuine thought and concern behind it. As past studies have shown, paedophiles and child abusers are clever and cunning, whose life's work consists of enabling them to get close to children, thus ruining their lives and that of their entire family. As stated by my colleague, no system of vetting is or can be 100% successful but this should not put people off trying to make it 100% successful. What is absolutely clear from the motion is that anyone who is innocent would have absolutely nothing to fear. In fact, the opposite is the case, which is welcome.
One of the foundation stones of an adequate child protection system is a comprehensive vetting and screening procedure, an area in which there have been some improvements in this area in recent years but, sadly, many wishing to work with children on a professional and voluntary basis are still not vetted in an appropriate manner. Comprehensive vetting would have picked up someone like Mr. Huntley. Even though he had no criminal convictions, the information would have been available and perhaps may have prevented the tragic deaths of the two young girls concerned.
It is difficult to accept – many may choose not to do so – that the person with whom we may go to football matches, teachers we have known for years, those who voluntarily run youth clubs or any such organisations may have a lifestyle hostile to what we call common decency and which puts the most vulnerable in society in great danger. While not wishing to overstate the case, thankfully these types of people are rare. However, that is not sufficient. One abuser in the wrong place is one too many.
The care of children is the primary concern of the State but, unfortunately, to date we have relied on others to do the job. We, as legislators, must accept that the buck stops with us. We cannot continue to blame others. This is one issue where we cannot rely on statistics or rising or falling trends. There must be no trends. If the motion is passed and allowed to work at full strength, it will have the effect of not just catching abusers but ensuring they will not get through the system, or be able to apply to take up such positions, either on a voluntary or permanent basis.
This argument is compelling and should ensure common sense will prevail. It only holds weight, however, if there is no watering down of the motion. I cannot see the reason a watered down version should be accepted in the House. I would have thought a progressive Government would have strengthened the motion or suggested that there should be a common European policy in this regard. Many youth groups involved in exchange programmes and so on have great difficulties because there are different rules and procedures in different countries, which is causing great concern. A progressive Government would have strengthened the motion.
It is important to get this aspect right, which is what the motion proposes. Are we men and women or just mice? Will we do the right thing and ensure the speedy passage of the motion through the House? It is on issues such as this that we in this House are judged by the wider community. Therefore, let us show that we feel their pain, the pain of abused children. What should stop us from doing the right thing and insisting the motion should be implemented at the first available opportunity? Surely Members will not allow the opportunity to pass to correct this great wrong on some bogus grounds just to be seen to be politically correct. On Members' heads let it be.
An important aspect of the motion is that it makes quite plain the heavy penalties which would be imposed on those who wished to discredit anyone by abusing the power given to them in the legislation. This reinforces the point that anyone who is innocent would have nothing to fear. It has often been said and referred to in law that it is better for three guilty people to be found innocent than for one innocent person to be found guilty. That is true but an exception must be made to ensure abusers cannot or will not be seen as innocent, allowing them to take up positions of influence over the future of our children.
It is said one bad apple can destroy an entire barrel. That is true but what is also true is that one abuser can and will destroy many lives, undermining the administration of such professions as teachers, the carers of children and the law itself. This will undermine society, prohibit good people from getting involved in community service and result in children being locked behind doors because we as a community are afraid to act. I know many who are anxious to become involved in GAA clubs, soccer clubs and rugby clubs but they have stopped being involved because of a fear of being accused of abusing a child if the person beside them has been involved. More volunteers are needed but they will not become involved until proper systems and procedures are in place for vetting, monitoring and so on. The Minister said yesterday that it was up to clubs to put procedures in place. It is not. They can just implement the rules. They must be guided. The Government must direct and lead.
Unfortunately, many have children with either physical or mental disabilities. Due to cutbacks in respite care, they cannot get a weekend break because they cannot get anyone to look after their children. Many are willing to do this type of work on a voluntary basis. However, if they are not employed by the health boards, they will not be given a certificate. This means they cannot be tapped into. Families are missing out on this resource. This is not happening because the vetting system is out-of-date.
The cost of providing a vetting service would not put a dent on general expenditure, yet it would add so much to the community. There is no valid reason, apart from the fear of being seen to be proactive on the issue, for not supporting the motion. Let us stop the nonsense. I call on each Member of the House to be proactive, support themselves, their children and communities by making it plain that paedophiles and abusers should seek help, not positions of authority in the community. We, as legislators, should ensure this happens whether the people concerned like it.
I commend my colleague, Deputy Enright, for the work she has done in this area and tabling the motion, with which I believe Members across the House are in broad agreement. Protecting children is one of our most basic and important roles. The motion was crafted in the hope the Government might support it and at the end of this term we might go forward with a united message from this House that, for example, all health board employees, or employees of any facility or service in receipt of health board funding, will be vetted before taking up employment giving them substantial and unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults. What is wrong with this? As the Government has not said there is anything wrong with it, why does it not agree with it? Does it think there is something wrong with saying all teachers and other school staff, either full-time or part-time, should be vetted before taking up employment? Surely there would be nothing wrong with this? Why is the Government disagreeing with this and voting it down? It makes a lot of sense to me, as a former teacher. As my colleague, Deputy English, said, many innocent people would feel much safer knowing there were proper vetting procedures in place. The charitable and voluntary organisations are crying out for a proper vetting service. They are all asking for it.
We, as the national Parliament, are calling on the Executive to ensure that charities and voluntary sporting and youth organisations have access to vetting procedures for their staff and volunteers before appointing any person to a position involving substantial unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults. What is wrong with that? We have not gone into the details – that is up to the Department and the Minister to work out. In general, however, the motion calls for the current vetting system to be extended so that voluntary, sporting and youth organisations can know that their staff who are working with children, whether employed or in a voluntary capacity, have been vetted.
Last night the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Brian Lenihan, criticised our motion by drawing inferences and making presumptions. I do not know whether he is entitled to do this as he was not sticking to the facts. He said he did not accept the presumption that vetting of itself can detect problems that can arise. However, we never said that. One of the dangers of vetting is that people might rely on it too much. He was unfair to presume that was our opinion. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is here tonight, to take into consideration that we never said that.
The Minister of State also said: "The Government could not accept the inference that is drawn from the report of the Irish Social Services Inspectorate for 2002 which found that vetting procedures in Ireland were unsatisfactory and needed urgent attention." He went on to say: "A careful examination of the context of the report will show that the inadequacy had nothing to do with the operation of the central vetting unit of the Garda Síochána." We never said it had. He then said: "It related to other matters of legitimate concern which were raised by the Opposition this evening." This means he agreed with us. The two main points he made to rebut our argument were based on things we never said, yet he used them as reasons for opposing our motion. He used them to divide the House on this most sensitive and important matter.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is an eminent counsel. I ask him to reconsider the Government's attitude towards the motion. Perhaps he could point out to us what is wrong with our suggestions. I am not an eminent solicitor or barrister but I cannot see anything wrong with them. It would be great if the Dáil could show a united front on this urgent matter on a night when it was found that the vetting procedures across the water were flawed and inadequate. We are calling for a substantial improvement and expansion of our vetting procedures.
The last point in our motion refers to information about people who are guilty of sexual misconduct. To me, a humble layman, this means they have been before a court and found guilty. They are guilty of downloading, distributing or creating child pornographic material – which is a crime – or of physical or emotional abuse, substance abuse, or theft from a child or vulnerable adult. The four points in the motion should be agreed to. There is nothing there that would bring down the Government or anything else. I appeal to the Minister to stand up and say the Government will accept the motion and there will be no vote. This is a serious matter.
This Government and previous Governments have done much work in this area but much more needs to be done. We are dealing, as the Minister knows, with a group of people – paedophiles – who are very hard to identify and who can inveigle their way into sporting organisations, youth clubs and so on. Deputy Lynch made a powerful and valuable contribution last night and I invite the Minister, if he has not already done so, to listen to or read her contribution. These people prey on the most vulnerable children, those who are withdrawn, quiet and lonely, those who, often through the Internet, are looking for friends. We need to be vigilant, but it is not easy.
As a former teacher I know that teachers and people who work with young people are worried about the lack of protection for themselves. For example, I know teachers who take other teachers in the car with them if they bring children home from school. One must never be alone with a child – that is the rule. Yesterday the Minister for Education and Science, on my invitation, called on all sporting and voluntary bodies to ensure they have proper guidelines in place for working with children and adults who are vulnerable.
Deputy Sexton mentioned chat rooms. Now that we are assuming the Presidency of the European Union we should try to use our position to make sure this technology is not used by people who are, in my view, very ill. It was suggested last night that when offenders are released from prison those in the area in which they intend to live should be informed of their presence. I do not know whether I agree with that, but I have a problem with letting them loose in the first place. Paedophilia is not only a heinous crime but it extends from a mental condition which is not stable. Anybody who preys on children must be insane. The idea of releasing them at all is something I would question. Experts have said that these people can never be cured. They are also very manipulative and can convince trained psychologists and psychiatrists that they are cured. I have seen studies to this effect. This is extremely serious, but it is also a new idea and must be investigated. I agree that forcing people into therapy does not work, as was said last night. It must be voluntary. There is some merit in strongly persuading people but there must be a voluntary aspect to it as well.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the motion is agreed but if he cannot do this, I ask him to consider the points made by Deputies from all sides of the House and expand as quickly as possible the procedures to ensure that children are kept safe. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, also said last night he was worried that despite the substantial investment by health boards in advertising the "Children First" guidelines, there is a lack of widespread public awareness about them. That is true and it is an issue which needs to be tackled. He also said there was no substitute for checking out references. I agree it is important for employers to do this, but we never said that vetting was the be-all and end-all, although it is important.
These days there is so much mobility. All over the country apartment blocks are going up and people are moving in and out. In the past people were known. If a person in an area was suspect, people knew about it. That is not the case now as people move in and out of areas all the time. We need to get tougher and stronger in this area.
The intention of the motion is to support that rather than to be divisive. I ask the Minister to support the motion and not to divide the House.
I thank my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for standing in for me last night and providing a comprehensive and convincing presentation of the Government's policies on vetting which have to be seen in a broader context of child protection issues generally. I express my recognition of the great value of the Opposition's motion and commend Deputy Enright and her colleagues on their research efforts in this regard.
The Government is fully aware of the issues under discussion and the arrangements in place outside this jurisdiction. In particular, it is recognised there are good grounds for examining the need to extend the existing vetting arrangements to additional organisations. However, extending the services of the Garda central vetting unit is not simply a matter of throwing resources at it because there are also important issues of policy involved. For example, speakers on this side have already spoken about the legal questions on the release of soft facts about individuals as opposed to hard facts about individuals and so on. Clearly, that issue has a significant bearing on any proposals for the establishment of a vetting register, as suggested by Members. Such a register is one whereby information is held and is disclosable on individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults, not on the grounds solely of criminality but also on the grounds of employment history or personal history.
Because I acknowledge the need to extend the current vetting scheme to more organisations and because I recognise the more widespread release of information has consequences – we cannot deny these – from a data protection point of view and from other legal perspectives, I asked the Garda Commissioner to ensure that the working group established to look at the issues involved had representation from relevant Government Departments. In addition to members of the Garda Síochána and officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the working group includes representatives of the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science and the Office of the Attorney General.
The group is considering what is the best form of vetting that can be provided, taking into account all the aspects of vetting of persons coming in contact with children and vulnerable persons, be they full-time, part-time, voluntary or community workers or students on placements. Issues under consideration within that working group include the range of organisations which are seeking Garda vetting and a future likely demand from such organisations; the resource implications of extending clearance arrangements to additional private, voluntary, community and education sectors; processing and liaison mechanisms with organisations to reduce duplication and to enhance standardisation and clearance requests; the viable means of processing clearance requests in respect of non-nationals taking up employment in the child care and health care sectors in Ireland; the making of services of the central vetting unit available on a commercial fee basis to ensure, among other things, that proportionality and common sense are applied by organisations and that the unit is not used indiscriminately; and the legal aspects of vetting.
It is not only desirable but essential to await the deliberations of the working group before making any drive towards further enhancing vetting services in this jurisdiction. I have appealed to the House to recognise that. We do not have long to wait. As I understand it, the working group expects to submit a report on its deliberations to myself and the Garda Commissioner in January 2004.
I wish to refer briefly to the events today in Soham. Following the conviction of Ian Huntley for the murder of the two schoolgirls, Holly and Jessica, it has been revealed that Mr. Huntley was well known to the police services in England as a significant threat or danger to children, although it is not believed he had previous convictions. The question that arises in that context is how he managed to get a job as a caretaker in a primary school. There is no reason to believe that vetting arrangements in the United Kingdom are inferior in any way to our own. That has implications for this jurisdiction as well and there is no doubt about that.
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, MP, announced that an inquiry will take place into how Huntley managed to secure employment as a caretaker. We are closely monitoring developments in this affairs and we will carefully examine any outcome of this inquiry, including the lessons learned. We cannot wait a long time, although I image the inquiry in the United Kingdom will be speedy.
It was put to me that the best thing for the House to do is to unite around a single resolution. Whereas I heard what was said in favour of the Opposition's motion, the Government's motion is the more comprehensive. I ask the Fine Gael Party, whom I commend for raising this important matter, especially given that we are about to have a significant report on this issue within weeks, to join me in supporting the Government's amendment.
I commend Deputy Enright for tabling the motion which deals with an important and serious issue. It is one that has been discussed at various time in recent years, including the period when we debated the child sex offenders register from 1997 until it was introduced prior to the last election. I am pleased the Minister has stated the report of his working group will be available in January. That is an important event. It is important also to pay serious attention to this issue because of the effects of abuse on children. We are aware that paedophiles target areas where they are close to children. It is well known that they identify positions where they can get close to children and subsequently abuse them.
There are now 502 people on the sex offenders register. We are registering at the rate of 20% ahead of the United Kingdom. For many years prior to the introduction of that register, many thought it was unnecessary and would have only a marginal effect. That 502 people have been identified as a danger to children and have been convicted in the courts is evidence of the need for such a register. The proposal here is to extend it to additional organisations to ensure that those who are not only convicted but in danger of abusing children are vetted before being employed in areas where they get close to children and have the opportunity to violate them. The psychological and physical effect on a child not only during childhood but throughout his or her life is traumatic. They suffer from low self-esteem and deep depression for the rest of their lives. Many are suicidal and take their own lives. Apart from normal sexual relationships, they have difficulty in forming relationships with friends and individuals because they do not trust people. The effect is their lives are destroyed.
The motion asks the Dáil to protect children from that terrible event that may destroy their lives. In reply to a parliamentary question which I tabled in July, the Minister informed the House he was in discussions with the Garda Síochána on ways of extending the service in the child care area to community workers, part-time employees and so on. I presume the report which is due in January will develop that issue and advise on it. That the Minister has announced that this evening is positive.
All of us were shocked at the "Prime Time" programme two weeks ago, which exposed the level of activity on the Internet in accessing child pornography. This, in itself, was a serious matter but the realisation that trading in child pornography is taking place puts a different emphasis on it. In order to trade one must have a product. The product of child pornography is an image of a child being sexually abused. If people in Ireland are trading in pornography they must be producing these images. That is a serious issue.
The "Prime Time" programme made it clear that the Garda do not have the resources to investigate this matter. There is a three month delay between the time when information is supplied to the Garda and the matter is investigated. I appreciate that this problem is a new one to the Garda Síochána and to all of us. We were educated by the "Prime Time" programme. However, the Minister and his Department have been aware of the problem and of the level of abuse being done to children. Some people think such activity is relatively innocent because the people involved are not directly abusing children. Nevertheless, they are indirectly abusing children because the images must be produced and children damaged to create the pornographic material and to allow access to it. Whether the abuse happens in Ireland or in the Far East, children are being abused.
The paraphernalia of the State must be used to ensure that this activity is highlighted and people brought to justice. Traders in pornographic images must be identified. The Garda must be given the resources necessary to identify those who are trading in child pornography. A message must be sent that this is not acceptable and that the powers of the State will be used to investigate this crime and to bring people to justice. It was clear from the "Prime Time" programme that people involved in this activity believe they will never be brought to justice. They clearly had contempt for the justice system because they felt they were quite safe, probably rightly so.
In one three month period "Prime Time" journalists, working on a part-time basis, identified 105 accesses to abuse while the Garda Síochána identified 124 in a full year. This illustrates the level of Garda activity in this area. It is clear from Liz Walsh's article in last week's Sunday Independent that the necessary resources are not available to the Garda. Liz Walsh conducted an interesting investigation. She said of the Garda paedophile unit:
The unit is hugely under-resourced and is swamped with material awaiting examination. On top of this, Garda management has, so far, shown little or no enthusiasm for the type of high tech policing necessary to trace and arrest child pornographers.
She continued:
Since 1999 the gardaí had tracking software capable of tracking suspect traders. Once they have established their computer identity they can obtain names and addresses from telephone services, enabling them to make arrests.
However, arrests are not happening. I do not know why not. The technology exists. As people in the United Kingdom have said, it does not take many resources to identify the people involved, but it takes resources to follow up that identification, do the necessary investigation, question suspects, prepare a file for the Director or Public Prosecutions and secure a conviction. I appreciate that only a small number of such people will be brought to justice but the Minister must send a signal that people who are involved in this area will be brought to justice and ensure that we stop or control, as far as possible, the damage being done to children.
The difference between the Government and Opposition on this matter emerged very clearly last night and tonight. The difference is between hard facts and soft facts, as Government speakers have described them. We have not heard a definitive response from the Government. The Government has said the principles of natural justice apply or this is a constitutional issue. In his previous incarnation as Attorney General, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform seemed to run the show. I wonder if the current Attorney General is now running the show on this issue.
In formulating Fine Gael policy, we did not rush to a conclusion that this type of information needs to be included. It is something to which we gave serious consideration. If we do not have a system which includes this kind of information our system will not be as good as that in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, and the Republic of Ireland will be a haven for pornographers. That is why this situation needs to be addressed.
Many speakers referred to the Ian Huntley case and the Soham murders. In August 1995 both the police and social services in England investigated allegations that Ian Huntley had sex with a 15 year old girl. In November of that year there was an issue of burglary. In March 1996 a complaint was made by an under age girl, in April a complaint was made by a 15 year old girl and in May a complaint was made by a 13 year old girl. In May 1998 there was a rape charge, in July 1998 an 11 year old girl complained of sexual assault by Ian Huntley – at the time he was living with a 15 year old girl – and in July 1999 there were two more rape allegations. If that man were in Ireland he would be able to move from county to county and that information would not go with him. No system would ensure that someone like him could not get a job working with children or vulnerable adults. That is as clear as I can state the matter. That is why soft facts must be used. We can talk about the Constitution but we must find a way around it. If we do not, we will leave children and vulnerable adults in Ireland at risk from people like Ian Huntley. I know that the Home Secretary, Mr. David Blunkett, has ordered an inquiry.
The Minister says he has no reason to believe the vetting system in the United Kingdom is any worse than our own. At present, it is better than the system here. There was a flaw in the monitoring of Ian Huntley. I heard on a news bulletin this evening that he was not apprehended due to human error. We will never have a perfect system and cases will always fall through the cracks. We must try to provide the best possible system to ensure that does not happen.
We did not suggest that vetting would be the be all and end all. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, acknowledged this last night. We know that other practices must be in place. Nevertheless, vetting is necessary. Many speakers, particularly on the Government side, spoke of the work of the voluntary sector, teachers and child care workers. Some seemed to imply that we did not give consideration to those in the voluntary sector or that we do not value their work. That is not the case. The voluntary sector and voluntary organisations themselves want improved vetting procedures. Children at Risk in Ireland, the National Youth Federation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have all welcomed our proposals. The Government will present its proposals in January and I look forward to reading them.
Fine Gael will not accept the Government amendment. I would have preferred if the Government had accepted the Fine Gael motion but I understand that is not how the Oireachtas works.
It could do.
It could, but it does not. Even when the Government proposals are published consideration will have to be given to the issue of hard facts and soft facts. Given their considerable legal experience, I hope the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children will make a judgment on this issue and give due consideration to the information Fine Gael has presented to the House.
I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel. |
Tá–continuedHanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
McDaid, James.
McDowell, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGuinness, John.
Martin, Micheál.
Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O'Connor, Charlie.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Flynn, Noel.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.
Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eoin.
Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.
Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Wilkinson, Ollie.
Woods, Michael.
Wright, G.V.
Níl
Boyle, Dan.
Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Connolly, Paudge.
Cowley, Jerry.
Crawford, Seymour.
Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gormley, John.
Harkin, Marian.
Hayes, Tom.
Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Phil.
Kehoe, Paul.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Padraic.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Paul.
McHugh, Paddy.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Gay.
Morgan, Arthur.
Murphy, Gerard.
Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O'Dowd, Fergus.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.
Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Eamon.
Ryan, Seán.
Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.
Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope. |
Tá–continuedGlennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
Martin, Micheál.
McDaid, James.
McDowell, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGuinness, John.
Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O'Connor, Charlie.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Flynn, Noel.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.
Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eoin.
Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.
Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Wilkinson, Ollie.
Woods, Michael.
Wright, G.V.
Níl
Boyle, Dan.
Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Connolly, Paudge.
Cowley, Jerry.
Crawford, Seymour.
Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gormley, John.
Harkin, Marian.
Hayes, Tom.
Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Phil.
Kehoe, Paul.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Padraic.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Paul.
McHugh, Paddy.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Gay.
Morgan, Arthur.
Murphy, Gerard.
Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O'Dowd, Fergus.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.
Quinn, Ruairi.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Eamon.
Ryan, Seán.
Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.
Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies and Stagg.
Question declared carried.