JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Thursday, 10 May 2012

Children First Bill 2012: Discussion

Chairman

This is our third meeting on the draft heads of the Children First Bill 2012. Our first session will include a discussion with representatives from the sports sector, while in our second session we will hear from representatives from the youth sector. If we allow one hour for each, we will have ample time for the making of presentations and discussion of the issues raised. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Mr. John Treacy, Mr. Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil, Ms Miriam Malone and Ms Kate Hills who are representing their respective governing bodies. The closing date for the receipt of written submissions is tomorrow. We extended the deadline by one week.

I remind those present that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I again remind members to ensure their mobile phones are turned off for the duration of the meeting. At last Tuesday's meeting there was interference by mobile phones with the sound recording, which is unfair to members of staff.

I invite Mr. Treacy, chief executive of the Irish Sports Council, to make his opening remarks.

Mr. John Treacy

I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Fiona Coyne and Ms Bernie Priestley who is our expert in this area.

The Irish Sports Council welcomes the proposed Children First Bill 2012, the draft heads of which take a positive step in improving the welfare and protection of children. The council has a statutory obligation under the legislation under which it was established to promote good practice in children's sport. The original code of ethics was published in 1996 by the sport unit of the Department of Education and Skills. In 2000 the council partnered the then Sports Council for Northern Ireland in developing and relaunching the code of ethics and good practice for children's sport in Ireland. This document was aligned with Children First to provide clear guidance for sports bodies on all elements of child-centred sport, including child welfare and protection. The code has since been revised in 2003 and 2006 to take into account changes in best practice and statutory guidance.

Since 2000 the council has been disseminating resources to and providing training based on the code for recognised national governing bodies and sports clubs and groups. The council's aims with regard to sport for young people can be summarised as the promoting of sport as fun, safe, healthy and enjoyable and encouraging all who work in sport to maintain a child-centred approach to the organisation and provision of opportunities for participation. The council acknowledges that the clubs affiliated to and associated with its grantee bodies such as the national governing bodies and local sports partnerships will be a key delivery mechanism for young people's participation in sport. The council works with the national governing bodies and local sports partnerships to provide training for those involved in sport with children. This training has been developed by the council in partnership with our colleagues in Sport Northern Ireland and the HSE. To date, more than 200 tutors have been trained to deliver basic awareness courses and the more detailed children's officer training within national governing bodies and local sports partnerships.

The LSP network has been a vital conduit for the promulgation and dissemination of the code of ethics and child protection training and information. In 2011 more than 6,500 people took part in almost 500 code of ethics basic awareness courses through the LSP network, while an additional 500 people completed the club children's officer training organised by local sports partnerships. A total of 38,000 people have come through the training programmes organised by the partnerships.

The cascade model of training which the council has developed has been consistently cited as an example of best practice by Departments. The council has provided assistance for other statutory and voluntary agencies to develop similar systems which have been replicated within the structures of many national governing bodies, including some of those appearing before the committee today. National governing bodies must tailor their code of ethics for their sport based on the template developed by the council. All of the bodies which are recognised by the council and include under-age members have developed their own sport specific codes for dissemination to their regional structures and local clubs. Additionally, they have been asked to appoint a national children's officer to act as an advocate on behalf of children and young people and ensure the relevant guidance based on the code is adhered to. Clubs have also been asked to appoint children's officers to ensure the voice of the child is taken into account.

The council also provides access to Garda vetting for national governing bodies to ensure staff, board and committee members and volunteers can be vetted. It is made clear to them that vetting provides one element of a safe recruitment policy. National governing bodies which have significant numbers of staff and volunteers working with young people have engaged in managing the process of vetting within their own organisations. With proposals to make vetting mandatory for a wider range of people within sport, both paid and unpaid, there will obviously be greater demands on governing bodies, particularly those which have significant voluntary workforces.

With regard to the draft heads of the Children First Bill 2012, the council would make a number of general comments on the need for clarification. Our views have been informed by discussions with a range of national governing bodies for sports such as golf, rugby, athletics, gymnastics, tennis, soccer and the GAA. While we acknowledge the Bill as a positive step in keeping children safe in sport, we need to consider how it will impact on sport. It is important that its requirements are easy to implement by volunteers. For example, the role of designated officer should be held at NGB level and act as the voice of both the adult and the child. This would be a more streamlined approach to protecting children and articulating their concerns within organisations.

On head 2, the Bill, as it stands, defines "abuse" as sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect of a child, excluding the category of emotional abuse as set out in Children First. The Bill should be consistent with the Children First guidelines.

On head 7, access to vetting has been provided for all national governing bodies and is being rolled out on a phased basis. A timescale for vetting members needs to be considered and a suitable lead-in time should be identified to allow national governing bodies to meet their statutory requirements under the Bill.

On head 9, designated officers in organisations should sit at national governing body level. The appointment of a designated liaison person at club level should be made to mirror this role at local level. The person concerned would then implement the Keeping Children Safe plan at local level. The designated liaison officer would pass on his or her concerns to the designated officer at national level in respect of allegations of abuse. The designated officer is given the legal responsibility to inform the HSE and is available to assist the HSE and participate, on request, in the assessment of risk, the investigation of concerns or allegations of child abuse undertaken by the HSE and any related matter. Key to these roles will be the publication of the HSE's safeguarding guidance for organisations and the development of each organisation's Keeping Children Safe plan. These documents are referred to in the Bill but there is no timeline on their publication. It will be vital that education and training are put in place to ensure volunteers fully understand and can comply with the proposed legislation. The council believes we are in a strong position to provide this training to sports bodies along the lines we have outlined. To do this we will need to continue to work closely, as we always have done, with our colleagues in the HSE.

Regarding heads 12 and 15, volunteers are guided by the advice they receive from the HSE through informal consultation. This has been a very valuable tool to date and there is an urgent need for the relevant guidance to be published in advance of legislation coming into force in order that those responsible for making a decision about what to report have the resources to assist them. The reference to the National Sports Council in Schedule 2 should be amended to Irish Sports Council.

The Irish Sports Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft heads of the Children First Bill 2012. The proposed legislation is a positive step and the council will make a more detailed submission to the committee tomorrow.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Treacy for making a special effort to be here today. I know he cancelled a number of commitments to attend. I thank him for the seriousness with which he took the committee's hearing today.

Mr. Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil

Thar cheann Cumann Lúthchleas Gael, ba mhaith liom ár mbuíochas a ghabháil leis an gCathaoirleach agus le baill an choiste as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dúinn teacht anseo inniu. Tá súil agam go mbeidh na tuairimí a léireoidh mé inniu, agus mar chuid den aighneacht a sheolfar chuig an gcoiste amárach, ina chabhair don choiste agus an reachtaíocht seo á phlé sna laethanta romhainn.

I thank members of the joint committee for the invitation to be here today. We welcome the publication of the heads of the Children First Bill 2012, which is vital legislation. Some of what I say may have already been covered by Mr. Treacy and thereafter by others. I ask for forgiveness if there is some repetition.

I wish to give an historical context to the GAA's approach to child protection and welfare. The GAA has two policy elements, our code of best practice in youth sport and our guidelines for dealing with allegations of abuse. Both were published in 2009 and are now enshrined within the association's rules which make it mandatory for all persons in the association to adhere to them. Having those documents in rule at this stage puts us in a good position as we approach the implementation of the proposed legislation.

Our procedures and practices are in place to ensure we comply with all relevant guidelines and legislation regardless of the jurisdiction in which we operate. It is our view that both of these GAA policy documents, amended if necessary when legislation is enacted, will fully comply with the requirements of Children First and any other legislative obligations on the island of Ireland. We are happy to be in this position as above all else we want children and our under-age teams in the GAA to benefit from and participate in our Gaelic games in a safe and enjoyable environment, where our games are conducted in a spirit of fair play and where the adults who work with children on our behalf do so in a manner that is compliant with guidelines and legislation and with our own high levels of good practice.

We are confident the recruitment procedures we adopt are thorough, fair and supportive of those who work primarily in a voluntary capacity in our GAA clubs. One example of this recruitment policy - it was already mentioned by Mr. Treacy - is that we vet all persons who work with children in the association. To date more than 40,000 adults have been vetted through the Garda central vetting unit and almost 10,000 more adults have been vetted through AccessNI in Northern Ireland.

We are, as they say in sporting terms, happy to be where we are at this stage of the game regarding the Bill. Our submission, made in the spirit of co-operation, reflects a willingness on our behalf to fully implement the legislation when eventually agreed. We support the valued intentions of the Bill and of the Minister and we will seek to enshrine its contents in our daily work with children, whether it is at our games or the many other activities we organise for children off the field of play.

The absence of an outline or a specific indication as to the contents of two key documents referred to in the heads, the Keeping Children Safe plan and the HSE's safeguarding guidance for organisations policy documents, leaves us at a disadvantage. While we agree that two such key policy documents are essential to the implementation of the Bill, we hope a consultation process will emerge whereby organisations and agencies that work with children will have the opportunity to comment on any such proposed policies in advance of their adoption. We believe, therefore, it is imperative the HSE publishes both the plan and the guidance in advance of the legislation being enacted.

I will now comment on some specific aspects of the Bill. Head 2 refers to interpretations and provides for a number of definitions that may require further consideration. For example, as mentioned, "abuse" is defined as sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect but fails to refer to emotional abuse, notwithstanding that emotional abuse is recognised worldwide, including in the UN convention and by the HSE child protection and welfare practice handbook.

The definition of a "volunteer" in head 2 has been discussed at length by many organisations, not least by us in the GAA, for many years. Without volunteers the GAA would not exist in its current format as the volunteer forms the bedrock of the association. However, in so far as we acknowledge that without volunteers we would not exist as we do at present, we fully recognise the many responsibilities of our volunteers and that this Bill and other legislation may be relevant to them and to their role. We would urge, therefore, a rethink of the explanatory note under head 2 which states it is not intended to define a person who gives lifts to or collects a child from a sporting event as a volunteer. We ask that that statement be re-examined. In the GAA our volunteers take a position of responsibility that is matched by our commitment to good practice. One such role may often be that of driving under-age players to games and training. Certainly on a once-off basis they may not come under the meaning of volunteer but if it is done as part of their continuing role in a GAA club, we would urge a rethink of the definition.

Head 2 also explains an outline, without any specifics, of the safeguarding guidance for organisations policy document, the guidance for reporting of abuse and the Keeping Children Safe plan, all of which we have mentioned and which in our opinion should be published prior to the enactment of this legislation.

Head 5 deals with Children First and its aims and principles. We welcome the emphasis on the well-being of the child as the overarching principle of the Bill and that the proposed legislation is in addition to and not in substitution for any other obligations or legislation.

We broadly welcome head 6, which deals with organisations with a statutory obligation to report child abuse. We recognise and welcome that section 6(2) applies to the GAA. For the purpose of clarification it may be of use to many if the HSE or the Department of Children and Youth Affairs would consider publishing a more detailed breakdown of who comes under the requirements of sections 6(2) and 6(3) to avoid confusion or the possibility that any organisation may be overlooked in this process.

We acknowledge the responsibilities placed upon organisations as outlined in head 7(1) to 7(15). While much of this may currently form part of many existing codes in different organisations, and in the GAA's code of best practice, it is timely that we are informed of the obligations for all. It is worth noting, however, that some organisations may find it extremely difficult to comply overnight with what is contained in head 7, given the scarce resources that exist in certain sectors. Organisations must be provided, therefore, with a realistic and achievable timeframe within which they can achieve what is required of them.

The requirement for an internal audit committee under head 7(14) is a new departure and would be welcome. Members of such committees should, as a basic requirement, possess some experience of working with children or with a child centred organisation. We would welcome the opportunity to appoint external people to the internal audit committee should it be permitted under the section.

Head 8 deals with notification to the HSE. We welcome the general provision in this regard. However, what is proposed cannot be put in danger by the inability to resource such measures at organisational level. In some instances, we may once again be asking certain organisations to comply immediately with these measures. Improvements in support structures and services, such as the excellent Garda vetting service available via the Garda central vetting unit, are indicative of the measures required if non-statutory organisations are to be assisted in complying with head 8.

The requirement to ensure adequate training of all persons, volunteers or employees who work with children, regardless of role, is most welcome. The GAA has, with the co-operation and in partnership with the Irish Sports Council, successfully developed a purpose-built child protection awareness programme, referred to by Mr. Treacy, which we continue to deliver nationwide for all mentors and coaches who work with children and under-age teams in the association. Other such examples of quality training include similar initiatives from the youth work sector, church and faith youth groups and others, and these are encouraged to adhere to agreed criteria. However, such criteria must be cognisant of the diverse nature, ethos and activities of youth and child related organisations when agreeing standards appropriate for each sector. One training programme does not suit everybody and we must allow for the diverse nature of activities and of the organisations that deliver this training.

Head 9 deals with the role of designated officers, which has been clearly defined. This is most welcome. We recognise the value of having the most senior employee recognised in the Bill as the designated officer. However, in reality this role will be delegated to another person in many organisations and we would urge that where such a delegation takes place, the organisation's national board or executive is mandated to appoint the person to whom the role has been delegated. This should be done in consultation with the HSE. Provision should be made in head 9 to enable and permit an organisation to further delegate responsibilities to a designated person or to agree a designated liaison person role for local units. For example, the local GAA club must have a designated person at that local level and this must be recognised in the Bill.

We welcome heads 9 and 10 concerning the requirements on employees and volunteers to report concerns and allegations of child abuse. Much of this is in accordance with current organisational structures and agreed procedures. Many volunteers have drawn to our attention their concern with regard to the need to examine the need for the provision of an indemnity for designated officers at all levels, similar to the protection provided by the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1998. Otherwise, we may have difficulty in appointing designated officers at local level.

In head 12, which sets out the HSE's responsibilities, significant reference is made to the publication of safeguarding guidance for organisations, a much anticipated resource which will be of immense value to designated officers and the public in general. This guidance, as has been stated, should be published in advance of the commencement of legislation and should, given the legal implications for organisations, be published following a consultation process with all relevant sectors that work with children. Much of what is contained in head 12(1)(b) would have been published and enacted by many organisations, including by the GAA, as part of their codes of best practice. What is proposed in 12(1)(f) is most welcome and should act as a major assistance to designated officers as it outlines their role.

Clarity is required as to the implications of "advice" when advice is sought by a designated officer from the HSE. For example, will the seeking of advice be categorised as reporting or preliminary reporting in this section? At what stage may the seeking of advice also become a form of reporting? Who in the HSE would be allocated the role of giving such advice and to whom would this service be made available? What would be the case if there was a difference of opinion following receipt of this advice? How is this catered for under head 12(1)(f)? Much of this “advice” service refers to organisations and one would assume or anticipate that the same service should be made available to individuals, including children, parents and guardians, teachers, youth leaders, sports leaders and any other persons and individuals who may seek such advice.

I welcome head 13 in that it aligns this legislation with the Child Care Act 1991. Much of what is proposed here can and will be achieved by a partnership between all agencies and organisations who work with children and vulnerable adults. We look forward to this section being further developed in the Bill.

Head 14 refers to the written direction, improvement notice or prohibitions. We seek clarification on this head because we need to know how these notices or directions are arrived at and how they are implemented thereafter. All such notices should be open to external appeal if an organisation feels it has the right to appeal. We welcome the clarity in head 15 on the publication of guidance for the reporting of abuse, which will be useful to all designated officers.

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for inviting us and giving us this opportunity to make a verbal submission. We will follow up with a written submission and we thank the committee for that opportunity. Our aim in the GAA is to offer an opportunity to all children to participate in our Gaelic games and activities in a safe, developmental and enjoyable environment. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Ms Miriam Malone

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Football Association of Ireland. The FAI welcomes this Bill and the fact it places the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing. We appreciate the opportunity afforded to us by the committee to offer our views on the draft Bill and the challenges it may represent for sporting bodies in implementing its terms. We will review our current practices and policies in light of this new legislation to ensure we are operating in line with the Bill. We note the submissions made by other sporting bodies and that the committee has heard from other organisations which work with children. While we appreciate there will be some repetition in the submissions made, we have tried to focus on the issues that relate specifically to the FAI and to our affiliated organisations. I will now go through the specific heads and the comments or concerns relating to these which we would like the committee to consider.

Overall, the FAI believes the Bill and any guidance issued in respect of it needs to be clear on the individual responsibilities of the national governing bodies and their affiliated organisations. As the committee is aware, the FAI is the governing body for football in Ireland. The day-to-day management of a number of areas, including the organisation of clubs and leagues, lies in the main with affiliates operating under the jurisdiction of the FAI. Club leagues and governing bodies for the different aspects of football, for example, schoolboys and women's football, are separate legal entities to the FAI. It would appear from the Bill that each affiliated body will be separately responsible for reporting concerns to the HSE directly and will have a separate designated officer and audit committee. Guidance would be welcome in respect of any additional role a governing or parent body, such as the FAI, is expected to fulfil. It would be beneficial to know if the national governing body, NGB, will be advised if matters are reported by an affiliated body and of the result of any investigations which warrant the standing down of an individual. This is to ensure records can be maintained and the NGB can consider any ancillary action that may be necessary.

Under head 7, there is a requirement for all volunteers to be subject to a vetting application. This is welcome. The FAI suggests this be introduced on a phased basis to ensure it can be correctly managed and rolled out. We must emphasise the importance of volunteers in Irish sport, especially in the promotion and development of grassroots sport. There are approximately 30,000 volunteers in football in direct contact with children who would require vetting. If vetting is implemented on a phased basis it will allow education and training to be provided also. That will go some way to reducing the concerns around vetting and the responsibilities volunteers and clubs must take on under the terms of the legislation.

It would also be hoped that the new National Vetting Bureau Bill would be enacted at the same time as this Bill and that they would be linked. Information sharing would be beneficial in the vetting of volunteers in sporting bodies. The capacity of the national vetting bureau to deal with a large number of applications in a short timeframe may also cause difficulties.

There are concerns about the level of resources that will be required to implement the terms of the Bill within football. Given the responsibilities that affiliated bodies will be undertaking including reporting, safe recruiting practice and data protection, training will be required to ensure that the obligations are understood fully. Phased implementation of the Bill would assist with that and allow it to be done in a cost efficient manner. Sporting bodies are currently managing on reduced Government funding and must allocate scarce resources to the necessary training and education to equip those involved and to ensure people are not discouraged from volunteering in football or in any other sport. In football, as in most sports, the designated officers will be volunteers who may not have experience and who may change on a regular basis, therefore, vetting will be an ongoing rolling process. To ensure consistency of policy and education, the guidance document referred to in head 15 should be published prior to the reporting requirements being enacted.

It would be of assistance to clubs and other sporting bodies if more detail was provided on the definition of a volunteer and hence "requires vetting". Clubs are often dependent on the assistance of parents in areas such as transport to matches and there would be a concern that if vetting is required to allow parents to assist, there may be a decrease in the number of parents willing to become involved in clubs. Persons assisting on an occasional ad hoc voluntary basis in sports organisations which involve children have been excluded from the National Vetting Bureau Bill where they do not have regular or ongoing unsupervised contact with children. A similar definition in this Bill would be helpful.

Regarding head 8, it would be helpful to clarify if the notice the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, will provide to the Health Service Executive, HSE, as required under the Bill should address, in addition to those activities under its direct control, activities carried out by separate organisations affiliated to the FAI.

Head 12(4) states that the advice provided by the HSE in the informal consultation process cannot be used as a defence to failure to report. Where designated officers have contacted the HSE and provided all the information they have available to them and are advised, based on that information, that a report is not necessary, they should not be subject to sanction. The designated officers may need to seek information from the HSE in respect of matters that come to their attention. If they are not able to rely on the advice given to them by the HSE on reporting matters, we believe that will result in a high level of concern regarding possible liability, which may result in over reporting. It may also result in reluctance to take on the role of designated officer.

Under head 14, the HSE is empowered to take action where an organisation is not in compliance with the Bill. As a national governing body, NGB, we would like the HSE to be in a position to advise us when an affiliated body is subject to any action under that head. That would enable us as the parent body to assist the affiliate to meet the standards required or to take such other action that may be required to ensure compliance.

We have four main points for the committee to consider. First, the relationship of a large organisation such as the FAI with its own affiliates and potential additional responsibilities and communication requirements between statutory agencies; second, the resources around the roll-out of Garda vetting, education and training to all volunteers; third, the concern around designated officers not being able to rely on the advice from the HSE and being subject to sanctions; and fourth, the suggestion that the Bill should be brought in on a phased basis to allow for appropriate and smooth implementation.

We commend the Chairman and the committee on the work they are doing in respect of the Bill and thank them again for the opportunity to make submissions.

Chairman

I thank Ms Malone, Mr. Michael Lynam and Ms Cliodhna Guy for attending and for their presentation. I am aware they have a national staff day today and I thank them sincerely for making the effort to be here. Last but not least we have the presentation from Ms Kate Hills from Swim Ireland. Ms Hills is very welcome.

Ms Kate Hills

I thank the committee, on behalf of Swim Ireland, for the invitation to offer our thoughts on the draft heads of the Children First Bill 2012. My name is Kate Hills, and I hold the position of national children's officer in Swim Ireland, with responsibility for Swim Ireland's child welfare and protection policies.

Swim Ireland is the national governing body for the aquatic disciplines. Following on from lessons we have learned from our past we strive to implement and work to best practice principles at all times to ensure sport is fun, safe and conducted in the spirit of fair play.

Swim Ireland will have submitted by tomorrow evening a full report detailing the individual points under each of the heads. However, I understand that time is of a premium and I will intentionally keep my points short and precise. I welcome any questions on the points to further the committee's understanding of the position of Swim Ireland.

We have viewed these draft heads from a practical, working standpoint using our experiences of working with our clubs and our members. As the members will be aware, our organisation works with volunteers in the protection and welfare of children and it is with that in mind that we raise these main points.

Under the Children First heading, we welcome that the proposed legislation will operate in conjunction with Children First, in particular with the emphasis on raising awareness of child abuse. We have found this to be essential in sport. People working with children, and parents leaving their children in the care of sports leaders, must understand the reasons for policies and procedures to protect their children. By raising awareness it is far more likely that policies and procedures are put in place rather than left on a shelf.

The definition of emotional abuse is missing from the draft heads. That, and the definition of physical and sexual abuse, must be brought in line with the definitions in Children First.

We need clarity on the requirement to disclose information either in line with the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 or the requirement to report concerns in line with Children First.

Our current policies direct our individuals to report concerns or allegations to the HSE. We all have a societal responsibility to be aware of harm to children but we must be clear on the guidance and advice we issue to our volunteers on their legal responsibilities.

Under the banner of "organisations", as a sports body we welcome our inclusion in the list of organisations that have a statutory obligation to report concerns about or allegations of abuse. This supports what is contained in our policies and procedures.

We have a concern regarding the exclusion of leisure facilities which cater for adults but allow children to use their facilities. That needs further consideration and clarification as many facilities providing for adults also offer separate children's activities. It would be important to bring such activities under the proposed legislation.

Swim Ireland, as with other national governing bodies, can only mandate for our own clubs and registered members. We do not have jurisdiction over facilities providing swimming of which there are an estimated 400 in Ireland. I would suggest there are other child-specific activities provided in such facilities that are being missed in the proposed legislation. That is a gap in the protection of children that may preclude those providing activities for children in implementing the intended legislation.

On the designated officer appointment, the sports body structure commonly operates through several layers - nationally, regionally and locally through clubs. Swim Ireland is slightly different in that we have licensed coaches and teachers who are individual members and may operate outside of the club environment. Our clubs operate independently of us but are subject to our rules and guidance, for example, each is required to have its own management structure but also to adopt and implement the Swim Ireland Safeguarding Children Policies and Procedures.

It is not clear in the legislation at what level the appointment of a designated officer is targeted. It is a huge undertaking to require voluntary people to take on such a responsibility at club level, let alone providing the resources for training and upskilling those individuals. We estimate there is a turnover of 25% of volunteers in the child welfare role. Over 300 volunteers are involved in 121 clubs with members under 18 years. It is already a demanding responsibility, with individuals subject to mandatory requirements. We are not suggesting our volunteers would renege on their responsibilities; we are simply concerned the appointment of a designated officer at club level would not be manageable. The designated officer role should be placed with the national organisation where the resources for it could be managed effectively. It has been suggested there be a cascade structure to ensure each club would appoint an individual authorised by the designated officer. Swim Ireland already has this structure in place as the appointment of a designated person in a club is mandatory. We have 121 clubs with members under 18 years and 21 designated persons.

We have a similar concern regarding the audit requirement, about the level at which this is intended for sports bodies. This issue needs to be clarified and many of our concerns about the management of and resources for the designated officer also apply in this instance. The audit should be conducted at national level. We would, therefore, welcome guidance on this issue. An audit will only be an effective measure if organisations are audited to the same standards. Sports bodies may not have the internal expertise required to appoint such a committee.

We seek clarification on the definition of a volunteer in a sports organisation. Swim Ireland has strict requirements for any member with a role that carries responsibility for children. Our interpretation of the definition is that any member who has a role will be subject to the legislation, whether he or she has a responsibility for children, but that it will not be applicable to those who are members only and do not have a role as they are not performing a service.

If a volunteer is prohibited from working in an organisation by a designated officer or the HSE, it is not clear where this will be recorded and if the information will be available to other organisations. In advance of the Bill we would welcome the release of the proposed documents, Safeguarding Guidance for Organisations, Guidance for Reporting of Abuse and the Keeping Children Safe plan, to prepare our volunteers and the organisation for the changes ahead. The essence of the proposed legislation is a huge step forward in the protection of children and will put on a legislative basis much of what sports organisations have in place.

This brief presentation deals with some of our queries and concerns. Unfortunately, time does not permit us to mention each of the beneficial measures in the proposed legislation. I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to raise these points which will be included in our submission to be made tomorrow afternoon.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I remind members that we will have a second session after this one; therefore, I ask them to keep their contributions short and to direct specific questions at particular delegates.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I apologise to the representatives of the GAA and the Irish Sports Council for missing their presentations. I have scanned their written presentations and will pay them more attention later. The trend in all the contributions and presentations is an expression of concern about how the designated officer role will work. If there must be a designated officer in each section, it could lead to difficulty in finding volunteers to take up the role. Ms Hills from Swim Ireland mentioned a 25% turnover of designated officers. The position would become more difficult. This does not surprise me because the application of this measure could make it more difficult at club and branch level.

The Irish Sports Council covers many organisations. Some presentations referred to the importance of giving the designated officer role to someone who takes on the responsibility in an organisation and may also be a professional in it. How would this work for smaller groups such as a local youth club where someone is trying to set up a group for young people? Having a professional officer in an organisation such as the GAA or the FAI is one thing, but it is a different matter in trying to facilitate those who want to provide facilities for young people at local level and are not part of a larger organisation. I am interested in the Irish Sports Council's comments on the impact of the Bill in this regard.

Perhaps the delegates who made presentations might comment on the issue of indemnity for designated officers. If volunteers were carrying out the role, at the risk of penal sanctions, fines or imprisonment for a failure to carry it out, indemnity insurance would be required. If they were to carry out the role improperly, it could lead to a penalty for them and a loss of income, which could have an impact on their lives. It could also have a major impact on the children concerned. There must be indemnity insurance for those who find themselves in that situation. How do delegates work this out in their respective organisations? What would be the impact of extending the role of designated officers to volunteers? This issue applies to local youth organisations which may not be part of a wider national organisation.

What is the level of interaction with the HSE and the social work system in respect of the provision of resources? There is concern about the potential for an increase in the numbers of reports. In recent years the number has increased significantly. An article in The Irish Times yesterday by Professor Helen Buckley of Trinity College Dublin outlined that the number of reports had increased but that the number of substantiated child protection concerns had not. It is a question of the ability of the child welfare and State system to act on reports and intervene to protect children.

What needs to happen in order to ensure difficulties with the vetting process do not create blockages for organisations? What needs to happen to ensure the process works well?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I join in the welcome to each of the representatives from various organisations. I am very impressed by the efforts made by all in addressing the proposed legislation to place the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis. Each delegate approached the matter by examining how the legislation will work in practice, the impact it will have and the practicalities. I do not have a series of questions because the information provided concerns questions to be put within the legislative process. These are initial outlines and I know the delegates will follow up with more substantive written submissions in the period before the deadline, which is very short.

I agree that designated officers in organisations should be at national governing body level. I raised this issue during the first engagement last week. However, in my view it is critical that this permeates down to a designated liaison person at club level. It should be on a tiered basis down through the various structures. I endorse that policy and also Ms Kate Hills's point, although the language is slightly different. The designated person is the same message and I do not regard this as something to be overly concerned about. The question as to the appointment level of the designated officer is a question I also asked only last week. The answer is in the commonality of the analyses by John Treacy from the Irish Sports Council and Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil from the GAA. It is also reflected in the analysis by other delegates such as Miriam Malone from the FAI. I agree with Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil's remarks about the HSE publishing both the plan and the guidance in advance of the legislation being enacted. I think this would be very helpful. This is also reflected in Ms Malone's comments regarding the guidance document in head 15 that this should be published prior to the reporting requirements being enacted. I endorse that view. The committee needs to note this point and to convey it to the Minister and the Department.

I refer to head 9 and Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil's remarks about the designated liaison person at local club level. Ms Malone raised the point about the capacity of the national vetting bureau, in particular with regard to large numbers of applications within a short period of time in response to the enactment of the legislation. That is a real concern. We are very cognisant of significant delays in the processing of applicants through the vetting system, never mind any particular significant additional request. I refer to Ms Hills on behalf of Swim Ireland who raised a very valid point regarding the case of a person being prohibited from working in an organisation, either by the designated officer or the HSE, and if this decision is left hanging over an individual. How is this decision recorded, this alert made known and the information made available to other organisations? This is a point we should consider.

Not every organisation involved in sport will be named as coming under the terms of this Bill. Are there any concerns regarding inter-sport activity that might present in any of the codes represented here, in the view of the Irish Sports Council? Some sporting bodies and organisations do not come under the aegis of any of the bodies represented here, those which are not affiliated to FAI or whatever body. Has any of the organisations had any experience of having concerns about the welfare of children and their endangerment in out-of-hours situations? The system currently has no out-of-hours, weekend designated officers within the mechanisms provided. The first port of call with regard to out-of-hours and weekend situations is the Garda Síochána, not the HSE as there is not a provision of the necessary report alert lines which should be there.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout

I am conscious of the time limitations. I thank each of the organisations for their presentations which have been thought-provoking. They have shown us the realities of implementation of legislation and the implementation of the Children First guidance. One of the significant issues before the committee is the role of the designated officer. I ask the delegations in their submissions to the committee to further explore the role of the organisation versus the role of the individual. We are examining how this will be put on a statutory basis. One of the issues of interest to me is the reference to the most senior person. Should this be the most competent person who is senior and who will report directly to the senior? The health and safety legislation, for example, provides that the chief executive is accountable but he or she appoints a health and safety officer within the organisation. The committee is examining this point.

The issue of the role of volunteers has not been discussed much to date at committee level and I am pleased the delegates have raised this matter. In my view, I do not think a volunteer should ever be a designated officer but that is a personal opinion. There is an issue about an active role in an organisation versus the once-off, helping hand person but the difficulty arises with giving lifts in cars, as has been pointed out and I can see the differences of opinion. This is an issue the committee will have to consider.

I encourage the delegates to raise in their submissions the issue of emotional abuse not being specifically provided for in the legislation and this is not consistent with the guidance. The advice for the committee from official level is that it is difficult to define emotional abuse. I am not necessarily so convinced. The exclusion of leisure facilities under heads 6.2 and 6.3 was raised by Ms Hills. This is potentially an area for confusion. Sporting organisations in particular may encounter this issue. I ask the delegates to say how they think leisure facilities can be included but in a practical way. We want the Children First guidance to work. How can we ensure that children are protected and that confusion does not arise as to whether an organisation is included in the remit?

Deputy Robert Dowds

I thank the witnesses for attending. I also express my great appreciation for the work of sporting organisations throughout the country and which is mostly voluntary. We would be much the poorer without the contributions of the many people in these organisations who do so much for the children and young people of this country.

My concerns are with regard to the question of protecting children while at the same time having as little bureaucracy as possible. I am very conscious that the plans to protect children must work but that they should not impose too much bureaucracy. If the delegations have any further suggestions as to how to achieve protection without too much bureaucracy I would appreciate it.

Vetting is already in place for professionals who work with children. Is there a need for flexibility in the vetting system? For instance, if a person is vetted as a suitable person to deal with children in one organisation, this should automatically transfer to another organisation without the need to undergo a second vetting procedure. There seems to be too much bureaucracy in this regard also, unless there is a reason for the person to be vetted a second time. I agree with the comment some witnesses and Deputy Ó Caoláin made that it would be useful if the HSE documents were published in advance.

I wish to refer to one comment by Senator van Turnhout. Obviously it would be better if designated officers could be professional people, but how could that be the case in an organisation such as the GAA? When this legislation is enacted, we should carefully monitor it. I would hate if it resulted in a decline in volunteerism on the part of those who are enthusiastic about sport.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I am delighted to hear that all the sporting bodies attending the committee today see the Children First Bill as a positive step for the welfare and protection of children. I am also glad they all want to see the promotion of sport as an enjoyable, healthy and safe pursuit, as well as being conducted in a spirit of fair play.

I agree that all the national governing bodies should have their own code of ethics tailored for those sports based on the template developed by the Irish Sports Council. I am delighted to hear the council is providing access to the Garda vetting unit for all the national sports governing bodies to ensure staff, committee members and volunteers can be vetted. I agree the role of the designated officer should be held at national governing body level, as both the voice of the adult and child. All the sporting bodies mentioned emotional abuse, which is excluded from the Bill. This committee should look into that aspect. I am also glad to hear all the sporting bodies have indicated they are satisfied about their relationship with the HSE.

Chairman

I call on Mr. Treacy to begin. I am conscious of time, so perhaps we can limit it to a specific period.

Mr John Treacy

Yes. I shall make a number of comments and will then ask Ms Bernie Priestly to contribute and pick up on anything I have not mentioned. In sporting terms, the welfare of the child is paramount. Over the years, we have been working closely with the national governing bodies, NGB, sector in putting adequate training in place to manage this process. We believe the designated officer needs to be at national level. The national governing body is responsible for that sport in the country. Regardless of whether it is affiliated, the national governing body, which is funded by the Irish Sports Council, is charged with the development of that sport. We believe that is where the designated officer needs to be, given the major role and responsibility, which is onerous, and probably it should be with a paid employee of an association. For smaller NGBs, the CEO would be the designated officer. Cascading down the training, as we currently do at club level, will obviously happen once all these changes come about. That role should entail training, detailing of responsibility at club level, and reporting up the line to the designated officer at national level. We think insurance or indemnification is a matter for the governing sports bodies themselves.

In other countries there have been increased reports, but a way of counteracting much of this is to have the training in place and information available for volunteers and sporting organisations. If we go through that process, while there will obviously be an increase, we can eliminate many of the problems along the way. It is important to have training in place and we have always worked closely with the HSE as regards training. The HSE has been hugely helpful to us and we would like to see that continuing in future.

Garda vetting has worked well and the Garda vetting unit has done tremendous work. It obviously needs to be resourced because more work will arise. The portability of Garda vetting from one sport to another would certainly be welcomed by a lot of the sporting organisations.

Deputy Ó Caoláin spoke about gaps within sporting organisations. Some such organisations are not recognised by the Irish Sports Council, so there are gaps. Some sports, such as martial arts, are affiliated to one organisation. They all come under an umbrella organisation so there is a mechanism for them.

We think the answer to bureaucracy is to have good training in place where the information is available to all clubs and NGBs. Does Ms Priestly want to pick up on anything?

Ms Bernie Priestly

Yes. The key to training and education is the publication of relevant documents by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the HSE. As regards vetting, a number of organisations have said that their members are tired of filling out a number of vetting forms. Is there any opportunity of having that kind of portability or using a unique number such as the PPS number? There is a concern about that because, given the nature of volunteering, one may be a member of a number of different organisations which are putting vetting procedures in place. People are getting tired, therefore, of filling out forms.

The nature of sport is that it is played out of hours, in the evenings and at weekends. We advise all sporting organisations and clubs which may be concerned a child is in immediate danger to contact the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I presume Ms Priestly would welcome an out-of-hours social worker service across the board.

Ms Bernie Priestly

Yes.

Mr. Gearóid Ó Maolmhicil

I will be brief and will not go back on any points raised. I agree with my colleagues on many of them. I would like to make one point on designated officers. Our association comprises 2,000 clubs, so one person cannot be the designated officer for that many clubs. We have a structure at county and club level. At present, we have a designated officer in every county and every club. That has to be maintained and the Bill must allow it, not for us but for everybody else. It is impossible, even at county level, for a designated officer to be fully au fait with what happens at local club level.

When the Bill is enacted, there will be more designated volunteer officers than paid ones. That is where training is the key. As I said in my submission, the bedrock of our association is the volunteer. We invest in our volunteers and get a tremendous return from them. That is where the collaboration with the HSE has to occur.

There is no ambiguity in the GAA regarding vetting. Some 40,000 volunteers have been vetted in three years in the Twenty-six Counties and 10,000 more through AccessNI. Regardless of legislation, there is no choice in our association. I am please to see our fellow sports organisations are similarly structured. Vetting is vital, but it is only one aspect of what we do when we recruit a person. We like to recruit the right people to do the right job. Vetting helps us to identify some of the person's background, but after one gets them, one still has a big job. One has to train them and bring them up to the required qualification, depending on the age group they are working with, and whether it is local, under-age, adult, teenage or senior. That is part of what is not mentioned when people talk about vetting.

As regards the out-of-hours issue, we had to amend our structures at county level to cater for those who cannot contact the HSE out of hours. The support we receive from An Garda Síochána is top class whenever we have to ring them. If a person is not available, I have seen cars driven 30 or 40 miles in order that we could meet people. That is a tremendous response and a tribute to how the Garda takes that role seriously and assists not only ourselves but everybody else when required. I understand the portability question is addressed in the Garda vetting bureau Bill, and we will welcome that if it happens. I will not go back over the other points with which I agree.

Ms Kate Hills

Many questions have been asked. I support my colleagues' views and I am sure we are all in agreement in that regard.

I will address the question on the specific matter I raised about the practicality of including leisure facilities in the Bill. We discussed this issue before we came to the committee because swimming as a sport must avail of a facility into which our clubs do not necessarily have an input or in which they do not have a management or governance role. Therefore, our sport is unique in that respect, as I have detailed in the full submission which examines two options, namely, getting a leisure facility to state its intentions - I am aware some facilities are adult only - or including its employees in Schedule 1 mandating them to report.

I echo what Mr. Ó Maolmhicil said on the issue of vetting and providing for flexibility. We would welcome flexibility in vetting. As we all have different vetting policies, what is acceptable to one sport may not be acceptable to another. Unfortunately, that will always be the case. It might be okay for somebody who has been convicted of a drink driving offence to run up and down the side of a GAA pitch as a linesman, but that person may not be suitable to drive a minibus full of people. A sports organisation would have such information on a person and the issue is not so much about vetting but about the information being portable.

On the issue of indemnity insurance for volunteers, there will be fear among our volunteers, as there was five, six, seven or eight years ago when we first started to provide child protection training and began to make the role of club children's officers and designated persons mandatory. We overcame that fear through the provision of training and support, which comes from the national governing body. The provision of training and support and clear guidance on the legal responsibilities of our volunteers will help to assuage any fear they might have.

Ms Miriam Malone

I agree with my colleagues. We are all in the same boat on many of the points made and questions raised. I will deal with a number of them.

On indemnity insurance, it is not currently an issue because the Bill providing for it has not yet been enacted. It is something we could examine. Our employees are indemnified if they adhere to our policies and procedures. This is something we would have to examine to determine if it would be an option for our volunteers also.

On the issue of vetting, I echo the comments of other speakers that providing for portability would be excellent. A major issue we must examine is that of resources in trying to ensure we have all of our volunteers vetted. Our suggestion is that there be phased introduction of the provision included in the Bill, that it not be implemented overnight and that it start on a certain date. That would allow us to make sure we have the resources in place.

The other areas were covered by previous speakers and I will not take up the time of the committee by repeating what they said.

Chairman

I sincerely thank all of the delegates for attending, the quality of their presentations and the work they have undertaken prior to this, not only following the publication of the heads of the Bill. We have a busy summer of sport ahead and I wish all the organisations the very best of luck, be it in the European Championships, the Olympic Games, the all-Ireland championships and the swimming championships. I thank them for their great work.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 12.50 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome the delegates in this our second session in our consideration of the draft heads of the Children First Bill 2012. Our engagement in this session will be with representatives of the youth work sector. I take the opportunity to remind all speakers to be cognisant of the time constraints in making their contributions. I welcome the delegates from Foróige, the National Youth Council of Ireland and Catholic Youth Care. They are reminded that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected to the matter being discussed is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such as a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Ms Cunningham, director of the National Youth Council of Ireland, to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Cunningham

I thank the Chairman and members for their kind invitation to attend the meeting. The National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, warmly welcomes the heads of the Bill to implement the Children First guidelines and the opportunity to discuss our views in this regard with the joint committee. The council is the representative body for 50 national voluntary youth organisations which work with and for young people in every community, village, town and city in Ireland. Our vision is one where all young people are empowered to develop the skills and confidence to participate fully as active citizens in an inclusive society. The NYCI's role is recognised in legislation, via the Youth Work Act 2001, and we were designated as a social partner organisation in 1986.

The NYCI very much welcomes the Government's proposal to place the Children First guidance on a statutory basis, something for which we have campaigned and lobbied for many years. This development will help to ensure the current Children First guidance is strengthened and will assist in the protection of children and young people. We also welcome the opportunity to be part of the consultation on the heads of the Bill, as part of which we intend to conduct extensive consultation with our member organisations for future submission to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The youth work sector is strongly of the view that child protection is everybody's responsibility and has long been committed to best practice in its work. The NYCI has played a key role in the protection of children and young people through its provision of child protection support, training, information and Garda vetting for our member organisations.

The NYCI's child protection programme delivers a range of training programmes to the youth work sector, from basic awareness, designated persons training to a new level 5 certificate in child protection which we are delivering in partnership with the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. We directly train approximately 800 youth workers each year and indirectly, through a cascade system of training the trainers, more than 8,000 volunteers and paid staff. We also provide a Garda vetting consortium for more than 60 small youth work organisations, through which we process approximately 2,500 vetting applications a year on their behalf.

The NYCI's membership is very diverse, ranging from small, specialist organisations, run entirely by volunteers in some cases, to large-scale organisations with significant numbers of staff and many thousands of volunteers.

I intend to outline several key areas which we hope will be considered by the committee. Being mindful of presentations by other organisations, I do not intend to repeat their concerns, many of which we share. Instead I will focus specifically on issues for our own sector, under six headings, rather than under the heads of the Bill listed.

First, the proposed legal obligations for all organisations working with young people are to be broadly welcomed, as they will require organisations to have safeguards in place. However, concerns arise in respect of volunteer-led organisations which have no or only a small number of paid staff. Volunteers may not have the same access to support, information or training as paid professionals and, although their role in the youth sector and many sports organisations is critical and they work to the very best of their ability, they could face challenges in meeting their legal obligations as proposed in the heads of the Bill. We, therefore, recommend that the needs of volunteer-led groups be taken into account in drafting the Bill and that the committee give consideration to the practical implementation of its provisions. These groups must be provided with sufficient time, support, information, training and advice to ensure their compliance with the Children First guidance.

Second, in regard to the structure of organisations, clarity is also needed for those with regional structures as to the "delegated responsibilities" of the designated officer. This concern has also been articulated by the GAA. A structure which allows for a clear reporting system and identified responsibilities, both locally and centrally, is essential and must be encompassed within the legislation. The draft heads of the Bill are also unclear in respect of the responsibilities of organisations with affiliated and associated groups in terms of reporting procedures and liabilities. There are, for instance, small volunteer-led independent youth clubs with their own governance structure and a board of management, which may be affiliated to a larger organisation which provides support. As drafted, it is unclear as to where the role and responsibilities in regard to the appointment of a designated officer and the requirement for the development of a Keeping Children Safe plan lie. The legislation must take into account the nature of structures within the voluntary youth sector.

The third issue, that of liability, is particularly concerning for volunteer-led groups with no staff, many of which provide important services and supports for young people. Under the heads of the Bill, as drafted, the chairpersons and-or leaders of such groups may feel obliged to assume the role of designated officer, with the added responsibilities that entails, and could potentially be legally liable for non-reporting and, as individuals, may face imprisonment or a fine. This is a significant development for volunteer leaders who, no less than their counterparts in the GAA, are the bedrock of youth services in Ireland. It is vital that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs fully consider the practical implementation of the Bill and what types of structures best meet the needs of a diverse sector, while recognising that volunteers will require adequate information, training and supports. In the absence of that consideration, we are concerned that this provision could undermine volunteer-led youth services. Moreover, it is our view that the legal liability should perhaps be aimed at the organisation rather than the individual volunteer and that consideration be given to whether a civil rather than a criminal offence is applicable. We should be careful about going down the road of criminalising volunteers other than where there is deliberate or malicious non-reporting.

Fourth, if, as proposed, reporting becomes a legal requirement, clear and legally clarified information must be made available on reporting thresholds. Although guidance on reporting has been promised by the Department, the lack of information contained in the heads of the Bill has the potential to lead to confusion or misunderstanding. Many organisations in the youth work sector work with very vulnerable young people and increasingly with those who are considered at risk. All staff, volunteers, mandated individuals and designated officers must have clear information on reporting. For example, thresholds for reporting welfare cases which border on neglect are often very difficult to identify. In addition, clear guidance is needed on the reporting of known under-age consensual sexual activity, as this could prevent young people from seeking appropriate information or support from their youth service.

If the youth work sector and other sectors are not given enough time, support and information, the potential for over-reporting could lead to a very difficult situation whereby an already overstretched social work service would not be in a position to meet the increased numbers of reports and, as a result, the small number of young people who need immediate assistance could be overlooked.

The current difficulties in the child protection system do not relate to under-reporting. As far as we are aware, 30,000 child protection or welfare concerns are reported annually to HSE services, of which approximately half can be classified as neglect or welfare while the other half comprise child protection concerns. Of those, 1,500 are confirmed as cases of abuse and when one considers that information, it is important to ask what is determining those thresholds. Is it capacity, resources or the needs of the young people? We recommend that reporting requirements are clarified and clear thresholds for reporting are considered for inclusion in the Bill, especially with regard to welfare and neglect and under-age sexual activity. We realise the pressure the HSE, no more than the youth sector, is under with regard to the changing economic environment. However, we call on the HSE to prioritise the allocation of additional resources, such as social work posts, to provide or to aim to provide a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service nationwide within a reasonable timeframe and to begin reprioritising such resources before the introduction of this legislation and not as an afterthought.

In respect of related legislation, the scope of the Children First Bill is comprehensive and covers a large number of organisations. The scope outlined in the heads of the vetting Bill, however, does not seem to cover organisations or individuals to the same extent. For example, it excludes persons assisting on an occasional, ad hoc, voluntary basis in sports or community or other organisations that involve children or vulnerable adults but where those persons do not have regular or ongoing unsupervised contact with children or vulnerable adults. There is a risk this inconsistency could lead to confusion for organisations. Consequently, we ask for the proposed vetting legislation to be linked to the Children First legislation to ensure consistency and overlap of legal requirements for organisations.

On the role of the HSE, the heads of the Bill give the executive a dual role concerning the implementation of this legislation as a support agency and as a monitor of Children First compliance. Although the legislative basis for the support function of the HSE is to be welcomed, we are concerned at the potential conflict with the monitoring function for the Act also being held by the HSE. We are concerned this may inhibit or prevent some organisations from seeking the support they need, thereby undermining the implementation of the legislation. We recommend a separate statutory body other than the HSE should be given responsibility for monitoring compliance.

It also is important and, significantly, has been emphasised by the sporting organisations that the supporting guidance documents from the HSE and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs should be developed in consultation with the key constituents in the sectors because we have much experience of implementation on the ground that would be valuable to the guidance documentation and the development of it. Such guidance documents should be made available, if possible beforehand and certainly no later than, the enactment of the legislation.

I thank members for listening to the observations of the National Youth Council of Ireland. No doubt there will be a series of questions at the conclusion, when I will turn to my colleagues to expand on some of the issues we have identified.

Chairman

I thank Ms Cunningham for her presentation and recommendations. I invite Mr. John Cahill, assistant chief executive of Foróige, to make his presentation.

Mr. John Cahill

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today. I represent Foróige, one of Ireland's largest voluntary youth organisations. We work with approximately 57,000 young people across all 26 counties of Ireland, which is facilitated by 5,000 volunteers and 300 staff. We have a long-standing track record in youth development, advocacy and participation, underpinned by strong child protection and welfare policies and practice. Foróige welcomes the publication of the heads of the Children First Bill 2012 and we wish to state, upfront, our absolute commitment to protecting the children and young people of our country from all harm. We recognise the need to progress this legislation effectively and we warmly welcome the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Bill. However, the short timeframe has posed challenges and our views today are preliminary.

There is a series of key areas to which I wish to draw members' attention today, the first being the reporting requirements. I will begin by commenting on the reporting requirements as outlined in the heads. In essence, we recognise that while it is not formally described as such, what is being considered is mandatory reporting. While we broadly welcome this progression from the current situation, we believe mandatory reporting will pose significant challenges for voluntary organisations and the youth sector in particular. For example, organisations could become completely overwhelmed by this requirement as there is a risk that staff and volunteers will report all suspicions no matter how insignificant. This could be amplified further when one takes into account the potential penalties for non-reporting outlined in the heads of the Bill. Significantly increased administrative burdens will be placed both on the youth organisation and on the HSE as a result of the increased recording and reporting requirements.

There is a further risk that staff and volunteers will not speak out at all in the fear that any reference to a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, no matter how unfounded or lacking in evidence, could lead to subsequent censure. There is a risk that the nature of the relationship between adult volunteers and children and young people could be affected as adult volunteers protect themselves against receiving sensitive information or disclosures. It also may act as a barrier to volunteerism as working with children and young people becomes more trouble than it is worth.

If we, as I believe we should, move towards a mandatory reporting scenario, adequate and appropriate supports and resources must be provided to voluntary youth organisations and by voluntary youth organisations to their staff and volunteers. Otherwise, it has the potential to be completely counter-productive and will have a negative impact on our ability to respond to the most vulnerable young people by clogging up the system or reducing the numbers of adults who are willing to volunteer with young people in a number of different interfaces.

The next area I wish to discuss concerns what we perceive to be the investigative function that may be coming in the direction of volunteers and professional youth workers. Our core purpose is youth development and youth education in a non-formal setting. Underpinning this is a commitment to protecting the young people with whom we engage from abuse and neglect. We have clear policy and procedures in respect of protecting young people and regularly submit reports to the HSE on child abuse disclosures or child protection concerns. This proposed legislation potentially changes our role to an investigative function, which we believe to be outside of our expertise.

Head 9(3)(e)(ii) states an organisation will “assist the HSE and participate, when required, in ... the investigation of concerns or allegations of child abuse being undertaken by the HSE”. We are concerned that our staff and volunteers may be asked to assist the HSE with, or participate in, the investigation of concerns or allegations of child abuse. It is our belief that this investigation of child abuse concerns requires the expertise of a trained social worker or a member of An Garda Síochána. If a child or young person is being abused or neglected or is at risk of being abused or neglected, the situation demands that the best and most qualified personnel investigate and validate such concerns. Delegating these responsibilities to youth workers or volunteers is not in the best interests of the child or young person. Moreover, it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship of our youth workers and volunteers with the young people with whom they engage, moving them from the position of mentors and guides into a role that also takes on an investigative function. Once again, I wish to state the commitment of our youth workers and volunteers to providing information both verbally and in written form and to co-operating with the HSE or the Garda in the assessment of risk.

The next area on which I wish to touch has been mentioned by Ms Cunningham and some of the presentations made by the sports organisations, namely, the function of designated officer. There is a lack of clarity on how the function of the designated officer will look within organisations. In one place in the heads of the Bill, it appears as though there will be one designated officer in an organisation while in another, it states such a designated officer can delegate down his or her responsibilities to other managers within the organisation. In an organisation of our size, we believe one designated officer for the entire country is not feasible and has the potential to lead to an inadequate service and response rate to child protection queries and issues. While we accept that there needs to be one person with overall responsibility for child protection within an organisation, it is vital that the function of the designated officer in large organisations can be delegated as appropriate to ensure the optimum response to child abuse and child protection disclosures and issues.

I will now comment on the functions of the HSE as outlined. While Children First stresses the importance of multidisciplinary and inter-agency working in regard to effectively addressing child abuse, there appears to be an imbalance throughout the heads of Bill, with the emphasis for the HSE being all "stick" rather than "carrot". There are very mixed messages in regard to the role of the HSE. For example, in head 12(1)(f) and head 12(4). Under head 12(1)(f) a youth worker who has a concern could telephone a social worker in the HSE to discuss a concern he or she might have. However, if the social worker suggests that it is not a reportable issue - as happens currently in our work with young people - and the youth worker takes this advice and does not report an issue, he or she will be culpable should it arise at a point in the future that there was a child abuse or neglect case. In essence, this means that the social worker’s advice is useless and we risk all issues being reported in order to err on the side of caution so as not to expose the staff member to this risk. There are very few checks and balances in terms of the HSE function with regard to organisation compliance issues. There appears to be no process of appeal to the HSE and the only course of appeal open to an organisation is the District Court. This needs to be considered and addressed.

We welcome the head of the Bill and look forward to continuing to input and comment on the development of the Children First Bill 2012. However, we recognise the challenges we all face, including youth organisations, the HSE, Garda Síochána, legislators and so on, in making this work effectively for the children and young people of Ireland. It would be a derogation of our responsibility in commenting on the heads of Bill not to draw attention to the challenges we all face in the current economic climate and times of cutback. The youth work sector has experienced a significant cut in resources over the past number of years and faces further cuts in future years. The responsibilities laid out for all of us in the heads of Bill require that significant investment be made to ensure that we best serve the interests of our children and young people into the future.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today and wish it the best in its work on this legislation.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cahill for his excellent presentation. We will now hear a final presentation from Mr. Eddie D'Arcy, youth services manager with Catholic Youth Care.

Mr. Eddie D’Arcy

Catholic Youth Care is a Dublin diocesan agency founded in 1944. Its main services include a support service for our 308 affiliated youth groups which comprises approximately 4,000 leaders and 30,000 members and a direct service to at risk young people delivered through our ten regional youth services from a network of 35 youth centres situated in the most marginalised communities in the greater Dublin area.

CYC welcomes the opportunity to present to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children on the heads of the Children First Bill 2012. We also warmly welcome publication of the heads of the Bill and the Government decision to place the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing. We congratulate the Minister and her staff on prioritising this Bill and hope it will have a speedy passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Our response to the Bill is generally positive. However, we take this opportunity to raise a number of concerns regarding the Bill and its eventual successful implementation. The first issue of concern is the responsibility of the HSE to define adequately the threshold levels at which it is appropriate to submit a report. It is of significant importance to ensure that the reporting system is not swamped. Threshold levels need to be agreed nationally. We have some concerns around this issue from our experience in the greater Dublin area. We would question the driving of different thresholds in different areas by way of resources.

My experience, as a member of the child protection committee for area 5, is that up to 90% of existing reports fall into the category of welfare where the response from the HSE may be no response or a limited response. This creates a serious difficulty for our services where the existing procedures require us to inform a family that we are making a report. This generally damages the relationship we have painstakingly built up and often results in the withdrawal of a child from the service at a time when we might be the only service engaged with that child or young person. As participation in our programmes is purely voluntary, the withdrawal of the child places him or her more at risk. The Bill refers frequently to the need to make a report in the best interests of the child. Under existing procedures, such a report might result in the withdrawal of the child from our particular or other services, which would not be in the best interests of the child. As such, we would like that provision reviewed. Feedback on reports to our services from the HSE is poor or non-existent. We often struggle to find out if the HSE is intervening with the child-family.

We believe the Bill limits the legislation measure to the section of Children First which deals with reporting of child abuse. While we agree that this section is of utmost importance and should be placed on a statutory footing, areas of Children First, including the State's response to the reports and the management of same, are not covered by the Bill as proposed. We believe this is a wasted opportunity.

The other main area of concern to our services is around thresholds for older teenagers, in particular 15 to 18 year olds. All our direct services work with children and young people at risk. Staff are concerned about the requirement to report on relatively commonplace behaviours of which they are aware, including, consensual peer sexual activity; alcohol and drug misuse and involvement in high risk criminal activity. Our detached youth work teams working on the street have particular concerns around what they will be required to report. The establishment of a good youth work relationship is key to influencing these young people and the reporting of these behaviours to another agency may make establishment of a relationship with this cohort of vulnerable young people almost impossible.

We also have some concerns regarding the exclusion of employers of children from mandatory reporting. We recognise that there is in place other legislation which protects young people in employment, however, we are concerned whether such legislation provides enough protection. We are also concerned about young people being preyed upon by those in positions of power in employment. We would like relevant legislation in this regard to be tied into this legislation. Anecdotal evidence from staff is that occasionally young people are placed in very difficult positions in places of employment where they are preyed upon by much older members of staff.

We are concerned also about the term "appropriate gender mix" in terms of adult supervision of children and young people. We believe that depending on its interpretation that term could cause a difficulty for some youth groups. Many of our groups and clubs, in particular those working with the younger age group, are operated exclusively by women, although membership of the group is generally mixed. We are confident that this poses no additional threat to the young people with whom they work and would prefer the term to be changed to "appropriate adult supervision". As other organisations have mentioned, the omission in the definition of abuse of any reference to emotional abuse is of concern. We would like that definition broadened to include emotional abuse.

The introduction to the Bill refers to increased resources provided by the State in the area of child protection. The loss of the small grant, €30,000, to large national youth organisations, which was a contribution towards the cost of volunteer vetting and child protection training, does not demonstrate the Department's commitment to ensuring high quality child protection services. We have vetted 6,861 volunteers in the past five years, which placed a huge burden on the organisation. The €30,000 grant per annum was a small contribution towards administrative support for that process. The withdrawal of this grant not alone to CYC but to Foróige and Youth Work Ireland, does not demonstrate any huge commitment to child protection.

Chairman

I thank Mr. D'Arcy for his presentation. I now call Deputy Charlie McConalogue.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I welcome all of our delegates to today's meeting and thank them for the presentations on behalf of their organisations. The exercise of their coming here at this early stage in the process, having assessed what is in the minds of the Department in terms of the future Heads of the Bill, is an important one, which allows us, as Members of the Dáil and Seanad, to take on board their views in terms of ensuring the legislation that will be enacted will work and improves our child protection system. It is evident from the presentations that the organisations have given much thought to the heads of this Bill. I thank the witnesses for their well considered views.

The witnesses, in particular Ms Cunningham and Mr. Cahill, set out their concerns in relation to the proposed criminal penalties in respect of volunteers, which is a serious issue. Mr. Cahill or Ms Cunningham mentioned that civil penalties should be considered instead of criminal ones. Do the witnesses believe the introduction of mandatory reporting and sanctions will improve the system and are welcome? They raised some concerns, in particular in regard to voluntary officers. Do they believe this is the right way to go?

Mr. D'Arcy referred to the difficulty faced by those at the coalface trying to liaise with young people in need and the importance of the relationship built up in terms of assisting them. His outline of the complications there in terms of when to report and when not to do so was very instructive. It is something to which we need to give strong consideration in terms of looking at how this Bill will finish up. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank each of the panel for appearing before the committee and for giving us their advices. I welcome each of the submissions, which were very insightful. I am in agreement with the broad range of the recommendations provided by Ms Cunningham. I would like to ask about the last one in regard to the role of the HSE and this duplication of responsibility in terms of implementation and the monitoring of compliance. She commends a separate statutory body to have responsibility for monitoring and compliance. Has she any particular body in mind? I am curious to know if we could tease that out a little bit. The principle of what she said made good sense but I would like us to explore that for a moment. Could she elaborate?

The Foróige presentation was a comprehensive effort. I thank Foróige and commend it on all its good work. I very much welcome Mr. Cahill's reference to the challenges faced by organisations in the current financial climate. I raised this issue only on Tuesday when the interdepartmental implementation group appeared before the committee. I am still waiting for an answer to the same question as to whether there was interdepartmental acceptance - not only in terms of children and youth affairs - that the legislation, when enacted, will not be the panacea for all the issues unless it is properly resourced. I am still waiting and it is now Thursday. That was the sole and solitary question which was not addressed by the principal here the other day. It was quite vexing to think of that afterwards. I am very unhappy about that and I am happy to put that on the record and to let it filter down. Resourcing is critical if this is to work. I say well done Mr. Cahill in that regard.

In regard to the investigative function - I suppose this is about language and interpretation - I appreciate very well Mr. Cahill's concern as presented in that section of his contribution. I am not so sure that "assist" is contemporaneous with "delegating". There is undoubtedly a difference of intent. I do not think we are looking to see a situation where youth workers, volunteers and mentors become investigators. Assisting and investigating are two very different functions in my view. Mr. Cahill finished up by stating, "In written form and to co-operate with the HSE or the gardaí in the assessment of risk". My view is that "assist" would equate more than final choice of language, namely, "co-operate". I am not totally comfortable with the association of "assist" and "delegating". It is not the intention but perhaps Mr. Cahill has alerted us to a need to more clearly reflect on that.

I thank Mr. D'Arcy for his contribution. I am less familiar with the work of Catholic Youth Care which is very much a Dublin-focused organisation and would not cross my radar in terms of my own constituency experience. However, I was very impressed by the points he made. We are only dealing with the heads of the Bill and have not seen the legislation. Mr. D'Arcy said the existing procedures require one to inform the family that one is making a report. There is no clear indication that will necessarily continue. I fully agree that the scenario Mr. D'Arcy painted is a real one and this is the dilemma. The child must be the priority consideration. That action of itself could very likely impact negatively on the child's situation and well-being going forward. Mr. D'Arcy made a very valid point and I thank him for that.

I refer to the State's response to the reports. This goes back to Mr. Cunningham's point on resourcing. I agree that Children First only goes so far. I instanced the other day, when the interdepartmental implementation group appeared before the committee, that there is a major flaw. Serious cases are referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sadly at this moment in time, the DPP will advise of its decision but will offer no explanation as to why it may take an action or not act at all. This is creating terrible and ongoing hurt and pain for many. The DPP offers no elaboration or explanation. Ultimately, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is part of the State's response to the reports and, in my experience of the situation, it is far from ideal at this moment in time.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout

I thank the organisations for appearing before us. It is a tribute to them that they are very clearly implementing the Children First guidance as it is. The legislation will not necessary change things. They have raised some very new issues for us as a committee - perhaps some very nuanced issues. They are very useful for us because they will have an effect on other organisations. I refer, in particular, to the consistency of the legislation, the National Vetting Bureau Bill, the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill and the Children First guidance. How that will impact on organisations and the resourcing question are very real. That is something we will have to consider further.

A very important issue raised was the threshold for reporting and the responsibility of the individual, the organisation and the HSE. Mr. D'Arcy very clearly articulated the relationship of trust. That is something special youth work has. From my experience, one should train people to report the facts as they know them and not investigate. Youth workers should be told to report the facts. To get action from a report, the HSE exaggerates what it perceives to be the risks because it has a relationship of trust with a child. Central information poses an issue, in that youth workers only tend to know one aspect of a child's life. How can we ensure that the facts about the child's case as they are known are reported and linked with other people's work? This relates to the National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI's question on who would monitor the HSE in this role and whether it would be appropriate. I look forward to our guests' answer.

Deputy Ó Caoláin articulated his point clearly, but my question is on the issue of the designated officer, for example, volunteer-led organisations or local groups in towns. These can be great initiatives involving young people joining together to work on an art project or so on and we do not want to stifle their creativity or wrap them up in paperwork before they begin. Is there a role for vocational education committees, VECs, local youth services or other State bodies? I would welcome our guests' thoughts in this regard. What can be done to allow an individual organisation's creativity? Even if it only lasts for a year or two, it could be important to a community's life.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I apologise, as I must go to the Dáil Chamber.

Chairman

Does Mr. Cahill want to begin?

Mr. John Cahill

I will revert to the Chairman's reference. I am interested in the discussion on the investigative function, which was made specifically in response to my comments. The issue is one of definitions and clarity. We need to understand the investigative function, as it is not clear. We regularly interface with the HSE concerning vulnerable young people. In the main, there is a clear understanding of the HSE's function and our youth work function. During those times when the HSE is under particular strain, though, there are attempts to move the boundary slightly and we are asked to gather further information. This is not our skillset and has the potential to impact on the young person's relationship with a youth worker or volunteer. I am raising a flag because the language is not sufficiently clear. It needs to be tightened up so that less value is not placed on youth work and we can do what we do well. It is not that we are not prepared to co-operate or provide information. Rather, we must ensure that the definition is clear and young people's interests are best served.

Ms Mary Cunningham

Deputy McConalogue raised a number of questions. In principle, no one could disagree with the need to introduce mandatory reporting. If asked whether people should be required to report child protection concerns, it would be remiss of our organisation to say "No". We are all too aware of the horrendous cases that were reported recently. Had there been a requirement to report, young people would not have been left in those situations for so long and the damage to them could have been minimised. Safeguards, checks and balances need to be built into that obligation.

We identified an organisation in our initial submission but decided that doing so had been inappropriate. Having been asked a specific question, I have an opportunity to respond on the issue. The committee may be aware that the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, had a 12-month consultation period on the development of child protection standards. The NYCI and some supporting organisations fed into that process. HIQA's intention is to have a monitoring role in the compliance of standards among HSE-funded projects and services. There is a natural opportunity to consider how that role could be extended to include, for example, a role in monitoring compliance with Children First legislation or extended to cover organisations that receive other forms of State funding.

We could not agree more with Deputy Ó Caoláin regarding the challenges posed by financial cutbacks. Adequate resourcing is critical to the implementation of the legislation. Ireland could check a box by passing legislation, but there are instances of excellent legislation and poor implementation. A former civil servant referred to Ireland as having an implementation deficit disorder. By making resources available, we can ensure that there is no such disorder in respect of this legislation.

I will address the language of assisting. The media tells us of people assisting the police with inquiries. It has a particular meaning in that context. Therefore, it is important that we drill into the term's meaning.

Senator van Turnhout referred to training. When we deliver training to volunteers and paid staff who do not have special responsibility for child protection, we provide guidance on reporting the facts as they know them. Indeed, we deter people from investigating because of the issues of skills and competence to which Mr. Cahill referred. For the most part, the people in question are from the same communities and neighbourhoods and know the families and individuals involved. We do not want to create a situation in which neighbours investigate neighbours. It could be dangerous. We want to focus on building competence and confidence in volunteers and staff regarding the responsibilities appropriate to their placement within the organisation. Absolute clarity is necessary.

The point about ensuring clarity regarding a designated officer is important. While there may be an organisational accountability in terms of the named person whose neck is on the line if the system fails, some of that role's functions need to be delegated to other levels within the organisation. It will not be a case of one size fits all. The legislation needs to be mindful of the requirement for flexibility.

Senator van Turnhout referred to well-meaning individuals deciding to do something for a community's young people, for example, a Tuesday evening club. Such individuals should not be prevented or deterred from providing a valuable service. Deciding on what to do with such groups will be a challenge for us. Outside this meeting, we had a conversation on the relationship between an organisation, its affiliated groups and the unaffiliated groups it supports. We do not know the answer. We may need to consider moving solo groups under the umbrella of an organisation that can provide the supports, information and training required.

Mr. Eddie D’Arcy

I will be brief. We all welcome the Bill as a means of placing our guidelines on a statutory footing. However, it will be a wasted opportunity if it is focused on reporting and vetting only. The Bill seems to tell the voluntary and sporting organisations what they should be doing but it does not place any requirements on the State in any way. In my view, that is a wasted opportunity. I would like this Bill to provide the opportunity to insist that the HSE must respond to a report within a certain period of time and that it must inform those who make the report what its response will be. I would also like the Bill to enable me as a youth worker to have a conversation with a social worker and make a report and to protect me so that I do not have to inform the family unless it gets to a point where the HSE is going to do something about it. The reason is I do not want the child I am working with to lose the one service that is giving us some support at the moment and also place him or her at even greater risk. I want the Bill to be able to sort out the situation whereby volunteers currently must undergo five or six different vetting procedures with five or six different organisations which is a huge waste of everybody's time. If the committee can do those three or four simple things for me, I will be a very happy man.

Chairman

As there are no other questions, I thank everyone for their attendance today and for the quality of the presentation. I thank the delegates for the presentation, for their views and for their willingness to engage with the committee members. When the Bill is published there will be further opportunities to discuss it. I wish the delegates continued success in their work.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 May 2012.