Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2012

Children First Bill 2012: Discussion (Resumed)

I welcome Moira Leydon, assistant general secretary and Ms Sally Maguire, vice president, from the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland; Ms Anne McElduff, assistant general secretary and Ms Anne Fay, president central executive committee from the Irish National Teachers Organisation; Mr. John McGabhann, general secretary and Ms Bernie Judge, education and research officer from the Teachers Union of Ireland; and Mr. David Ruddy, legal adviser from the Irish Primary Principals Network.

The committee has been discussing the heads of the Children First Bill 2012 for the past month. It is important the committee hears from the education sector, so I am looking forward to hearing from the various representatives today.

I remind those present that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee 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, or ruling of the Chair, 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.

Going alphabetically, I invite Ms Moira Leydon of the ASTI to make her opening statement.

Ms Moira Leydon

I thank the Chairman and other members of the committee for this opportunity to speak. We are confident that what we have to say as educators will be of assistance to the joint committee, even if we are coming in at this late stage.

I need hardly mention the unique, formative role teachers play in the lives of young people. It is not just that teachers are with young people every day of the week for several months of the year. A distinct aspect of their role is that they are looking at young people in the context of their peers, including what is normal or difficult behaviour. Teachers therefore have quite a privileged position, which is a real strength in our system that we will drawn upon into the future.

I want to make two or three observations on the heads of the Bill itself, and then come to sector or teacher-specific concerns. My colleagues and I have a degree of unanimity in our thinking in any case, so I can leave the different areas to be taken up by our colleagues.

It is important to put on the public record the good standing of the teaching profession concerning child protection. If we cast our minds back to the dark days of 1991 following the Kilkenny incest report, we subsequently had the introduction of a child abuse prevention programme. It is fair to say the teaching profession was to the fore in advocating the universal provision of that programme in the system. We now have high quality courses and programmes in schools, which are culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate.

I emphasise that while society faces enormous challenges, we do have strengths in our system. We have a good bedrock in schools concerning how to engage in all manner of social, health and personal education, which is particularly important for vulnerable children.

The committee has received a copy of our submission. Practically all present are members of the Children's Rights Alliance and I pay tribute to Senator Jillian van Turnhout for the great leadership she has given in the past. We echo the concerns highlighted in the Children's Rights Alliance submission, including the failure to include terminology on the best interests of the child, or rather, confusion in aspects of the terminology. The narrow definition of abuse in head 2, for example, is not consonant with existing guidelines in schools. There is also a lack of clarity as to the relationship between the national guidelines, the status of Children First 2011, and the potential future legislation.

There is a need for coherence across the raft of new and emerging legislation, including that concerning the Garda vetting bureau, and the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012. We need to get it right by having coherence in implementation, consistency of provision and a phased commencement of legislation.

The teaching profession does not have a problem with the designation of teachers as mandated professionals. It is a new role and will present challenges, but their duty to protect children is a universal one. The teaching profession is ready for that. The real problem lies in the capacity of our schools, and I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about that. The Department of Education and Skills has a particular duty in this regard to ensure that in developing its sectoral plan, referred to in the heads, it will step up to the mark and start to deliver the policy templates and, above all, the consistent training that will be required. This is not a once-off, one-day training course. We are talking about a programme of consistent training for all teachers who are all designated professionals.

We are extremely concerned about the criminal sanction of prosecution in heads 11 and 20. Like the Children's Rights Alliance, we believe it is unworkable in practice and should be reconsidered. We believe that an accountable organisational culture will emerge not because of fear of persecution or prosecution but rather when there is a shared understanding that it is everybody's duty to be mindful and aware of vulnerable children, child welfare, child neglect and child abuse.

As we represent principals, we are particularly concerned about the potential criminal liability the Bill conjoins to the role of a designated officer. Organisational cultures are driven by leaders. With their colleagues, principals are the leaders in our schools. There is already a huge problem in schools in terms of attracting high-calibre candidates to the post of principalship. We would be concerned that unduly highlighting their role for potential criminal liability will adversely affect the profession into the future.

Yesterday, I read in full the independent report on the deaths of children in State care. It is devastating to read as a parent, citizen and someone working with the teaching profession. No one could read that report and not feel a sense of collective shame for the way society let these extraordinarily vulnerable children down. We need to change that. As legislators, members of the joint committee have an extraordinary opportunity, and a duty commensurate with that, to ensure we do not have such reports again.

On behalf of the ASTI, I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to communicate these points. We will be happy, obviously, to take questions subsequently. That is all I wanted to say. My colleagues will be more than eloquent in making their points.

I thank Ms Leydon for her presentation and observations. I now call on Ms Fay of the INTO to make her presentation.

Ms Anne Fay

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. The INTO welcomes this invitation to discuss the Children First Bill 2012. In addition, the INTO welcomes the publication of this Bill, which will strengthen the protection afforded to children by the State. The INTO strongly supports any measures which strengthen protections afforded to children and children's rights, specifically compliance with Children First.

Our organisation has a strong and proud tradition in the protection of children as evidenced, for example, in our participation in and contribution to the working group which reviewed and published the Department of Education and Skills child protection guidelines for schools in 2011 as departmental circular 65/2011. These guidelines, which are based on the revised Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children, or CF guidelines, update the 2001 Department guidelines and provide a solid guidance for how schools deal with child protection issues.

Since 1987, we have also fully supported the development and implementation of the Stay Safe programme in schools. In addition teachers have participated in all available training and continuous professional development, CPD, in the area of child protection. In this regard the primary development service for teachers, known as the PDST, has confirmed that over the last school year, 2011-12, there were 44 full-day child protection seminars for newly appointed designated liaison persons, DLPs, and 36 information sessions for other DLPs on the new 2011 procedures. Approximately 2,000 primary school DLPs and-or deputy DLPs attended those sessions. In addition, more than 600 primary schools availed of in-school support sessions on child protection offered by the child abuse prevention programme, known as CAPP, now operating under the PDST.

As regards reporting, the 2001 guidelines for schools stated that it was "incumbent" on teachers and schools to adhere to them, and this is precisely what occurred. The revised 2011 guidelines state that "all boards of management are now required to formally adopt and implement these procedures". This formal obligation is entirely consistent with the provisions of this new Children First Bill, since the guidelines applicable to schools are tightly based on CF guidelines. Thus, INTO members are well aware of their responsibilities and have been fulfilling those diligently.

Having set out our broad view, the INTO has a number of specific concerns, mainly about practical matters and specifically some significant contradictions between the proposals in the Bill and Children First itself, which has just been reviewed in 2011. In this regard, head 5 of the Bill places a statutory obligation on organisations and employees, when reporting child abuse, to "have due regard to Children First", while at the same time other heads of the Bill, for example, heads 7 and 9, differ substantially and vary from the national CF guidelines. We submit that this inherent contradiction in the Bill must be resolved before publication in the interests of children and the efficacy of the reporting structures overall.

Our concerns in this regard include the definitions. The definitions of neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse are inconsistent with those in the Children First guidelines. While the primary definition of neglect itself is broadly the same in both the CF guidelines and the Bill, in the CF guidelines harm is defined at 2.2.2, in addition to the definition of neglect. Also, at 2.2.3, there is a clarification on how neglect generally becomes apparent. Furthermore, at 2.2.4, it is stated that "The threshold of significant harm is reached when the child's needs are neglected to the extent that his or her well-being and/or development are severely affected". This is an important indicator for those who must decide whether or not to report concerns they may have.

The definition of physical abuse in the Bill varies substantially from that in the Children First guidelines. The definition in the guidelines extends to "potential physical harm from an interaction ...", and also includes lack of interaction in the definition of physical abuse. However, it also incorporates the clause that the interaction or lack of interaction must be, "reasonably within the control of a parent or person in a position of responsibility, power or trust". This clause is omitted from the definition in the children first Bill. The Children First guidelines also state, "There may be single or repeated incidents". and adds to the definition by explicitly listing 11 potential forms of physical abuse. While the general guidance for recognition outlined in the Bill is helpful, the absence of detail from the definitions is not helpful in giving volunteers, mandated professionals and designated officers the knowledge and confidence to identify and report abuse.

There are similarly noteworthy discrepancies between the Bill and the guidelines in defining sexual abuse. In addition, emotional abuse has been excluded entirely from the definitions of abuse in the Bill. We are concerned that lack of clarity around the definition of abuse may make it difficult for schools and teachers to confidently identify and report abuse. Clarity in definitions is essential in order to ensure consistency in implementation across the spectrum, including across 3,000 primary schools.

Another concern is that schools, as organisations, play an important role in children's lives and, therefore, it is right and proper that they are included in the full scope of the Bill in accordance with head 6, and INTO fully supports this. In respect of what is expected of schools, we wish to put the following to the committee. Head 7 specifies considerable additional responsibilities which have not been either specified or required heretofore by Children First guidelines and it is not clear whether these are necessary and will assist further in the protection of children. For example, there are three documents mentioned, namely the keeping children safe plan, the safeguarding guidance for organisations and the guidance for the reporting of abuse. It is important when these are published that these documents will either dovetail with or add to existing required practices in schools on identifying potential abuse and making referrals. We are concerned that the requirements to establish and comply with these plans takes no account of the present system which obliges schools to have child protection policies pursuant to Children First guidelines and also to report regularly to the board of management. The same applies in our concerns about the practicality of the proposed internal audit committee within the current structures in primary schools.

The INTO has significant concerns that the additional responsibilities and duties specified in the Bill are more appropriate to large organisations and are not consistent with the reality of how schools operate. As no doubt the committee will be aware, there are 3,165 primary schools, 45.9% of which have fewer than 100 pupils. These schools are managed by boards of management who give their time on a voluntary basis and who possess varying levels of expertise. Also, in 62% of schools the day-to-day management is carried out by a teaching principal. The additional responsibilities on organisations set out in the Bill will place considerable demands on school management, principals and teachers and we have significant concerns about capacity in this regard, particularly considering the current moratorium on appointments to assistant principal and special duties posts. Accordingly, we would recommend that head 7 be altered to ensure that the objective of achieving effective reporting systems are consistent with Children First and with the practicalities affecting the daily operation of schools. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the proposed changes to Children First really will make a difference and that any additional duties and responsibilities as may eventually be enacted, will in reality improve matters at local level.

We also have a concern regarding head 9. The proposed role of the designated officer substantially departs from and expands upon the role of the designated liaison person in the Children First guidelines. We would have considerable concerns about this and do not believe that this proposed change is in the best interests of children. Consistent with Children First, the Department's Circular 65/11 provides that, "It is not the responsibility of school personnel to assess or investigate or to make enquiries of parents/carers, and in some cases it could be counter-productive for them to do so.". This approach, which was twice endorsed in the national guidelines, Children First, is at variance to the proposal at head 9 that the designated officer should "assist ... and participate", in the assessment of risk and in the investigation of allegations of abuse. It is our view that expanding a school's role to include investigation would jeopardise the unique position of trust which schools hold within a community. Also, it has been consistently impressed upon us by the HSE that assessment of risk and investigation require specialised expertise and training. Furthermore, assessment of risk and investigation necessitate the specific authority and power assigned to social workers to, for example, enter a family home, interview other personnel and parents. In all the circumstances, we would ask that the contents of head 9 be reviewed and re-drafted in the interests of all concerned. Also, we would query where the balance of responsibility would fall between the principal, as the designated officer, and the board of management, as the organisation.

In terms of statutory reporting, the designation of registered teachers as professionals statutorily charged with reporting child abuse - we assume not only Teaching Council members as set out in Schedule 1 of the Bill-----

Ms Anne McElduff

I think it is a typo.

Ms Anne Fay

-----is a notable new development. Under head 20 such a person who fails to report, without reasonable cause, concerns or allegations of child abuse is guilty of an offence. The INTO fully supports placing reporting and investigation of child protection concerns and allegations on a statutory footing. However, we would call upon the committee to clarify the circumstances in which sanctions in head 20 would be apportioned. We strongly suggest that the proposed legislation would be consistent with the spirit of section 176 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, whereby an offence is committed if:

A person, having authority or control over a child or abuser, who intentionally or recklessly endangers a child by—

(a) causing or permitting any child to be placed or left in a situation which creates a substantial risk to the child of being a victim of serious harm or sexual abuse, or

(b) failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child from such a risk while knowing that the child is in such a situation,

Head 12 sets out significantly expanded responsibilities for the HSE in the provision of advice and information and the promotion of best practice. Heads 13 and 14 deal with monitoring of organisations by the HSE. This is in addition to responsibilities outlined on dealing with reports in accordance with section 3 of the Child Care Act 1991. We are concerned that this is inconsistent with the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald's, announcement on 10 May 2012 that a new stand-alone child and family support agency will take over responsibility for child protection from the Health Service Executive early next year.

While we believe the as yet unpublished documents referred to in the children first Bill, namely guidance for the reporting of abuse and safeguarding guidance for organisations, could be useful, we would insist upon them being practical and workable. Therefore, it would be important to ensure that INTO and all other relevant parties would have input into their development through a working group. In order to comprehensively adhere effectively to all elements of the children first Bill, it is essential that whole-staff training and support should be provided for every school in Ireland. INTO, once again, would like to put on the record the absolute commitment of its members to the protection of children.

I invite Mr. David Ruddy from the Irish Primary Principals Network to make his opening statement.

Mr. David Ruddy

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN. Our organisation represents 3,300 primary school principals and deputy principals. Almost all of our primary school principals will be charged with the role of designated officer under this legislation. As school principals, we welcome the Bill as reflecting a serious commitment by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to put Children First on a statutory footing. We are conscious of the trust that parents have placed in us to safeguard and protect their children while in our care. After all, teachers are parents' substitutes during school hours. Ms Fay has noted that fewer than one third of primary school principals are administrative principals, with the remainder being required to teach classes. As a former school principal, Deputy Dowds, will be aware of the difficulties that arise in making referrals to and receiving calls from the HSE while simultaneously teaching class.

The IPPN is concerned about the exclusion of emotional abuse from the proposed legislation. When Children First was published in 1999, it defined emotional abuse, but now we find that it has been dropped. I believe that one of the reasons for dropping emotional abuse was because most investigations were pursued on the basis of sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect. However, bullying in school is one reason for including the concept of emotional abuse. Schools have to deal with bullying day to day and interactions in the community or in cyberspace tend to be revisited in the school setting. The IPPN suggests that emotional abuse should be included in the Bill. I see no good reason for its exclusion and ask the committee to use its influence to persuade the Minister to include emotional abuse.

We are also concerned about the proposed involvement of designated officers in investigations on behalf of the HSE. At present the task of the designated officer is to report concerns to the HSE, which has the expertise to investigate them. School principals have a position of trust in their communities. If we start investigating we will be in big trouble because our position would be compromised and the relationship would be broken. I suggest that investigations should be the responsibility of the Garda and the HSE and that head 9 should be deleted. This provision also creates a statutory conflict with sections 22 and 23 of the Education Act 1998, which set out the functions of school principals. Investigating criminal activity is not among our functions under the 1998 Act.

Head 12(4) inserts the following bizarre provision: "Advice provided by the HSE ... is not a defence for not reporting concerns or allegations of abuse". The IPPN is alarmed by this provision. Where a principal or designated officer has a concern, he she will usually contact the HSE for advice on whether the concern should be reported. If the HSE advises that the matter should not be reported and something untoward happens subsequently, the designated officer would not be able to rely on the defence that he or she acted on the advice of the HSE. If this provision is retained, the IPPN will be advising principals and designated officers to report everything because that is the only way they will be able to safeguard their standing. I do not know why this provision was included and ask that it be deleted.

I will now address the issue of Garda vetting. If a school principal has to employ a substitute teacher at short notice, he or she would advertise on a website and in the current economic climate could receive up to 100 responses. Thankfully, the departmental guidelines supporting Children First require a substitute teacher to present a vetting certificate issued by the Teaching Council, produce a statutory declaration that nothing untoward had happened in respect of child protection during the 12 months since he or she was vetted and sign a letter of undertaking to the school to the effect that nothing untoward has happened since the statutory declaration. This triple lock is most welcome. Not long ago a situation arose whereby a member of the journalism profession turned up at a school to substitute teach for one day in order to write an article for the following Sunday's newspaper. The irony of this system is that the majority of school principals and senior staff are not vetted. The gamekeepers have not been vetted. A number of principals have suggested to me that we do not have credibility to enforce this system if we are not vetted ourselves. We would be grateful if the committee gave its consideration to this issue.

We believe we are working in the dark in examining this legislation because the Keeping Children Safe plan and the guidance for reporting abuse and safeguarding organisations referred to in head 15 have not yet been published. These documents need to be published before we can properly consider the legislation.

I ask the committee to examine the role and capacity of principals in meeting the requirements under the Bill. We want to make it work but if its demands are too onerous, we might end up reporting everything. The system is already stretched but proper guidance could assist schools in understanding the thresholds at which they should report.

I welcome Mr. John McGabhann and Ms Bernie Judge from the Teachers Union of Ireland and invite Ms Judge to make her opening statement.

Ms Bernie Judge

As much of what I am going to say has already been covered, I hope members will not be too bored. It is important to reiterate the arguments, however.

The Government's efforts to strengthen the legislative base in the area of child protection and welfare is long overdue and welcome. As we all agree, it provides an opportunity to build confidence in the system as a whole and to create a foundation for adequate structures, systems and resourcing. This last is important and I will revert to it.

As an organisation that represents those in constant contact with and who have a duty of care to young people in post-primary schools and other education settings the Bill is remiss in that it fails to note a range of settings in which people will have responsibility. This must be corrected. The Teachers Union of Ireland is aware of the importance of clear and comprehensive guidance in respect of child welfare and protection. To this end and as others have noted, we have engaged extensively with the Department of Education and Skills and other education partners in preparing the child protection procedures for primary and post-primary schools, which were activated by a departmental circular in 2011. Some of the Bill's provisions seem to challenge and undermine a number of these procedures and will place duress on the system in terms of lack of clarity.

The forthcoming legislation must be fit for purpose, responsive and instill confidence among those affected, including those charged with responsibility for implementing and monitoring. In this regard, I have concerns with a number of the draft Bill's provisions, first of which is the area of policy alignment, definitions and interpretation. A close relationship between this legislation and other policy contexts and documentation is assumed. The overlap in the suite of documentation, guidelines and legislation that will be relevant to child welfare and protection is inevitable, given the range of players and the number of agencies involved. However, the alignment of policy and clarity of message are essential if the legislation is to work in the best interests of children and young people. Definitions and language must provide coherence, but the heads of this Bill undermine the level of clarity created by previous work in the sector.

Discrepancies and inconsistencies are inevitably obvious at this stage. Proofing is justified if we are to avoid confusion and resolve the lack of clarity. The example of emotional abuse has been mentioned and we advocate that it be re-included in this Bill. The TUI notes the complexity of emotional abuse and teachers' reported difficulties in being able to identify it. Therefore, we call for a commitment to a high level of resourcing and training to support teachers and schools in their future functions.

A number of other inconsistencies have been mentioned. For example, the term "concern" is ambiguous and needs to be reconsidered. Head 9 indicates that reports will be made in writing to the HSE. Under the Children First guidance, however, reports can be made in person, by telephone or in writing. Under these heads, a designated officer is to maintain all relevant records, but the relationship with data protection requirements is not clear. We must keep in mind that the people who will be activating the Bill's provisions locally will need to be supported in understanding and delivering their functions.

There is a clear overlap in functions and requirements under existing child care legislation and regulations, the Children First guidance and associated agreed procedures, Garda vetting, data protection and the forthcoming legislation. Numerous references are made to the role of a number of agencies and the policy documents and guidelines they may issue. This calls for clarity in respect of recording and reporting approaches and the assignment of general functions to agencies, organisations and individuals. The duplication of administrative effort must be minimised where possible.

Explicit reference is made in a number of sections, for example, head 7, to the titles of new guidelines that have not yet been made available to us. This is inadvisable. At this stage, it is important that base legislation maintain and keep references general so that people can understand how it might pan out. As Mr. Ruddy stated, referring to documents that have not yet been issued or to which we do not have access adds an unhelpful level of confusion.

The word "organisation" needs to be clarified further. We understand that it refers to schools as organisations but some schools are not stand-alone managing agents, in that they fall under the remit of vocational education committees, VECs. Clarity is needed concerning which aspects of the Bill's provisions will apply to VECs as managing authorities.

Teachers work in the best interests of children and recognise that their duty of care is central. They are committed to working in a professional and ethical manner and are guided by the code of professional practice adopted and issued by the Teaching Council. The TUI broadly embraces the aims and principles espoused in the draft Bill. However, we consider that the child and young person could be more holistically and centrally positioned in future legislation. For example, there could be a clearer statement concerning the best interests of children in general and the need for them and their representative organisations, for example, student unions, to have a voice. It is important that other children and young people not feel excluded. They must be enticed into engaging with the Bill and using it as a tool.

The TUI has consistently highlighted the need for adequate resources and structures to support schools in delivering their child protection and welfare responsibilities. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act 2004, with which members are familiar, is an example in this regard. The Act set ambitious targets for providing for the educational needs of children, some of whom were vulnerable. It has become clear, particularly since budget 2008, that delivering on the Act in full is not possible. Many would acknowledge that a review would be important if the area of special needs education is to be adequately addressed. Further iterations of this Bill need to bear in mind the current context in terms of resources and set out realistic targets that will not be undermined by a lack of resources.

All teachers, including principal teachers, must have access to appropriate professional development to enhance their knowledge and expertise and to the external support required to deliver the functions expected under the Bill. This will enable them to direct their attention, depending on role, in a timely and effective manner towards supporting young people whom they consider to be suffering or at risk of abuse.

All schools have lost a considerable number of teaching and middle management posts since 2008. They will lose further posts in September, given the withdrawal of the ex quota provision for guidance teachers. This diminishes the capacity of schools to engage in additional work. It is important that the designers of the legislation bear this in mind. There is a capacity deficit, in that schools and teachers are stretched to capacity.

The TUI has particular concerns about the expanded and more demanding role of the designated liaison officer. We support the other witnesses in this regard. In most cases, this role will fall to the principal or deputy principal. An internal TUI survey this year noted that these managers have increased their workload by ten to 15 hours per week and are struggling to compensate for the reduced number of teaching and middle management posts. The question of how they can be expected to undertake a significant workload that is pertinent to the safety and welfare of children needs to be addressed by legislators.

Head 4 addresses the issue of expenses but fails to make any reference to the resources required. Formal provision for the resource implications of implementation needs to be made somewhere in the Bill.

We welcome that the Bill comprehends a wide number of organisations, notwithstanding my point that it fails to acknowledge the fact that there are more educational settings than primary and post-primary schools. However, a number of services, such as out-of-school services and childminders, are excluded. This should be reconsidered, notwithstanding the difficulties involved in meeting the legislation's provisions in terms of childminding and the voluntary nature of some of the services in question. In the interests of children, it is important that this matter be considered.

The TUI has a number of issues with the way in which the roles, responsibilities and duties have been framed. An inconsistency returns to the document, particularly in terms of the role played by certain guidelines in the delivery of functions by designated officers, teachers, etc. With reference to the designated officer, as stated by others, the tasks and work involved appear to be more onerous and much more demanding than in the past. The TUI would advise that serious consideration be given to how this will be provided for in terms of the resources that will be required on a number of different levels.

The TUI also has concerns around the role of the designated officer, which presents as a much more expanded role with a wider level of function and responsibility. For example, while assisting employees or volunteers to make and provide a written report is implicit in previous guidelines, other new responsibilities, including oversight arrangements around policy and assisting the HSE with investigations, will result in an increased workload. This work will inevitably fall to the principal or deputy principal because they are the people who hold a supervisory role. The Bill provides that the designated officer must be a person who has a supervisory role with staff. As such, it is not a function that can be delegated to other people. While this role may be fully merited, what is expected needs to be reasonable and possible. It will undoubtedly involve more onerous work and will add to the already demanding list of responsibilities of senior management. As pointed out by representatives of the INTO, members of boards of management will also inevitably come under pressure, in particular in schools in which a number of voluntary people work in that capacity.

The TUI represents more than 15,000 teachers and lecturers. We respect and seek always to vindicate the rights of children. However, those acting in the role of designated officer and others involved in implementation will not be able to deliver on their functions and responsibilities without adequate supports in terms of resources, training and time, much of which will need to be made available on an external basis. In this regard, note must be taken of the number of posts lost and the reduction in the professional development support service, which has contracted significantly in size while the role has expanded, which will be expected to deliver some of the external support, advice and training to schools. What is provided for does not appear a viable and reasonable expectation.

The role of the HSE is set out in terms of public awareness, guidance, inspections and examinations. We accept it is reasonable that one core agency should have a lead role in this area to minimise confusion and to ensure people have a strong reference point. We would advise, however, that unrealistic expectations of other players be omitted. We are concerned this legislation could generate in the wider public an unrealistic set of expectations in terms of the role which teachers, principals and other professionals can play. People have core responsibilities and want to respect and protect the rights of children, but there is a limit to what they can be asked to do.

On the proposed development of guidelines by the HSE, as stated by previous speakers, there is a need for consistency in this regard to ensure there is no confusion in terms of who is responsible for what, which set of guidelines apply to a person, how they will be interpreted and who will ensure a person is adhering to the correct guidelines and so on. We note, as have others, that the HSE will have the power to examine organisations, establish compliance, identify breaches in implementing legislation and to take action in this regard. In most cases this will not result in major issues. However, in a number of cases, an improvement plan will be required, depending on what the HSE finds. The TUI notes that this is a shift in the relationship between HSE and school staff which needs to be accommodated and teased out further. Schools are already subject to a number of different inspections and there is a need for a realistic approach in terms of monitoring people conducting inspections. There is also a risk that HSE staff time will be deflected from individual cases if there is an excessive concentration of their time on examining organisations and so on. There is a sense of contradiction in this regard in terms of the resources that might be available to the HSE in terms of its expanded function in oversight arrangements which cut across a range of organisations, in our cases schools, and other sites for education. The TUI welcomes the proposal that the HSE will have to appoint a person or persons to manage the administration of HSE child protections obligations. We have identified deficits in this area in the past. There has been a lack of response to reporting and a lack of feedback to schools and teachers making reports, which has been unhelpful in terms of confidence in the system and teachers and schools feeling comfortable and confident in making reports.

I have mentioned the national guidelines in terms of the number of agencies involved, including the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the HSE, DSE and others. It is important that this be addressed. Comprehensive national guidance underpinned by clear, coherent messages is essential for effective implementation by organisations and individuals. The TUI believes that teacher organisations and other stakeholders should be involved in the design of any emerging guidelines. In this way, there will be a sense of reality at local level and a minimisation of overlap resulting in consistency around what emerges.

On reporting, the TUI notes the criteria set out only provide for reporting to the HSE or Garda Síochána. Provision is not made to advise or inform those against whom an allegation or complaint of abuse is made. This is in contradiction with other guidelines which prevail. In the interest of justice and to ensure fair and due process, the TUI advises that this be corrected. Provision for this should be enshrined in the forthcoming legislation.

In regard to who will make reports, sections 10 and 11 of the draft heads of the Bill give strong direction on the onus on employees and volunteers in a range of contexts in respect of reporting. However, there may need to be some revision of this to include certain other categories of staff. For example, the provision as drafted refers to volunteers, employees, professionals and workplaces, which in my view omits a number of other people, for example, contract staff with the State Examinations Commission who are not volunteers or employees of the school but who will have contact with a student group for a period of up to 20 days. The Bill needs to be clear in regard to how such people would make a report if they witness something of particular concern to them. That is only one example. There are, perhaps, others. This could also give rise to a possible gap in the reporting systems and relationships as set out in the draft Bill.

The TUI questions the validity of referring to staff in the child care sector with a FETAC level 7 award, as this is not the uniform qualification of all those working in the early education and child care sector. It is remiss to refer to one particular qualification. People could have a level 5, 6 or 7 FETAC or HETAC qualification. There may be also persons in that sector who do not have formal qualifications. This is underpinned by the fact that people have to be supervised. It is important these nuances are correct in legislation.

Like other speakers, the TUI has concerns around mandatory reporting as set out. In this regard, we note that some jurisdictions in which mandatory reporting and penalties apply have expressed concerns about excessive reporting and the high proportion of cases which later emerge as invalid. Fear of committing a criminal offence can drive people to report, even when they are not convinced their interpretation of abuse or the risk of abuse prevails. To protect themselves from commission of a criminal offence, individuals may make reports. This could be problematic in terms of the time it takes to make a report, the time taken by the body receiving it to investigate and may result in the loss of valuable time in terms of dealing with cases which require to be addressed. The mandatory requirement to report may also push people to report, leading to invalid and false reporting, which will result in great stress for those involved, including teachers, if a false allegation or accusation is made. I acknowledge young people, children and their families would also be in great distress in dealing with such complaint. It is important this aspect of the Bill is got right.

In extreme circumstances, the application of penalties for non-reporting may be justified but in many cases they may prove too harsh. The TUI believes the language used should ensure that non-reporting will only be pursued and deemed an offence in situations where a person has clearly and wilfully not reported a situation of abuse or where he or she has been demonstrably negligent in the discharge of his or her duties. This needs to be properly worded in the Bill if people are to understand that all and sundry will not be pursued for non-reporting.

We note that the draft Bill indicates that the HSE will provide advice but that a person cannot use that advice as a defence against not reporting. There seems to be a contradiction in how that is presented. I understand that it can be useful for somebody to get advice to tease out an issue and that person must ultimately make a decision. The matter is represented poorly in the Bill and would need to inspire confidence in a person seeking that advice from the HSE so that he or she can be guided in the right direction rather than being tripped up. In all these points we note that the provision for adequate training and resources must be enshrined in legislation to enable schools to deliver on their function in a competent and effective manner. The Bill is seriously remiss in not attending to that.

There is another point related to reporting. It may not be entirely appropriate to this area but there may be a way in which it can be addressed. We have experience of Department personnel receiving a complaint from a parent, another teacher or somebody in contact with a school, children or young people. Without any reference to a follow-on report, information or a deliberative judgment, a report would be triggered for the HSE, and it would be on record that a complaint has been made against a particular teacher. That could happen in other organisations as well. That means spurious complaints can be elevated, with formal documentation being generated.

If the complaint is substantiated, it is a justified action but when it is not, the process can cause significant stress and professional damage to the teachers involved. Unfortunately, there is not yet a mechanism for those kind of reports to be expunged when it is genuinely established that there is no substance to them; they may have come from mischievous, false or invalid action. That area must be addressed so teachers and other professionals can have confidence and feel comfortable operating in the system. We accept that this Bill may not be designed in that way but we suggest that a way should be found for it to be factored in.

We welcome the reference to the implementation across Departments and the need for oversight arrangements. However, the Bill only seeks to put in place systems that would collect statistical data and information as opposed to a genuine co-ordinated and integrated approach. There should be oversight arrangements in place that would ensure such an approach to protect children.

We welcome the Government's effort, which is long overdue, although we advise greater attention to consistency of language, definition and coherence in policy across all the relevant documents, legislation and guidelines. We are concerned about the expanding nature of functions for staff at school level and we have deep concerns about the capacity of a school to be able to deliver on those in the absence of additional resources and a very sophisticated level of support, training and access to external support services. I hope the submission clarifies some of the points made by others earlier.

I welcome the delegations from the ASTI, TUI, INTO and IPPN and thank them for taking the time to attend and give such thorough presentations on the proposed legislation, how they consider it will affect child protection and the very important role that the teaching profession plays in carrying that out. I apologise for missing the first two presentations as I was delayed at another meeting.

A few key points were made, and some of those were also made by other organisations which have come before us. They will have to be teased out by the committee in finalising a report to the Minister on where we should go with the legislation. What stood out in the presentations was the need for clarity and guidelines for what is expected of the teaching profession and how to approach the issues, particularly with reference to advice from the HSE. I can understand how it would be a genuine issue for teachers to establish how to proceed with a question they may have. I note Mr. Ruddy's comment on the importance of ensuring there is clear guidance so that concerns are not escalated prematurely and are dealt with at an appropriate level. There should also be clarity in how a teacher should progress and any advice that is provided.

The delegations mentioned the criminal sanctions relating to reporting. Do the witnesses see any benefit to the criminal sanction in terms of ensuring that reports are made or is there any merit to it? We have heard different views on this in the sessions we have had so far. Ms Judge qualified how she felt the criminal sanction should apply but is there merit in how it is laid out in the Bill?

I thank all the witnesses and those who made the three presentations. The first point we would all make is that the rights and welfare of children are paramount, and I welcome that it was in the opening remarks of the three presentations. As the workers' rights spokesperson for my party, I understand the need for clarity, and it is very important for teachers to know exactly their responsibilities. The groups before us are seeking to protect their members by ensuring there is absolute clarity, and I have no difficulty with that. Many important points were raised and I hope we can tease them out.

There were a number of common themes in the presentations, with the first a need for policy alignment. That is critical and if there is to be clarity, as has been mentioned, the last thing we need is an endless number of guidelines and reports that could complicate the process. Clear guidelines should be contained in the Bill and there should be no misinterpretation or complication of them. There are too many reports and streamlining through policy alignment is important.

I support the INTO call for wholesale training and supports to be given to teachers, principals and those who will be the designated liaison person. That will be critical if we are to give added responsibilities to people. Many schools have lost teachers by not replacing staff and if more responsibilities are to be given, training and support must be provided.

The issue of grounds of emotional abuse was mentioned and I fully support the concerns in this respect. The issue is in the Children First guidelines but not in this Bill. Homophobic bullying and cyber-bullying are in some respect new phenomena for principals, and it is important that they are taken into account in the Bill. The next points may be differences of opinion in the interpretation of what is being said and language. The IPPN presentation states, "the IPPN is concerned at the proposal in head No. 9 that the designated liaison person may be requested by the HSE to assist in the investigation of concerns of allegations of abuse undertaken by the HSE." It further states, "There is no provision in the Act for the principal teacher to act in investigating criminal activity." There is an inference that the principal or the DLP is being asked to be part of the criminal investigation or to undertake a criminal investigation. The legislation states, "Head 9 also provides for the Designated Officer to assist the HSE and to participate as required in the assessment of risk, in the investigation of concerns or allegations of child abuse being undertaken by the HSE." That clearly indicates that it is the HSE that will carry out the investigation. On page 39, head 9(3) states:

(e) assist the HSE and participate, when required, in

(i) the assessment of risk;

(ii) the investigation of concerns ....

I interpret that to mean that it is assisting the HSE, not being part of the investigations. I agree that we need clarification on it.

My last point is an important one. Head 12(4) could lead to the mandatory reporting of every instance which is not what we want. It states, "(4) Advice provided by the HSE under subhead (1)(f) is not a defence for not reporting concerns or allegations of abuse which meet criteria set out in the Guidance for the Reporting of Abuse provided for in Head 15.” The provision reverts back to the guidelines and says that despite whatever advice given by HSE that, obviously, the principal must have regard to the guidelines. There is a valid concern about the HSE’s advice. In what circumstances would the HSE give advice? I agree that it would be very rare. The last thing we want is to end up with over-reporting and every incident being reported. I do not think that is what the Bill seeks. I do not think it is what the Government is seeking either but I want its concerns clarified. What type of incident would lead to the provision being applied?

I thank Ms Leydon, Ms Fay, Mr. Ruddy and Ms Judge for their comprehensive presentations. Like previous speakers, I echo the need for policy and legislative alignment. How many handbooks do we need? I come from a youth work background and there are only so many books that we must adhere to and I echo the concerns expressed by the delegations.

Several members of the committee, throughout the presentations, echoed that concern about the omission of emotional abuse. I shall raise that point along with many other colleagues. Child minder qualifications were also omitted and many other organisations that have come before us have raised that matter. I hope we will address the matter.

Another omission that has not cropped up as much today, and I wonder if it is an issue for schools, is the exclusion of leisure facilities such as swimming pools. They will not come within the remit of the guidance. Are the delegations concerned about the omission?

My next question is on current practice. I am not a teacher and never have been but the answer will enable me to understand the teaching profession more. If there is a serious, reasonable and persistent concern that a child is being neglected, what support do schools, including principals, provide for teachers? What support does the Department provide? For most of the other bodies that have met the committee support was provided by their professional organisations or others in a triage type of system. What is the current interaction between teachers and the HSE? Some organisations can discuss a concern before it becomes a report. Is there an opportunity for a teacher to discuss his or her concern?

I want to clarify an issue on the vetting of teachers. Did the group say that designated officers are not vetted? How can such an absurd situation exist?

In most organisations it is the designated officers who are the first to be vetted. That must be the case if one is going to hold up standards that one expects others to meet. What does a teacher currently do and what is the current practice? I am concerned about the matter but I shall not use up any more time.

I join with the Chairman and other members in welcoming the various representatives. They have outlined important issues and concerns about the legislation in their comprehensive presentations.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has presented the legislation in this manner to allow widespread debate among all of the interested parties and stakeholders before it reaches the Dáil. I welcome the measure.

As a public representative for 13 years and having worked in community development for many years I am aware, like we all are, of the importance of child protection. I am also cognisant of how the teaching profession has changed over the years and that teachers and teaching managers have had to face ever increasing challenges. As Ms Judge has outlined, the teaching profession has experienced changed circumstances. Does the group think that the Bill will enhance their work as school managers? Will it enhance the work of the teaching profession and help them meet the requirements of the education legislation? I ask the delegations to outline their concerns, particularly when dealing with what is commonly phrased by social workers as "disclosure". Where second-hand information on something outside of school or in the home is brought to the attention of a teacher or school manager can the profession conclude whether a child is at risk or is potentially at risk? How will the legislation assist the profession in its work in that area?

I welcome the representatives. I apologise to the ASTI for missing its contribution but I was on other business.

Many presentations are forwarded to us that I do not have direct experience of but in this case I do because I was a teacher for many years. As Mr. Ruddy mentioned, I was a teaching principal and I can relate to the problems to which he referred. He knows me from that time.

Can the groups suggest how best to add a provision that covers emotional abuse to the Bill? I shall play devil's advocate and suggest that emotional abuse can occur along with more concrete evidence of abuse. I would be interested to hear advice and guidance on it from the groups.

I can relate to the investigation of the abuse of pupils and the very difficult situation that schools are placed in, particularly school principals or a designated person. I would be interested to hear useful advice from the delegations on the subject.

I concur with Mr. Ruddy's comment on vetting. I was never vetted even though I was a teacher for more than 30 years. That is probably true of most teachers who have a reasonable number of years experience.

With regard to the guidelines, and this probably will not come under the legislation directly, it would be useful if we suggested with regard to complaints that there be templates available to give guidance to people as to what might be useful information to find out. I take on board what the witness said about mandatory reporting. It is a sensitive issue. In my experience, most people would be very careful before they would make a complaint. It is a serious issue and it is very important that people do not throw complaints around, so to speak, because one ends up causing a great deal of pain if an allegation is made and it ends up having no substance. That is very useful guidance to the committee.

Ms Moira Leydon

There were many questions. I will respond to two from Deputy McConalogue. On the criminal sanction, in our submission we clearly support the Children's Rights Alliance position that criminal sanction is not the appropriate way to proceed. The real societal and political challenge is to create a culture of compliance. One could say that about society in general. To have compliance, there must be shared understanding.

I can give a good example. We have excellent guidelines in schools. We have had good training, but we need more. One day I received a telephone call from a teacher. It was when the Roscommon case was taking place, with the graphic and appalling details. She said she was worried about a child, a 15 year old boy, who was presenting at school every day with head lice. Everybody knows how teenagers are fixated on their appearance, body image and everything to do with how they are perceived by others. For that teacher, who has considerable experience, not to have heard alarm bells ringing - a 15 year old should not have head lice - brought it home to me that we can never assume there is a widespread societal understanding of what child abuse and neglect is. That is a specific example. If we wish to achieve a culture of compliance, it will not be done with a stick. It will be done with support and education. While there must be sanctions when wrongdoing occurs, and this is one of the challenges our society faces, they should not be sanctions which are so punitive as to put people into bunkers and which results in them not doing anything.

I am conscious that I must share time but there are two other points to which I wish to respond. On Deputy Keating's point, we all commend the role of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. It is focused and is driving long overdue legislation.

Senator Cullinane made an important point. The mandatory reporting issue is very new for the mandated professional. I am reminded of a report by the Law Reform Commission around 1990 on this issue. There is a great deal of literature on the balance for getting it right. That is the committee's challenge as legislators. Bringing it to a stage where mandatory reporting is so rigid and watertight that everything, such as when a child pushes another child in a schoolyard, for example, is suddenly perceived as something that must be reported will produce a system that cannot cope. On the other hand, if we do not have some form of accountability in place, it will be a case of hear no evil, see no evil. I realise these are just the heads of the Bill and that there will be further stages, but what we are trying to do with this legislation is to get the parameters for a good balance as well as being realistic. We must also create a culture of compliance with buy-in. A culture of compliance based upon fear and rigid and prescriptive bureaucratic rules whereby boxes must be ticked does not work.

Ms Sally Maguire will make a few points about current practice.

Ms Sally Maguire

In response to Senator van Turnhout on current practice, my colleague, Mr. David Ruddy, can probably give a more accurate account but my understanding is that up to the recent review of the child protection guidelines for schools, the designated liaison person, DLP, could ring the HSE only in the case of making a report. In other words, if the DLP rang, they had to make a report. That has changed and they can now ring for advice.

Do they ring the Department of Education and Skills?

Ms Sally Maguire

No. The Department will say it has no role in this. On the other point about the leisure facilities, that would be a huge concern, especially in terms of transition year activities, where somebody might be coming in for an hour or two per week for dance classes or other leisure activities.

Ms Anne McElduff

Deputy Keating asked whether, overall, we think this Bill will enhance practice or the system. We all would definitely want it to enhance practice, but our concerns are, as have been articulated, that we have had ten years of Children First and very clear relationships have been built up between ourselves and the HSE with regard to our functions. We have strongly supported co-operation between ourselves and the HSE in the interests of children. This is fundamentally changing that, and that is where we have the contradiction. On the one hand, it is to implement Children First but, on the other hand, it is changing practice in key areas, particularly in the areas of risk assessment and investigation and in the areas of the HSE giving advice.

Coming back to the issue of reporting, we are still awaiting a document on reporting. That obviously leads to consideration of sanctions, compliance and the penalty. Schools are dependent on the HSE for advice. Schools do not have that expertise, and for ten years we have been advised that we should not have that expertise. We have had training, have strongly co-operated and have had open and transparent communication to keep the HSE apprised, but now there is a fundamental shift. We were at a loss to understand the rationale for that. We want to enhance the system but I do not believe that dispersing the functions of risk assessment and investigation to further people will do it. That is an internal function carried out by social workers and team leaders.

To refer to the words of Senator Cullinane, there is no problem with assisting the HSE. It is the phrase "participate in the assessment". There is a clear distinction between assisting and participating. What we do not want, in light of the lack of capacity in schools, is additional bureaucracy for the sake of it. Will that benefit children?

I wish to make a point about vetting, because I am also on the Teaching Council. The simple reason that all principals are not vetted is resources. The conduit for vetting is the Teaching Council. When the council was established in 2006, due to resources it focused on all new entrants. Several thousand teachers have been vetted since 2006 and any new appointee to a school, including a principal teacher, is vetted. However, principals or teachers who have not shifted position since 2006 have not been vetted. It is a resourcing issue to do with Garda vetting and so forth. I realise there is another Bill before the House in that regard.

I wish to make one more point while I have the floor. It would be useful to have a compilation of the legislative provisions relating to reporting. There is the 1998 Act, the criminal justice Act of 1976, the new Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill that is going through the Dáil and this Bill.

These are only the heads of the Bill.

Ms Anne McElduff

I realise that. However, it would be useful if the committee thought of organising that.

That is a good idea.

Ms Anne Fay

I am a teaching principal in a DEIS, band two, urban school and, unfortunately, I have had occasion, too frequently, to get involved with reporting and disclosure. It might be different in the secondary system but we have always been advised to ring the duty social worker or whoever is on duty to ask for advice as to whether we should report. Obviously, we would always take the advice of the social worker.

With regard to risk assessment, we do that daily. My duty is to the children in loco parentis as well as to the teaching and learning. We constantly assess the risks, as we must do. However, putting it in the way being suggested in the Bill will cause huge difficulties. Members have all interacted with teachers over many years and will know how particularly diligent they are in regard to the care of children. Teachers would be running to social workers with every piece of tittle-tattle. From my point of view, the bottom line in this is training. There must be comprehensive training in what one should look for. What one considers abuse, another may not. We need consistency across the spectrum in terms of what we should look out for. As teachers, we are all trained to teach literacy, numeracy, etc. In some cases, we may not be finely tuned to the needs of children in regard to abuse, whether emotional, physical or sexual. We need a huge amount of training. While there has been good training for designated liaison persons and deputies, there has been no whole-school training for staff. That is a major concern.

Is Ms Fay saying there has been no whole-school training at all?

Ms Anne Fay

No, unless schools take it on themselves.

Is On My Own Two Feet, or these programmes, not open to all teachers?

Ms Anne Fay

No. It has not been rolled out throughout the country. Schools have done training themselves where it has been available. However, it has not been mandatory for schools; it has been voluntary. That is a huge difficulty. If we are to make any progress to feel good about where we are in regard to really looking after children in this area, we must be adamant about the need for serious training.

Mr. John McGabhann

I would like to pick up on that last point. This goes slightly beyond the current discussion but schools need to know what the Government and society require of them. What they know at the moment is that a disparate selection of agencies have requirements. Those requirements may well be consistent with each other but they are not framed in the same language, so it is not apparent to schools, for example, that they do not have to multiply report the same thing. Since it is not apparent to them, they multiply report the same thing. There is a requirement, which falls on all of us, to bring together the various documents. As I said, they emanate from different statutory agencies in a very tight time period and they are coming our way through legislation as well. That consistency, about which we have all spoken, is necessary. It would simplify the job. It might persuade us that the resource requirements are not as vast as we sometimes suggest. However, because there is this inconsistency in language, we are persuaded to the view currently that we must multiply answer the same question to different agencies.

I would like to address some of the questions, which I will try to do briefly. There should be a criminal offence. For example, if collusion is engaged in, there should be a means to bring it to the attention of the criminal courts. However, the broad point still remains that what we are attempting to do is to establish a culture of both understanding and compliance with that understood requirement. One needs both in that one needs an understanding before one has compliance. I will not labour the point anymore where that is concerned.

I wish to come back to a point made by all of us. It is vital that when it comes to the stage of drawing up the benchmark documentation, the profession, through those groups representing the practitioners, is involved because one needs to get a sense from those representing principal teachers and the unions of what is possible. It is not that we will be minimalist or reductionist. We will do our level best for students and children but we need to be put in a position where we can advise what the system capacity is currently and what might be needed to expand it.

Senator Cullinane asked if there was a means of encompassing or addressing emotional abuse. He should perhaps look at the existing documentation. The existing guidance is not bad on this issue. It is a pretty elusive concept. There are borders around it. As somebody said, what is emotional abuse to one person is a loud voice to another. Absolute clarity is not possible but there are areas where emotional abuse can, and must, be identified. The Senator should look at the extant documentation where that is concerned.

On the question of investigation by the designated officer, our concern has not been allayed. I appreciate the effort made to allay it but it has still not been allayed. I will give members an example. The current designated liaison person, DLP, must have regard to advice sought from the HSE. One should not ignore it. If one introduces a degree of deliberation about that advice - deliberation takes place between theears of the designated liaison person - one will confuse a matter which should not be open to confusion. The designated liaison person, who is usually the principal, currently has a facility if there is a real concern. If there is a prima facie case against a member of staff, for example, where an accusation of abuse has been made, that member of staff can be put under a protocol, which was negotiated by the unions, and put on administrative leave. There is no inference of guilt to be drawn from that because the protocol recognises that the designated liaison person-principal will have a role as the agent of the employer in whatever investigation needs to take place by the employer into the employment status of that person. That is a separate and distinct role. There is a danger that if the designated liaison officer-principal is drawn into participation in an investigation which the HSE is conducting, then he or she will essentially be removed by that participation from a separate investigation the employer may have to undertake. This needs to be given the most serious consideration because by reposing several layers of trust and responsibility in the designated liaison person, one could make it impossible for that person to discharge some of those layers of responsibility.

I share Mr. McGabhann's concerns but the point I was making was that it could possibly be the language in the heads of the Bill. I do not believe what Mr. McGabhann said is the intention behind it but it might be the consequence of it. I will take that on board.

Mr. John McGabhann

The unvetted nature of people is a legacy issue. This has been addressed by the stakeholders under the aegis of the Teaching Council. There is a proposal in the pipeline which would over a period of, hopefully, three years have all existing teachers subjected to vetting. It is dependent on system capacity in the Garda central vetting unit and the Teaching Council. The first group to be vetted in that round up - that is a terribly unfortunate phrase - of existing teachers would be the designated liaison persons. That has been decided. They would be the first group precisely because of the inconsistencies that currently exist.

There are areas of concern in regard to disclosure, about which Deputy Keating asked. Ms Leydon made the point that we wish to protect our members against legal risk not where they deserve to be legally at risk but in the matter of making reports or disclosures. In the matter of making reports or disclosures we wish to protect our members against legal risk in order that any legitimate concern can be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority. We are telling our members they enjoy qualified privilege in the current circumstances because we assume that to be the case.

Surely the provisions of the legislation on the protection for persons reporting child abuse would apply in such circumstances.

Mr. John McGabhann

One hopes so. I understand the question of soft information will be addressed through separate legislation. Both sides will probably be concerned to ensure qualified privilege is available, as appropriate, but that no inappropriate use is made of it.

Mr. David Ruddy

Deputy McConalogue referred to criminal sanctions. Notwithstanding the point made about compliance, sanctions should be available because if they save one child, their introduction will have been worth it. If a designated officer ignores the advice of the HSE and fails to report suspicions of child sexual abuse, sanctions should be available. Obviously, it is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide what form they should take.

The vetting of existing staff has been promised for a long time. I estimate that approximately 35,000 teachers have not been vetted. What type of commitment does that suggest?

Is this creating a problem?

Mr. David Ruddy

No. Ms McElduff, who is also a member of the Teaching Council, explained the reason that is the case. What credibility has a designated-----

It is not acceptable to have cases where designated officers have not been vetted. In other jurisdictions, there have been cases where the very people charged with upholding the system have been found to have broken the rules.

Yesterday was the deadline for registration with the Teaching Council. While the council does a particular job, this meeting should address the issue of designated officers.

Mr. David Ruddy

Ironically, I understand that all those who fail to pay the registration fee will have to be vetted. We will catch them that way.

Even members of the teaching profession who, as members of the Oireachtas, are on leave had to pay their subscription by yesterday. I hope everyone has paid the household charge and registration fee.

Mr. David Ruddy

On the criminal investigation, Senator Cullinane correctly referred to the language in the relevant head of the Bill. The text refers to an investigation "existing". The Senator has highlighted some confusion in the Bill, on which we require absolute clarity.

I am refreshed having listened to the views expressed on emotional abuse. There is no reason not to reinstate this category of abuse. The current system is no great shakes in terms of reporting to the HSE. The system varies by region. From speaking to colleagues across the country - I am sure this is also the experience of others present - it is clear that calls made through the reporting mechanism will be answered in one part of the country, whereas calls will not be answered between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. in other parts of the country. In some cases, a voicemail system operates almost permanently and one ends up making the report to the Garda. There is some cynicism about what the new legislation seeks to achieve because the Health Service Executive, under the current legislation, has not given cause for confidence.

Mr. Ruddy made a good point on the HSE whose role was highlighted in the report published last week. The relationship between school welfare officers and the Department was not raised. How critical is the role of school liaison or welfare officers in child protection?

Ms Anne McElduff

The role of school welfare officers is generally confined to attendance. They are not specifically involved in welfare or child protection.

Should their role be changed? I am aware that Ms McElduff is speaking in a different capacity today.

Ms Anne McElduff

I am not sure if it should be changed. This returns us to the issue of the rationale behind changing roles in relation to Children First. I am unclear about this and I am not sure about bringing other personnel into the issue.

Ms Bernie Judge

The National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, and most schools with which we liaise report that welfare officers are completely inundated and unable to cope with attendance issues. For this reason, we should not assign another function to them and thereby put at risk another area of work.

I do not understand Ms Judge's point. Anyone who has stood in a classroom will agree that within four days of entering a class one is able to identify students who are vulnerable or at risk. Surely the role of welfare officers is critical in this regard.

Ms Bernie Judge

That would be the case if there were enough of them.

There are enough of them.

Ms Bernie Judge

That is not the case.

I believe it is the case. We need to change their role.

Ms Bernie Judge

In any case, the reports we receive indicate there is an insufficient number of welfare officers and the NEWB has not managed to appoint the number of welfare officers that was promised to deliver on their core functions. This is a matter for debate. All those present would argue that welfare in terms of abuse probably takes precedence over attendance, depending on whether the attendance is also related to abuse, as is sometimes but not always the case.

Having spent more than 20 years in the classroom, it is my view that welfare officers do a very good job and are critical. In some schools no liaison takes place with parents or the community because of the status or band of the school in question. The welfare officer is a pivotal player in the relationship with parents. To return to Mr. Ruddy's point on the HSE, what we heard about the HSE last week and today appears to be a consistent current.

Ms Bernie Judge

We must not try to find a home for something without first understanding if there is a capacity to deliver.

The question about where we receive our support was not addressed. The professional development support service is a key anchor in terms of providing external support and training to all teachers, primary and post-primary. It has contracted in size by one third - its staff has declined by 33% – since the cuts commenced three years ago. Notwithstanding this contraction, the service is assuming more roles, including responsibility for junior cycle reform, all the new syllabuses and the new function of dealing with teacher competence. I hope the number of cases related to teachers' competence will be small. Everything related to external support and training is directed towards the service. This is, therefore, another issue of how much capacity is available in the sector to give teachers and principals what we need. The professional development support service is clearly regarded as a key anchor. The question is whether the Government is prepared to return to it its previous capacity and allow it to expand this capacity to deliver in this highly-sensitive area.

Mr. John McGabhann

When one views the current landscape one finds there has been a bleed of approximately 6,000 posts of responsibility from the system. When one leaves aside the considerations as they pertain to teachers this means there are 6,000 duties which are no longer being conducted. While schools have the capacity to rejig duties, the first and sometimes last port of call for an individual student in many second level schools will be a year head with whom he or she will have developed a relationship during his or her time at the school. While there may be exceptions, a relationship of some considerable trust usually develops between students and year heads. As schools are no longer always in a position to maintain this system and legislation is being introduced that will increase the onus on schools to report in a particular manner, the default person will, of necessity, become the principal or deputy principal.

A year head is an assistant principal post. Is that correct?

Mr. John McGabhann

That is correct in most cases.

Is Mr. McGabhann stating that in some or all cases where year heads retire, as occurred in February, they are not being replaced and no one is filling in at second level?

Mr. John McGabhann

They are not being replaced above a particular threshold, which is about half the previous threshold.

Is the general secretary saying no year head is fulfilling the duties?

Mr. John McGabhann

No. Let us suppose it is year heads who have retired. The principal must, in consultation with the remaining post holders, redistribute posts and decide on priority. My point is about training. In a landscape that is being consistently denuded of that particular capacity, the middle management capacity, it becomes very important that all the staff be trained because if all the staff are not trained one is left with the default position of the DLP-principal. That whole staff training, to which we have all referred, in many respects, perversely is more important than ever it was previously.

Ms Moira Leydon

I have the summary of the independent report which draws particular attention on a number of occasions to the period of adolescence which is the extreme risk. It also refers to the fact that these particular children had little opportunity in their early years to develop a resilience to cope with the issues. It raises the issue - perhaps it is a topic for another debate following on the suggestions about the role of welfare officers - of more inter-agency co-operation and how that can happen. That is an issue that needs to be thought through very carefully. Certainly, the message from the report is that adolescence is particularly vulnerable. Headstrong published some great research recently, My World survey, which has a lovely phrase, one good adult is important to the mental health of young people. Teachers have traditionally served in that role, particularly the guidance councillors and the year heads, and the erosion of those structures is not just a trade union concern for the profession, it is a profound professional concern. We do not have the people in situ, with time and to whom those children can turn. At a future stage, it would be important to examine the inter-agency approach.

To end on a positive note, within the teaching profession there is a genuine spirit of co-operation and care and attention to duty. I accept I am biased given my background. I thank the representatives for appearing before the committee, giving an informative presentation and dealing with Members questions. It was not a question of keeping the representatives until last, but rather a co-ordination of schedules. We value their time and input.

Today's meeting concludes our public deliberations as part of the draft heads of Children First Bill 2012. I express my thanks to the members of the committee for their thorough investigation of witnesses. I thank also all the witnesses from all the groups who appeared before the committee, those who made written submissions and the secretariat, Paul Kelly, Mary Lindsay and Susan Moran, for the great work they did in co-ordinating and examining all the presentations, oral and written. This will feed into the next meeting on Thursday next, which is a private meeting, to discuss the two months work on the draft heads of the Bill. Following that meeting we will send our deliberations back to the Minister who will come back to the committee or the House in respect of the next step. I sincerely thank all concerned.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 July 2012.
Top
Share