I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and his officials. The purpose of this meeting is to consider a motion concerning a proposal for a Council framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Members have been circulated with the text of the proposed Council framework decision together with a briefing note from the Department and the text of the Minister of State's speech.
Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography: Motion.
I thank the members of the joint committee for facilitating me, on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in bringing before it this framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography which received political agreement at a meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 and 15 October. Its adoption is subject to parliamentary scrutiny by six member states, including Ireland. Under the third pillar of the European Union a framework decision is akin to a directive under European Communities legislation. It sets up an overall framework within which we may and, in this case, must adopt certain necessary implementing legislation.
The motion I bring before the joint committee today states:
THAT Dáil Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure:
A Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 24 October 2002.
There is a motion in similar terms in respect of Seanad Éireann.
In February 1997 the Council of the European Union adopted a joint action to combat trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. The joint action was initiated by Belgium following the Belgian paedophile case. It also had regard to a resolution on trafficking in human beings adopted by the European Parliament and a resolution on victims of violence who were minors. In addition, it took cognisance of the recommendations on combating trafficking in human beings adopted by the Council in 1993, the conclusions of the European conference on trafficking in women held in Vienna in June 1996 and the conclusions of the world conference against the commercial sexual exploitation of children held in Stockholm in August 1996.
Early in 2001 the Council of the European Union submitted two proposals for framework decisions to replace the 1997 joint action, the first of which had the purpose of combating trafficking in human beings. It was approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas last March and subsequently adopted by the Council of Ministers on 19 July 2002. Member states will have until 30 June 2004 to introduce any necessary national legislation. The framework decision we are discussing today combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography will allow for the total repeal of the 1997 joint action.
One might reasonably ask, in the light of the joint action, the reason this framework decision is necessary. First, the offences in the framework decision are more comprehensive. It was also considered necessary that such serious offences as the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography should be addressed by a common approach in which constituent elements of a criminal law common to all member states, including effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, formed an integral part together with the widest possible judicial co-operation. While there is a clear connection between the two framework decisions in that children who are trafficked are usually trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation, the decision we are discussing today can stand on its own as a measure specifically protecting children against the most vile form of abuse. As the title suggests, the protections extend to two areas, child pornography and child sexual exploitation. The protections so afforded are to persons under 18 years of age. That alone will require a change to our legislation, an issue to which I will return.
As well as giving a meaning to the word "child" for the purpose of the framework decision, Article 1 defines the term "child pornography". While the definition is quite good, it is not as comprehensive as the definition at section 2 of our Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, which is generally regarded as better than that in the legislation of most jurisdictions. Unfortunately, Article 3.2 gives member states an option of diluting the definition, thereby reducing its effectiveness. From our point of view, this does not pose a problem. We intend to retain our existing statutory provisions in that respect. These provisions have been much admired in other jurisdictions. We made a very strong case in the discussions with the other member states which led to the framework decision that our definition should be followed and are disappointed that that is not the case. Nevertheless, we do have full power to maintain our existing protection under this legislation. I emphasise that the adoption of this framework decision will not lead to any dilution or lessening of the rigours of the law as it applies in this jurisdiction.
Article 2 establishes offences concerning the sexual exploitation of children. Although the term "sexual exploitation" is not defined, there are three elements to the offences. The first concerns child prostitution: the intentional coercion or recruitment of a child into prostitution will be an offence. Second, the coercion or recruitment of a child into participating in pornographic performances will be an offence. A child participating in a pornographic performance constitutes child pornography. Third, it will be an offence to engage in sexual activities with a child where use is made of coercion, force or threats, or where money or other remuneration or consideration is paid in exchange, or where a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over a child is abused. It is an offence to engage in sexual activity with a child under the age of consent. These provisions, therefore, will mainly be significant for children over the age of consent but under 18 years of age. In this jurisdiction the age of consent is 17 years, which arrangement dates back to 1935. Irish legislation governing such sexual exploitation is contained mainly in the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993, and the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998.
Article 3.1 which deals with offences concerning child pornography largely mirrors sections 5 and 6 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act in making it an offence, for example, to possess, distribute or produce child pornography. I have briefly mentioned Article 3.2 under which it will be possible to exclude from criminal liability certain conduct relating to child pornography. These exclusions all refer back to the definition of "child pornography". For example, member states need not criminalise the depiction of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct if it transpires that the child was 18 years or older at the time of the depiction. Under section 2(3) of the Act, in child pornography proceedings, unless the contrary is proved, a person will be deemed to have been a child or to have been depicted or represented as a child if the person appears to the court to be or have been a child, or to have been so depicted or represented. In other words, under Irish law an offence may be committed in circumstances where the person depicted or represented is over 18 years of age and there is no requirement for us to change this. This is another example of how the other member states were not prepared to go as far as us in relation to protection.
Also under Article 3.2 of the framework decision member states can exclude from criminal liability the production and possession of child pornography where the child has reached the age of sexual consent and the material is produced and possessed with his or her consent and is for private use. This exclusion is irrelevant in Ireland because our existing legislation applies to persons under 17 years of age, which is also the age of consent. We may have to provide for this matter in raising the age to which the existing legislation applies to 18 years. Member states can also exclude from criminal liability realistic images of non-existent children where they are produced and possessed by the producer for his or her private use. No real children would have been used in its production.
Under Irish law computer generated or modified images of children are deemed to constitute child pornography and their possession and production are offences in all circumstances. It may well be that in producing the realistic image no child has been abused, but to say such images are harmless ignores the potential effect they have on paedophiles or other persons who, as a result of producing or possessing the images, may go on to abuse a child. Again, our national position will continue to be unchanged, but we regret that our partners were not able to strengthen their positions to that extent. This has been a matter of considerable controversy throughout the world. The United States Supreme Court has refused to permit the prohibition of this type of generated image, arguing that there is constitutional protection for those who create them. In this jurisdiction we have a very clear statutory prohibition from which we do not intend to resile.
Article 5 sets out the penalties which are divided into two categories. The basic offences are required to carry a penalty of at least between one and three years of imprisonment. Where there are aggravating circumstances, the penalty must be at least between five and ten years of imprisonment. The penalties for some offences may appear low when compared to analogous offences in Ireland. For example, in the framework decision the offence of distributing child pornography, without an aggravating circumstance, falls into the lower category, while even with an aggravating feature the minimum penalty proposed is in the range of at least five to ten years. Distribution of child pornography under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. The penalty structure in the framework decision is essentially a compromise between the high penalty and low penalty jurisdictions but in no way affects our ability to retain our higher penalties or provide even higher ones if we so wish.
Paragraph 3 of Article 5 obliges member states to take necessary measures to ensure that where a person is convicted of an offence under the framework decision, that person could be prevented from exercising professional activities related to the supervision of children. Part 4 of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001, is concerned with the employment of persons convicted of a sexual offence, but the list of sexual offences may have to be extended for full compliance with the framework decision in that respect. The remaining provisions are fairly standard for framework decisions and largely similar to analogous provisions in the framework decision on trafficking in human beings.
I referred to legislation arising from this framework decision. Amendments to our legislation will be necessary, although probably not extensive. The framework decision is being examined in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with a view to identifying what may be necessary by way of legislative amendment.
That examination is part of a wider review that incorporates the framework decision on trafficking in human beings. Legislative proposals which will ensure full compliance with both framework decisions will be brought before the Houses in due course. These proposals will also be broad enough to allow for ratification of two other international instruments, the Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child concerning child prostitution, child pornography and the sale of children and the Protocol supplementing the UN Convention against transnational organised crime concerning trafficking in persons. The framework decision provides a co-ordinated and comprehensive response at EU level to some of the most appalling and unacceptable crimes today, namely the sexual exploitation of children, including their abuse in prostitution and making child pornography. I commend the motions to the joint committee.
I thank the Minister of State. Members may now make comments and put questions. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would respond.
I welcome the Minister of State back to discuss this important issue. It is clear, even from our earlier work, that we do everything in the context of the broader European Community. The issue is relatively new but has received much exposure from the media throughout the country. It is very important to adopt the measures before us.
Until now, the area of child pornography and the criminal issues involved was vague. We must make it clear that it is a crime and offenders must be dealt with in an appropriate manner and receive recommended treatment. I welcome the proposal which is not before its time. It is important to adopt it and investigate the issues involved and I would like more time to do this.
I also welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment to this very important Department. That the Government now recognises the need for a Minister with responsibility for children across a number of Departments is very significant. I wish Deputy Lenihan the best in his role.
The abuse of children, which has occurred over many decades, is a national shame. That there are numerous inquiries into many State institutions is testament to this. Deputy Lenihan's appointment as Minster of State with sole responsibility for children - he is the second minister with that portfolio - recognises the importance of having ministerial and executive control over this area. Can I take from his contribution that we are far ahead of the international community, whatever about our past history, in terms of our legislative framework? That is encouraging in one sense. However, it is also very worrying, given that this material is transnational by its nature and almost invariably emanates from outside the jurisdiction. While we have the legislative framework to deal with offences here, it is worrying that offences concerning the production of material outside the jurisdiction are seen to have lesser legislative importance in other jurisdictions. Will the Minister of State elaborate on that and does he share my concern?
There is another issue, concerning sentencing of criminals who have been convicted of these types of offences. I know this does not relate precisely to the matter before the committee, but does the Minister of State have views about the perception in the country that, whatever about our legislative provisions, the prosecution and particularly the sentencing of paedophiles appears to be very lax? As a public representative that is the perception which I encounter. Given that it is proven internationally that there is a high degree of recidivism with this type of crime, does the Minister of State have a view about the strength or otherwise of our legislation?
I welcome the Minister of State. This discussion relates to our earlier one about the activities of Europol and the position of the Danish Presidency that Europol should extend to international crime of any type. This is clearly an area of international crime, child pornography, child sexual exploitation trafficking in children and so on. It is related to the earlier discussion and member states should co-operate. I welcome the framework decision.
However it is disappointing that the joint action on trafficking in human beings and the exploitation of children in 1997 has to be repealed. Our legislation, which was introduced a year later in 1998, was the equivalent of, if not better than most of the provisions in this framework decision. However, that joint action has now become redundant because of its limitations. A number of Deputies expressed concern about the exploitation of children during our discussion on the 1998 Act. No doubt that is part of the reason our definition and our provisions in the legislation have been so good. I am delighted there is no question of us doing other than retaining in full that legislation, although we may have to extend some areas such as the definition of sexual offences in relation to employment. Perhaps the Minister of State would expand on this.
The Internet is now accessible to all forms of sexual images. I wonder about the extent to which the legislation will be effective in controlling that. There is very little control over the Internet at present. How will such control be enforced and joint co-operation established to enforce this control and prevent the imaging of individual named children as well as the imaging of non-identifiable children which has also got all the connotations of child pornography exploitation and violence in many cases?
I am pleased the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children in relation to child prostitution is being put into law as well as the protocols to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. Perhaps we will have the UN Convention on Human Rights before long.
We have a busy day and the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, is spending a great deal of time with us. We are privileged he has come and to us once again.
It is a privilege to be with the committee.
The Minister of State is very welcome. The motion for discussion is an important and difficult one to comment on - that of sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. When one looks at recent media reports of those who have been brought to justice for exploitation of children and sees the various categories of people who have been prosecuted it brings it home to us that exploitation of children has been prevalent in Ireland for quite some time. It is frightening to note the number of cases brought forward, albeit going back a long time, but nonetheless society has been ridden with huge exploitation of children. My understanding is that there is still quite an amount of exploitation of children taking place. On "Prime Time" recently a lady in her early 20s outlined her experiences and how she was exploited by adults in 1994-95. She alleged that adults in prominent positions had exploited and abused her, yet no case has ever been taken. When something like that is in the public arena people talk about it. In my locality it was widely discussed and also why a prosecution was not brought. The question arises as to what kind of a cover up was it. Why did this happen?
I appreciate the Minister of State has a legal background and it is a difficult question but in cases such as this, particularly high profile cases, there should be some method of educating the public that a case could not be taken for whatever reason. That case leaves the young lady feeling she was let down by society and by us, the legislators. We claim, and it has been stated several times around this table this evening, we have fantastic legislation to deal with all of this. Yet, here was a case of a young girl who brought forward strong allegations and a prosecution was not initiated. We have to question how this happened and why it happens. How can we give an adequate explanation to that child, her parents and family that that case did not go forward. That is a difficult issue. I am sure, the Minister of State during the course of his work has come across similar cases. As a legislator it is difficult to tell somebody one does not know the reason. People can say they have all the evidence. One is not in a position to explain to them and they are not in a position to get the full details on why a case was not taken. This leads to a distrust of society and distrust of legislation and of taking prosecutions. I am uneasy about it. I believe the problem is widespread and that quite an amount of abuse of children still takes place in society, despite what has been done. The more it is exposed the better the chance of stamping it out completely.
This raises the question of how the abuser in treated in prison. Do abusers get treatment? It appears they can voluntarily avail of a treatment programme or opt out of it. Yet when it comes to the end of their term they can be released into society without having availed of any treatment. Records show that people who have not availed of treatment are more likely to re-offend. How good are the controls in terms of a paedophile register and tracking them so that society is safe? The Minister of State, as a constitutional lawyer, will be aware of a person's right to remain anonymous, having served a sentence. It is a difficult question. Recently we witnessed difficulties in this city in regard to such problems. How can the problem be adequately addressed so that the fears and concerns of those on both sides are recognised? The people we will protect will be our children. They must be protected at all costs.
It has been said that the Internet fuels the concept of exploitation and it has been asked how can it be controlled. Not being an electronics expert I do not know how it can be controlled. There appears to be great difficulty in that area. Only recently somebody told me one can type into the Internet the most innocent of words, for example, if one types in the word "Castlebar" one will find it is a pornographic site. How does one control that? Maybe there are systems of control but I do not know. It is difficult for us, as Legislators, to be able to control that. Do we need to engage electronic whiz kids to advise on how to bring about measures of control or, perhaps, track who is tapping into these sites and what use they are making of them. In that regard I would welcome European co-operation and intervention. I welcome the motion before us. There is a great deal of work to be done in educating young people, protecting them and adopting a system where justice is not only done but is seen to be done. We have to show victims that, as legislators, we are there to protect them and that the law is there to protect them and that justice is done.
I am standing in for Senator Tony Kett and am doing my thinking as I sit here. I will have to put on my other hat to deal with this subject. I welcome the Minister of State who has the necessary sensitivity to deal with the legislation. I am very comfortable that we have a Minister of State who will deal with this whole area.
My experience of dealing with problems such as this in another capacity, was the lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Health and Children and Education and Science. While the Department of Education and Science will have its house in order in regard to how it will process a particular issue, somehow it never seems to link to the proper areas and nothing ever comes of it. I have not been in the Department for a couple of years and I know from reading the documentation that since 1997 much has happened and a great deal of work has been done in this area.
In relation to defining "child pornography" I am looking at the paragraph which shows different concepts but I would prefer our definition. The Minister of State reassured us when he said there would not be a problem retaining our existing statutory provision in that respect, but the fact that he had to make that statement is an indication that there was some discussion on the matter at some stage. I would have a difficulty with it because how do we define the word "minor"? I realise we have to use an arbitrary age, but there are some 18 year old children who look as though they are ten. This is something on which we will have to allow some scope for thinking in relation to child pornography, the arbitrary age, the definition of the word "minor" and so on. I would have a difficulty dealing with it in terms of children as children or children according to their age and maturity.
This is a worthwhile document and I am delighted to have been present for the discussion. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to listen to the debate and look forward to hearing more on the subject.
I also welcome the Minister of State. This is an important issue, one on which we could speak all night. Anything we can do to protect our children must be done. This issue must be kept at the top of our agenda.
While technology is beyond me, it is not beyond our children who are way ahead of us in that regard, which is something we have to keep in mind. I am very concerned, as I am sure are many others, that children have access to Internet porn sites through innocent means, as Deputy McGrath highlighted. I respect the Minister of State and ask him to examine this issue and perhaps avail of technical expertise because technology is advancing at a rapid rate, which advances are not a problem for children, and the younger they are, the better they are at using it. Obviously, much of this area is out of our control, but it is disappointing to note that other member states do not have legislation as effective as ours. We should take every opportunity to express our concern to those other member states which do not have the proper legislation in place.
What is the position of the applicant states with regard to such legislation? I attended a conference in Sweden on child sexual abuse and child pornography and it was frightening. We can only look at our own country and I suppose we are fortunate in that ours is a small country and we may find the problem easy to deal with, but at the conference it was absolutely frightening to see the way children are abused. While I welcome the document, I hope we will return to it and that the Minister of State will address my concerns with regard to the Internet.
I want to be associated with the welcome extended to the Minister of State. I admire the work he is doing and wish him every success in that regard.
Other colleagues highlighted the importance of the business before us today. Some time ago a famous politician told me that his family had given him a computer and that he had asked somebody to set it up for him. They got it back to him and told him to get a 12 year old to show him how to work it. Deputy Moynihan-Cronin made the same point. While I am not a child of the computer age, I find that young people have the ability to show me how to use it. For example, my sons, without any training or skill development, can use the computer. That is the challenge facing us as far as this remit is concerned because young people can use the technology and, presumably, computers will become even more part of our lives in the future. We have highlighted their downside and the serious issue of exploitation, of which we clearly have to be aware.
I also support what Deputy McGrath said about the times in which we live and the abuse now coming to light, perhaps a little slowly, but that is healthy for society and good for the country. I am a member of the south western area health board and during my period as chairman had many opportunities of chairing debates on this subject. I often worry - I say this to the Minister responsible - that in 20 or 30 years from now we will look back on these times and discover that abuse happened without our knowledge. I hope the progress we are making with various investigations and admissions will change attitudes to this subject and that people will now think differently in that regard.
We still have to be aware. The document before us is a graphic reminder that we have to be careful to put in place all the measures necessary to prevent something happening that we would be ashamed of in years to come. This is something on which we can all focus our minds because it would be a shame if, despite all the progress made on these matters, we still discovered in future times that abuse was still taking place. We must still control this. Every Minister who comes before this committee will have an important task but, as other colleagues have said, what the Minister of State is doing is very important and we are particularly supportive of him. I am delighted to see him here today and to support his work.
The issue of controlling child pornography on the Internet and all other media outlets is crucial. One of the areas not so commonly known to us but well known to children is the question of mobile phones on which pornographic images, etc. are easily accessible and can be transmitted through the network. This constitutes an invasion of young people's minds at a very young age and is an area, like the Internet and other media outlets, which is difficult to control. Adults are not often aware of this, but I became aware of it as a school teacher and it is quite shocking because children can become immune to this imagery, to a certain extent, yet it has an eroding effect on their morals. It is an ongoing problem which may appear to be funny in the minds of young people, but it is an exploitation of them. Obviously, mobile phone and other companies are making enormous amounts of money out of this area, yet it is a problem that even the media have not fully addressed. While this area is much more familiar to children than to adults, it is one I hope the Minister of State will examine, with the committee's assistance. If we address this problem, we will make good progress in that regard.
That is a new area about which I have never heard of previously.
I thank the members of the committee for the welcome they gave to the motions. I am glad the debate has moved beyond them and I do not propose to reply in great detail because I take it from the subjects members discussed that they were more interested, as I am, in the wider issues thrown up by the phenomenon of the development of modern technology and the dangers it poses.
In relation to the framework decision, I expressed our disappointment that the other member states did not see eye to eye with us on all issues. While we must bear in mind that they come from very different cultural traditions, it was valuable that we had the discussions that led to the framework decision because they gave us the opportunity - this is an important point about our participation in European institutions - to put forward our distinctive point of view that we believe the images put before children are important and can be greatly destructive and disruptive with regard to life expectations. The officers in my Department strongly put forward that view in the European negotiations. We have a strong legislative measure in the 1998 Act and, in a sense, all that the framework decision does is supplement that. We can have all the measures we like, but they will not be effective unless we have enforcement. Enforcement is important in this area.
A major investigation is under way, on which I cannot comment in any respect. It arose out of a discovery by the United States postal authorities. The information was then transmitted to other jurisdictions around the world.
In replying to a debate such as this, I salute the work of two individuals who are doing a tremendous amount of work on this front on the international level. One is Mary Banotti, a member of the European Parliament who has taken a great interest in this subject in the European Parliament and in other international organisations. She persuaded a major US organisation concerned with this problem to host its meeting in Dublin this October. I was glad to host a reception for it, but it discussed the problem from an international perspective. Equally, Max Taylor from University College Cork is the international expert on the generation of these images and is used extensively by authorities throughout the world. There are Irish citizens who are working very hard on the international side.
While we can have legislation on this area, it was clear from the conferences I attended that these images are not being created here to any great extent. They are being purveyed and disseminated here, but they are not being created here. We still must, however, have the necessary legislation in place so that anyone who would be tempted to create them here would be dealt with firmly.
The committee wisely discussed the wider issues posed by the Internet and by the proliferation of this type of pornography. It raises serious questions for us in modern life. Deputy Hoctor referred to treatment. That is important and it can lessen the chances of a paedophile re-offending, but we cannot lower our vigilance because treatment cannot guarantee a positive result.
Deputy Power raised important issues about the transnational nature of child pornography. I share his concern that the legislation in other countries should be as effective as ours. That is why this international dialogue is important. Deputy Power also referred to sentencing policy. That was addressed in the discussion paper on the Law on Sexual Offences. We will examine the laws on sexual offences generally arising from that paper. I am sure that members are well aware that there is a broad discretion given to the Judiciary in this area. Sentencing policy is a matter for it. Its policy often tends to reflect public opinion on the question.
Deputy Costello asked whether our legislation will need to be extended. We will have to consult the Attorney General on the fine details of the legislation necessitated by the Framework Document. As I said to members of the committee, we will not lessen the rigours of the law in any respect. If we create new or expand existing offences, they will be added to the list of offences of which convicted sex offenders will have to inform potential employers. Therefore, that area will be addressed.
Deputy Costello and others referred to the Internet, to which I will return. Deputy McGrath mentioned educating the public about why the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot take a case. Under the prosecutions of offences legislation, he has sole responsibility in that matter. We as public representatives have all faced this difficulty. We know that we cannot contact the Director of Public Prosecutions. The discretion is his. Older Deputies might recall that there were other circumstances pertaining before 1974, suggestions were made and it was thought best to put the matter beyond doubt by having an independent officer to deal with this matter. He looks at the file and makes a decision on whether the case will stand up. The only comfort one can give someone in that situation is that it is far worse to have a case that is aborted than to have no case at all. Often the trauma of a court case, of giving evidence and of being told by the judge that there is not enough evidence to go a jury or of the jury not being convinced of the evidence, can be terrible for a person who has been violated. From a legal point of view, where the proof does not stack up, the legal system must provide protections for the innocent. It is a question then of how one draws the balance. We cannot guarantee that every innocent person will not be convicted. We must make a judgment on these matters. That is the function of proof. It is not a matter for us as public representatives. I understand well to what Deputy McGrath referred. He also referred to treatment, but treatment in the prison system is voluntary. We cannot compel individuals to go for treatment.
Senator Ormonde referred to the lack of co-ordination between the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This has improved - at least I hope it has - in recent years with the appointment of a Minister of State. We have also established the National Children's Office. I am glad that it has survived the financial depredations of this year, is now fully staffed and will be in a position to tackle, what are called in the new jargon, cross-cutting issues in Departments - issues which affect different Departments where a common approach is required. Since my appointment as a Minister of State, one of the points that has struck me most is that many of our worst disaster zones in public policy seem to arise where there is an intersection of Departments involved and they have not being brought together to tackle the problem. I will not give any case histories because we are on record, but there is no doubt about that.
It is good that the National Children's Office has been established. Where children's policy is concerned, there is a determined approach to tackle issues on a cross departmental basis. One issue it is examining is the implementation of the Children Act, which involves complicated work among those three Departments, to which Senator Ormonde referred. Another area it is examining is national play policy, in respect of which the Department of the Environment and Local Government is also involved, as is the Department of Enterprise and Employment in regard to the insurance issue. It is good that the National Children's Office is able to analyse and tackle these problems because we lost a good deal of ground over the years in different areas due to a lack of co-ordination.
Deputies Moynihan and O'Connor also referred to the Internet, which is the reason I postponed dealing with it when it was raised by the first speaker. The problem concerning the Internet is a serious one. Members of the committee will be pleased to know that an Internet advisory board has been set up, which contains representatives of the service industries as well as officers form the Department and the Garda Síochána. Parents must be vigilant in regard to the use of the Internet. It comes down to the old problem of looking after one's children. Parents must take care of their children in this area. We have prepared explanatory material setting out what must be done and what precautions should be taken. Parents must read it and enforce it. That is the only sure and safe way. We have received tremendous co-operation from the industry and we are doing all we can in various directions on this front. International co-operation is important in relation to the Internet. We need more international co-operation to stamp out the harmful materials that can be purveyed through it.
I thank members of the committee for an interesting discussion on a number of issues, about which I regret to say we will hear more.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, and his officials for attending here today.