This is an opportunity to raise an issue on who may apply and on the applications process. In that context, I compliment the Minister on hitting the ground running on taking office to address what had been a serious delay in the vetting procedures. Anyone who is involved in this area will testify they were being extended far beyond a reasonable time, especially when one considers that the individual would be employed, pending completion of the vetting procedure. However, the Minister will be aware that over the past six months, there has been some slippage and the delays now have been exacerbated. Does he have a comment to make in the context of this section? Moreover, with the setting up of the new database, I understand the Minister will be deploying additional resources. Can he make a comment to alleviate the concerns of those who now are finding the delay has reverted from two to three months back to five or six months?
National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I do not think the delay is five to six months. On the basis of additional staff being deployed to the vetting office, a point was reached where vetting applications in the normal course, except in cases in which there was something unexpected or an exceptional difficulty, were being determined within two to three weeks.
I apologise, I meant two to three weeks and not two to three months.
The Department got down to two to three weeks. Recently, because of the huge additional amount of work that office apparently is getting, even without this Bill being enacted, the time for vetting decisions to be made has moved out to six to eight weeks. New staff have been recruited to the vetting office, whose training probably is just about being completed around now, who have been transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also have had discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, about the Department getting further staff in the context of the arrangements that are in place under the Croke Park agreement for transfer of staff from different parts of the public service. I am trying to secure additional staff in that manner, in order not to add further to public expenditure. The Department also used the JobBridge scheme to get individuals into the vetting office who were trained and did an excellent job on foot of that training. At one point, the Department had ten individuals working in the vetting bureau under the JobBridge scheme.
I am very conscious that the bringing into force of this legislation will add additional pressures. My Department and I have had the necessary engagement with the Garda Síochána, which essentially is in charge of the vetting bureau and I will do everything I can, in consultation with the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to ensure that prior to the bringing into force of this legislation, the staffing is in place and available because it would defeat the purpose of the legislation, were the timeframes to continue to expand. When I came into office, it was taking between 12 to 14 weeks for vetting applications to be dealt with, which was far too long and was creating difficulties for a number of organisations and in a range of different areas, particularly where people were working with children and where gaps needed to be filled. It is an issue that must be addressed. Some steps have been taken in that regard and consideration is also being given to improving the information technology system that operates in the context of processing vetting applications to speed up matters. Consequently, changes will be necessary to ensure the timelines are not spread out.
One of the conversations I had with the person in charge when I visited the vetting bureau was about the possibility of fast-tracking certain applications for vetting. The difficulty in creating a separate stream is that one then has people making cases for fast-tracking, and instead of doing the vetting, staff must consider whether a certain individual could be fast-tracked. There have been occasions when there has been an urgent need to have an individual vetted for particular work and they have been facilitated by the vetting bureau where the urgency has been properly communicated. We will do as much as we can in this area. There is no point in enacting the legislation only for us then to create a large arrears of applications with not just weeks but months passing before vetting is undertaken.
I am reassured by the Minister’s remarks. I have no doubt he will be proactive in this regard but the experience of centralising agencies in recent times has proven to be problematic. I hope there will be an opportunity for the relevant organisation that wishes to make contact to speak to a person rather than an automated telephone system putting one through to six or seven different menus. The only reason someone would telephone would be because there is a delay.
I also welcome the fact that the Minister is introducing a personal identification number, PIN, which I hope – as I am sure does the Minister – will expedite relevant queries that arise because one can go straight to the number and quickly ascertain the status. As the Minister indicated, this is all about resources. I wish him well in his jousting with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, in that regard. However, I am sure the Minister and the House agrees that this is vitally important. The Minister is setting up the architecture of the new structure and I am sure he would see it as a personal reflection on his efficiency if he were to find that the system fell down on the expediting of the applications.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) The Minister shall make detailed regulations in relation to the practice and procedure to be adopted by each scheduled organisation in relation to the conduct of investigators, and of inquiries, which may lead to a notification being made to the bureau under section 19."
We have seen many statutory organisations being given the task of having to report to the bureau under the Bill. The amendment seeks to give the Minister the power to make detailed regulations on the practice and procedures to be adopted by each scheduled organisation on the conduct of investigations. We share the concerns expressed by the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, on the legislation to the effect that there is potential for the inquiry or investigation procedure followed by each organisation to vary, therefore creating a lack of uniformity and perhaps even confusion between each organisation as to when, how and where to report specified information. We hope the Minister will amend the legislation to ensure he has the power and the ability under the legislation to make detailed regulations on the practice and procedure to be adopted by each scheduled organisation on the conduct of investigations and-or inquiries, which may lead to a notification being made to the bureau under section 19.
I have a comment on section 19, which partly speaks to what Senator Ó Clochartaigh has proposed. My background, as the Minister is aware, is in youth work organisations. I am confused as to whether an organisation must report to the HSE, the Garda Síochána and the bureau. Why can the authorities not speak to one another? Why is the onus put on organisations to do all of the reporting? My background is in the Irish Girl Guides. If a concern is reported to the HSE, for example, and it follows all the Children First guidelines, will it then not be following protocol in that it has not reported the concern to the bureau or the Garda Síochána? I found the section confusing.
First, I will deal with the amendment, which I am unable to accept as it would contravene the provisions of a range of existing Acts. In this context, it should be borne in mind that all of the organisations listed in Schedule 2 have a statutory power provided by the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries into child safety matters, or inquiries into the fitness to practice of persons engaged in certain professions. The conduct of investigations or inquiries by those bodies, therefore, must follow the practice and procedure set out by the Oireachtas in the relevant Acts, and should not be interfered with - and cannot be- in any regulation made by the Minister for Justice and Equality in this Bill, as is proposed in the amendment. One will see the truth of that if one examines the list of organisations referred to in Schedule 2. It would create a particular difficulty.
In the context of the issue raised by Senator van Turnhout, we are seeking to ensure that notifications are properly made in all circumstances in which they are required in law. I hope the Bill adequately deals with that, as opposed to creating confusion as to whether if someone told one agency another agency would be informed. We are anxious to ensure that notifications are made, after all the experiences in recent years of information not being provided on issues on which it should have been provided. Perhaps this is what I would describe as the “to be sure to be sure” provision. I would rather be sure than uncertain. The provision sets out clearly where matters stand.
I accept what the Minister said but my difficulty is that looking at the situation from the perspective of organisational resources, the onus is being put on the organisations to do what could be called double-reporting, but my concern is that we are not getting the arms of the State to ensure that they report to one another and that one would have the HSE reporting to the Garda Síochána or sharing information. The Bill places the burden on organisations. I understand about vetting, but if one has a voluntary youth work organisation the Bill places a big onus on it, for very good reason, but I wish to ensure that an organisation would not inadvertently fail to comply with the law because of the multiple reporting requirements.
The Senator probably sleeps with the Children First guidelines and is completely familiar with them.
The Children First guidelines prescribe certain connectivities between various organisations but we still think there is a value in each particular organisation trying to ensure that the appropriate State bodies are directly informed by it. I would not see that as an enormous administrative burden for an organisation. It is a question of furnishing possibly identical information to two different agencies but the Children First guidelines require those agencies to communicate with each other as well.
Does the provision include the Garda Síochána itself? I refer to the Soham case where the perpetrator of the murder of the two innocent girls had not been charged but had been investigated by the police. What happened was as a result of a lack of communication between state bodies. Is the Garda Síochána required to provide information along those lines under the section?
That is soft information, which falls under the aegis of the Bill. The classic example of soft information is if there has been an investigation and a serious allegation was made about children but prosecution has not been taken. Such a case is provided for in legislation.
I propose the amendment to make it clear in the Bill that the chief bureau officer shall report to the Garda Commissioner on the performance and management of the bureau, and on any issues arising. I am mindful of the fact that section 23 already provides that the bureau will make an annual report via the Garda Commissioner to the Minister, which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, the Bill should also provide that if in the course of any year there are urgent issues which the chief bureau officer needs to bring to the Garda Commissioners attention, he or she must be able to do so with speed rather than having to communicate with his or her immediate superior officer in the Garda, as this may result in an issue taking some time to go up the line before coming to the Commissioner's attention.
This is a way of ensuring any difficulties that may arise are rapidly communicated and in the event that they are communicated to the Commissioner, they will, if required, be communicated to the Minister.
This is an inter-agency issue between the chief bureau officer and Garda Commissioner. Is there an obligation on the Commissioner to report to the Minister? Will the relevant information be placed in the public domain? It is all very well to produce an internal report but what if people are screaming at the gates and the Minister and members of the public have not been made aware of an issue? Is the Minister satisfied that the amendment addresses the public dimension of communicating information?
Yes. Under the general legislation that applies to the Garda Síochána, it is open to the Garda Commissioner to communicate to the Minister anything of concern or relevance. To take the very issue the Senator raised, a classic situation that could arise would be where the chief bureau officer is concerned about time delays that are developing in responding to vetting applications as a result of the amount of work the bureau is experiencing at the time and decides the bureau needs more staff. Instead of a request having to go up the line through a chief superintendent, assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner before reaching the Garda Commissioner, no one will be upset or offended if the chief bureau officer either telephones the Commissioner directly or sends some sort of note indicating that the problem may be one the Minister will have to solve.
One must remember that a substantial number of staff in the bureau are civilians. The Garda Síochána is in charge of the bureau and a highly committed member of the force is doing excellent work heading a substantially civilian workforce that has been fully trained in this area. This garda deserves the highest of commendations. As I pointed out, some of the more recent recruitment has come from staff who have been transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because they are surplus to requirements. These staff have been fully trained or are undergoing a training process in order that they can work in the vetting bureau.
If, in the context of dealing with matters in the manner I described, there is a need for staff and this requirement is communicated properly to the Garda Commissioner, as would be the case under the legislation, I would expect the Commissioner to communicate rapidly to the Minister the needs in the relevant area in order that he or she can engage with his or her colleagues to ascertain what steps can be taken, namely, whether to authorise the recruitment of civilians from outside the public service in better financial times or when the Government is able to do so or whether, in the context of redeployment, individuals become available who would be interested in working in this area and have the skills to do so or can be trained to acquire such skills. That is the importance of the measure.
Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 are related and will be discussed together.
Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 have a similar purpose, namely, to ensure that persons working in accommodation centres for persons applying for asylum are vetted. While it may not be widely known, this is already a requirement of my Department's contracts with persons or organisations contracted to provide such accommodation. Children are accommodated in many such centres.
I am proposing the particular wording in amendment No. 9 because it is important that the amendment is made to Part 1 of Schedule 1, which relates to "Relevant Work or Activities Relating to Children". The alternative proposal seeks to add this type of accommodation centre to the Bill by adding them to Part 2 of Schedule 1, which relates to "Relevant Work or Activities Relating to Vulnerable Persons". This is not the correct approach for two reasons. First, persons applying for asylum would not come within the definition of "vulnerable person", as defined by the Bill. Second, the reason for including this type of accommodation centre in the Bill is that many children are resident in the centres in question and the persons working with children accommodated in such centres or having access to these children should be vetted. As I noted, such vetting already takes place as it is required by the contracts entered into my Department. The amendment is a precautionary measure to ensure that irrespective of who is the Minister or what is the position in future, in so far as we have such accommodation centres, it will be clear that vetting is part and parcel of what is required.
I welcome the amendment. As the Minister is well aware, I and many other Senators have been lobbying on the issue of direct provision for some time. We have aired serious concerns about how the direct provision model is working and what could potentially be taking place in direct provision centres. The anomaly with these centres is that they are part of a private service operated on behalf of the State by private limited companies under contract from the State. While I welcome the amendment, I seek clarification on the issue of subcontracting. Many of the companies involved in the operation of direct provision centres may hire in or subcontract tasks such as catering, cleaning, security and so forth. Does the amendment cover people who may be employed under such arrangements? It is essential that such persons are covered because all those who come into contact with children in accommodation centres should be vetted. In addition, staff from various support agencies, for example, teachers taking classes on behalf of a vocational education committee, occasionally work in direct provision centres. Will they also be covered by the provision?
I very much appreciate the amendment proposed by the Minister. Does he consider that his amendment addresses the issues provided for in amendments Nos. 11 and 12? Is he willing, in the spirit of his amendment No. 9, to accept amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to provide certainty that children who are resident in direct provision accommodation centres will be protected and professionals who work in such centres in any capacity will be vetted before being permitted access to them?
I, too, welcome the amendment. In the interests of time, I will confine my contribution to expressing my support for the view expressed by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. I look forward to the Minister's response.
I am advised that amendment No. 9 covers the issues about which the Senators are concerned. It covers any individual who works in a centre and has direct contact with children. This could well include cooking staff. However, it does not cover what I would describe as visitors to a centre because one cannot vet a visitor. If, for example, a voluntary organisation is working in the area and a committed individual attached to the organisation in question is visiting a centre, one could not expect him or her to be vetted. However, if the person is in a voluntary organisation that is working with children regularly, he or she will fall under the aegis of the Bill on the basis that he or she is working with children as opposed to being a visitor to a centre that is providing direct provision.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 31, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(e) a direct provision accommodation centre.”.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 31, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“6. Any work or activity which is carried on by a person in relation to persons,and in particular children and other categories of vulnerable persons within the meaning of this part, who are currently accommodated in a direct provision accommodation centre.”.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Is it necessary to have the amendment printed because we are familiar with its wording?
The amendment must be printed.
I do not know how this confusion has arisen because the Leader made it clear that we were continuing with this debate to 2.15 p.m. without any break. I am not casting aspersions on anybody but we will now be delayed in order to have this amendment printed.
The office needs a certain amount of time to turn over an amendment. It must print the amendment.
I must switch personality from being Minister for Justice and Equality to being Minister for Defence to take questions at 2.30 p.m. I have seen a draft of the Senator's amendment and it is not very long. If we adjourn until 2.10 p.m., it might be possible to take it. Alternatively, I would have no difficulty if the House wanted to take it immediately after the conclusion of defence questions.
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business: "That the sitting be suspended until 2.10 p.m."
Is that agreed? Agreed. The debate will conclude at 2.25 p.m.