This debate concerns Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA.
EU Directive on Combating the Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography: Statements
I welcome the former Senator and now Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, for his first presentation in this Chamber. I congratulate him and wish him well in his new position. I hope the fact that yet another talented politician has come from this House onto the world stage may influence people.
As I was wondering how long I would have to wait for that reference to be mentioned, I thank the Acting Chairman for getting it in quickly during my first appearance before the Seanad. I am delighted to be present today, taking this issue on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Alan Shatter.
Like many Senators who will speak on this topic, I wish we were handling a directive on legislation in respect of an issue that was lighter and less evil than this one. Members may have taken a moment to look through the directive we are discussing, the full title of which is a directive "on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography", and the replacement of a particular Council framework decision. When one looks through the detail the directive is obliged to contain and the kind of evil to which it refers, it brings into sharp focus the need for effective legislation in this area and having a strong approach from national parliaments and the European Union in order to respond to the targeting and treatment of our most vulnerable people.
The Minister asked me to send his apologies to Members for not being able to handle this issue with them. I will pass on to him all the comments Senators will make on this directive and the more general issue of the sexual and other abuse of children. This is a crime of the most vile nature. To target our youngest and most vulnerable people in the way many of us are aware of is the worst kind of crime to which a human being can stoop. This directive is about putting in place a co-ordinated, effective and cohesive response to this crime. It looks to putting in place a multifaceted approach to deal with the evil of sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children.
Members may be aware that in recent years the Minister has steered two very important pieces of legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas on this issue. The first of these - the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill - was enacted in August, 2012 and introduced very important measures designed to deal with the issue of abuse not being reported and the consequences of same. The second - the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill - was enacted in December, 2012 and provided for the mandatory vetting of persons working with children or vulnerable adults. During the course of the debate I will come back to both of these in more detail later.
The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, has also launched revised child protection guidance entitled, Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children and has received Government approval to put the guidelines on a statutory footing. This is a key commitment in the programme for Government. The Children First Bill is viewed as a part of a wider package of measures, along with the vetting and withholding Acts, to which I have referred, further ensure the protection of children and vulnerable persons from sexual abuse and exploitation.
The Minister is also pressing forward with arrangements to ensure the effective implementation of the Children First guidelines across all Departments, agencies and sectors that have contact with children, and with the reform of child and family services in the Health Service Executive leading to the establishment of a new Child and Family Agency. The draft directive was tabled by the European Commission in March, 2010. In June of that year, following approval by the Dáil and Seanad, the Government exercised its option under the Lisbon treaty to take part in the adoption and application of the measure. The directive was adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in December 2011 and the member states are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 18 December 2013.
The directive seeks to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also contains measures to strengthen the prevention of such crime and, most important, the protection of its victims. Many of the minimum rules in terms of offences are already in place in Ireland and sanctions, in many cases, far exceed the requirements of the directive. This is due to our generally high penalty regime and is best illustrated by example. Article 3.4 of the directive requires the member states to punish engaging in sexual activities with a child who has not reached the age of consent by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years. Under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, a person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 15 years is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. The maximum penalty in section 3 of the 2006 Act for the offence of defilement of a child under the age of 17 is five years imprisonment and that maximum penalty increases to ten years where the offender is a person in authority. In another example, article 5.4 of the directive requires the member states to punish the distribution, dissemination or transmission of child pornography by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least two years. In this jurisdiction, a person found guilty of producing or distributing child pornography is liable, if convicted on indictment, to imprisonment for up to 14 years. Many of the measures included in this directive have already been transposed into domestic law and in the small number of areas that we do not the Government has a clear plan in place regarding implementation. This leads on the legislation that will come before the House in the near future.
The first and most crucial legislation in this area is the forthcoming sexual offences Bill. The legislation will be broad and wide-ranging. As well as implementing outstanding criminal law measures in a number of international legal instruments, including the EU directive, it will implement the recommendations of two Oireachtas committees, amend the Sex Offenders' Act 2001 and reform the law on incest. That is a key point I draw to the attention of Members. Most of those areas that we currently do not have transposed into domestic law will be dealt with in the sexual offences Bill in the near future.
The other international instruments to which I referred include the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse and the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The criminal law provisions of the EU, Council of Europe and UN instruments overlap to a significant degree.
I wish to highlight a selection of measures in this area which should be of particular interest to the House. Article 16.2 of the directive provides that member states shall take all the necessary measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects that an offence in the directive has been committed to report this knowledge or suspicion to the competent services. The primary purpose of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 was to close a loophole in the law. Under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 it was an offence to withhold information in respect of a serious criminal offence. However, that provision excluded sexual offences. The withholding of information legislation was enacted to ensure there is an obligation on persons who have knowledge of any serious offence, including sexual offences against children or vulnerable adults, to inform the Garda.
Article 10 of the directive contains measures relating to disqualification from employment of persons convicted of sexual offences. The National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 provides the necessary statutory basis for the use of the Garda criminal records database to conduct vetting of persons applying for employment which entails working with children or vulnerable adults. The Schedule to the Act lists in detail the types of work or activity that require vetting. These include child care services; schools; hospitals and health services; residential services or accommodation for children or vulnerable persons; treatment, therapy or counselling services for children or vulnerable persons; provision of leisure, sporting or physical activities to children or vulnerable persons; and promotion of religious beliefs.
The Act also provides for the use of "soft" information in regard to vetting. This is referred to as "specified information". Specified information is information other than a court determined criminal record. For example, it includes conclusions from investigations of child abuse or neglect conducted by the HSE, where such investigations have concluded that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable persons. Specified information also includes similar conclusions arising from fitness to practise inquiries by statutory bodies, such as those conducted by the Medical Council, the Nursing Council or the Teaching Council. In addition, it includes a bona fide concern that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable persons, where this arises from a Garda investigation of a criminal offence. Members may be aware of some of the difficulties that can occur in respect of the time required to complete the vetting process. Constituents who are seeking to take up positions that require vetting under the legislation have come to me. Sometimes the vetting processes takes a longer time than they would wish and this can sometimes cause difficulties for them in respect of the employment they wish to take up.
The Department of Justice and Equality is doing all it can to ensure the processing times for these applications is appropriate and is dealt with as promptly as possible. I am aware when talking to constituents on this matter that we are all agreed that for this work to be done properly, it takes time to do it. It is important that anybody who is moving into a role in which he or she will be dealing with children or vulnerable persons in the agencies referred to would undergo the appropriate supervision and checking to ensure he or she has the correct qualifications, character and record for dealing with our most vulnerable.
About 300,000 vetting applications are processed by the Garda vetting unit each year and the primary purpose of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 is to put into clear law the procedures that have been developed to vet these applications. More important, the Act makes it mandatory for persons working with children or vulnerable adults to be vetted where this was previously done on the basis of a voluntary code. The Act also includes offences and penalties for persons who fail to comply with its provisions. In addition to the vetting legislation, under the Sex Offenders Act 2001, a person who is on the sex offenders register commits an offence if he or she fails to disclose to an employer or a prospective employer a conviction for sexual offence specified in the Schedule to the 2001 Act.
The directive also refers specifically to websites containing or disseminating child pornography, and I want to refer to some of the articles in the directive on this area. Article 25, in particular, provides for measures against websites containing or disseminating child pornography. Paragraph 1 provides for the removal of websites containing such material. In Ireland, a hotline.ie service already provides for the removal of illegal material. It has performed very well and has had some notable successes in fighting this scourge. I acknowledge the significant expertise and prowess of the Garda Síochána and particular sections within the force that are charged with dealing with these terrible websites. I stress the importance of international co-operation and working effectively with the right international organisations in these areas. This crime, as we are only too sadly aware, stretches across borders, and one of the most effective ways to deal with it is by a response that also goes across borders. To do that, international co-operation is essential.
Paragraph 2 of Article 25 is concerned with blocking access to sites containing or disseminating child pornography. Discussions on the establishment of structured arrangement for the blocking of access to websites containing child pornography are at an advanced stage between the Garda and Internet service providers. This will provide us with a mechanism that fulfils the requirements of the second part of Article 25. I urge Internet service providers, ISPs, the people charged with the provision of Internet service in the State, to continue to live up to their responsibilities in dealing with this area. I repeat that co-operation with other law detection and law enforcement agencies is essential. The only way of preventing the development and spread of these websites is by the ISPs and the companies associated with them working effectively and coherently with the Garda and other bodies. The arrangement being discussed will involve close co-operation between the Garda and Internet service providers. It will be based on a written arrangement and clearly laid out procedures between the different bodies. Under the proposed arrangements, the Garda will identify sites and, when satisfied that the material is child pornography and therefore illegal, will notify the ISP of the site or sites in question. The ISP will then act in accordance with the agreed arrangements to block access to the site or sites. The Garda will have the benefit of its links with other police forces and international policing organisations, such as Interpol and Europol, in seeking out and identifying sites.
Other key provisions in the directive concern the sensitive handling of police investigations into alleged sexual abuse and exploitation. One requirement is that interviews with child victims take place, where necessary, in premises designed and adapted for this purpose. The investigation of sexual offences against children requires an especially sensitive and thoroughly professional approach. There have been considerable advances in recent years in the way in which the criminal justice system deals with cases of child sexual abuse. The Garda Síochána puts a particular emphasis on tackling sexual crime and other crimes against children, as well as proactive co-operation with all relevant Departments, organisations and agencies to improve the safety of children.
In April 2010, the Garda Síochána published a comprehensive policy on the investigation of sexual crime, crimes against children and child welfare, the aim of which was to combine professionalism with sensitivity and compassion in the investigation of sexual crimes. Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children 2011 has been adopted as Garda policy, and interaction with the HSE and children and family services is an integral part of that policy in relation to all investigations of child abuse. A strategic committee has been established within the Garda Síochána, chaired at assistant commissioner level, to liaise with the HSE's national director of children and family services to ensure that all matters of strategy and policy in the field of inter-agency working receive proper direction.
A sexual crime management unit has been established within the Garda domestic violence and sexual assault investigation unit, which is part of the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The unit is responsible for evaluating and monitoring the number of investigations each year into child sexual abuse, child neglect and other sexual offences to ensure they are receiving appropriate attention. It is also responsible for advising on the investigation of such crimes and promoting best investigative practice.
Members of the Garda Síochána and HSE personnel have undergone joint and intensive training in the specialised skills necessary for interviewing children. Staff of the Garda college, together with their HSE colleagues, regularly review the training to ensure it is in accordance with best international practice. In addition, given the need for sensitivity and confidentiality surrounding sexual crimes, there is a clear advantage from an investigative perspective, both for victims and the Garda Síochána, in conducting relevant interviews away from Garda stations.
A network of dedicated interview suites has been established by the Minister's Department and the Garda Síochána in six strategically chosen locations throughout the State. These are used by the Garda authorities to record interviews with child victims. The roll-out and utilisation of these interview suites is a huge step forward in terms of how child victims of sexual abuse are dealt with by the criminal justice system.
Following the original publication of the Murphy report, Garda policy and practice in this field was the subject of review and recommendations by the Garda Inspectorate, whose report, Responding to Child Sexual Abuse, was published in February 2012. The bulk of the inspectorate's recommendations have been implemented and, in line with a proposal contained in the report, the Minister wrote recently to the inspectorate requesting a follow-up review be carried out focusing on current initiatives and progress in implementing the report's recommendations.
I should also mention, in so far as the investigation of sexual offences generally is concerned, that the Minister for Justice and Equality was delighted last week to be able to publish a Bill to establish the long-awaited DNA database. I have no doubt that, when established, this facility will be of invaluable assistance to the Garda in the investigation of sexual offences and other serious crimes.
With regard to criminal proceedings and Article 20 of the directive, the Minister was very pleased that, in the recently enacted Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Act 2013, he was able to extend rules relating to the out-of-court video recording of child evidence to new categories of child witness. For human trafficking offences, the upper age threshold for such video recordings was increased from 14 to 18 years, and this facility was also extended to child witnesses, other than accused persons, who are minors. The same extension of child evidence rules for sexual offences will feature in the sexual offences Bill.
The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 already makes provision for a person under the age of 18 years, being a person other than the accused, to give evidence in court proceedings through a live television link.
I would like to say a few words about education and raising awareness. These are requirements in Article 23 of the directive that address the prevention of sexual abuse and exploitation. The national strategy on the prevention of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence contains a number of actions in relation to education. Under action 3.2 of the strategy, the Department of Education and Skills has developed personal safety materials for the junior cycle social, personal and health education, SPHE, modules. The national steering committee on violence against women was consulted on the materials. The lessons are expected to be rolled out in schools this academic year following the training of teachers and it is anticipated that materials for senior cycle students will be finalised following the roll-out at junior level.
In the past few years and pending the development of these materials, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence has provided funding for a number of organisations to provide programmes in schools or to specially train teachers to do so. While most university students are aged 18 or over, some enter third level education before the age of 18. The Union of Students in Ireland represents students across the country. Recently it undertook a research study which was the first of its kind in Ireland. The State funded the study as part of its work to increase awareness of domestic and sexual violence. The study also focused on unwanted sexual experience. It is a significant milestone to fill the gap of empirical evidence relevant to the lived experience of the Irish population in general and for third level students, in particular.
I wish to make a number of concluding points on the legislation and give a general policy overview. My first comment is on the transposition of directives and legislation in the area. I hope I have been able to underscore to colleagues that many measures in the directive have already been implemented and brought into national law through the introduction of legislation, and of those that have not, most, if not all of them, will be dealt with in the forthcoming sexual offences Bill referred to in my contribution.
Many of us have been exposed and involved with these tragic cases through work in our constituencies and communities. Therefore, one of the areas that I mentioned at the conclusion of my contribution is of great importance. I am referring to what happens in our schools and what happens with our young people in the context of the education that we give them in terms of their awareness of their own bodies, the clear boundaries regarding unacceptable behaviour and giving them the confidence to articulate that to the people that they trust. Tragically, if that does not happen in their families then we must allow them to understand that there are people in their schools, communities and other authorities that can be approached and spoken to about the behaviour that they may be subjected to.
Third, I wish to underscore one of the more practical aspects of my contribution. I refer to the recent developments that have taken place to provide appropriate facilities and locations for interviews, discussions and conversations with young people. Those of us who have had occasion to be in Garda stations either due to constituency and pubic representative work or for other reasons, will know what I mean by the following. Regardless of whatever work gardaí do in terms of presenting an environment and trying to make sure that it is appropriate, we know that it is not the right environment for vulnerable young people who may already be acutely stressed or feel acutely threatened to have a discussion. We know that it is not the right environment within which this kind of discussion needs to take place. It is welcome that great work has taken place to provide locations where highly-skilled and trained members of the HSE, the social services and members of the Garda Síochána can treat these alleged issues with the necessary sensitivity and skill.
I am a parent and also involved in a school. Therefore, I am aware now of the increase in regulation and domestic legislation regarding how to deal with this issue. We all know, as is the case for any other area of law, no matter how strong and well designed legislation is if it is not implemented effectively and appropriately then it will fail in the intention that prompted its drafting in the first place. That is why the enhanced training that has taken place of many of our professionals who work in the area is welcome. I also want to underscore the importance of the development to provide appropriate locations in order for these discussions and investigations to take place with our children and vulnerable people.
I shall finish on that note and thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to address the House on the legislation. I am privileged to return here as Minister of State in order to address the Chamber given the numbers of years I spent here. I look forward to hearing contributions on the legislation from all of my colleagues and shall do my best to respond to the points raised at the end of the debate. Members can be assured that the officials and I will convey their comments to the Minister and that the forthcoming legislation on sexual offences will deal with some of the outstanding areas. I hope the legislation will provide a vehicle for continued focus on the area and respond to the concerns, observations and ideas expressed by Members.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, back to the House and the senior officials from the Department of Justice and Equality. He played an important role here when he was a Senator. I am rather amazed by his warm endorsement of the Government's wish to abolish the Seanad and noticed that he has participated in numerous television programmes supporting the Government's view. I am surprised by that because he played an important role here and the Seanad played an important role during his period as Senator. However, life moves on and I wish him well in the future.
Fianna Fáil supports the full and speedy implementation of the European Union directives on combating sexual abuse and child pornography. The scourge of such predatory sexual activity needs to be tackled with a strong legal framework and an adequately resourced Garda. The gross misuse of the Internet for such disturbing criminal acts needs to be addressed on an international scale thus recognising the global nature of the problem.
I commend the document produced by Senator van Turnhout on online child abuse material entitled, Effective Strategies to Tackle Online Child Abuse Material. The Department's officials are aware of her document and will use it when working on the Bill. The document has been extraordinarily well researched and is extremely good. I compliment the Senator on her document. If ever there was proof positive that the Seanad comprises people of very diverse views and knowledge, the document is a clear indication of the work of the Senator and her colleagues. The Seanad has given her and her organisation a unique platform to convey the information directly to the senior officials in the Department of Justice and Equality. If the Seanad is abolished that opportunity will be lost.
The EU directive is due to be transposed by December 2013 but, unfortunately, it has taken time to reach that point. It is critical that the directive is placed into Irish law as soon as possible and adequate resources are given to the Garda to ensure its effective implementation. I do not believe that the directive was scrutinised by either House of the Oireachtas. Perhaps the Minister of State can elaborate on that position. Far too many directives are not being scrutinised here and 164 directives have been transposed into Irish law without any debate in either House.
With regard to reform, the Dáil will allocate some days in April and October to scrutinise European legislation. I am sure it will be generous and effective for the amount of legislation that will reach the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a definite commitment in the Lisbon treaty, both the first and second treaties, that the Houses of the Oireachtas would scrutinise all European legislation.
No European directive should be transposed into Irish law without it being scrutinised by either House of the Oireachtas. The committees spend some time on them, but it is a very time-consuming arrangement. We could also have an input from our MEPs.
The issue of sexual abuse and child pornography is an acute sensitive one, given the vulnerability of the young victims involved. It is a heinous crime. The grave exploitation of this vulnerability and the use of the Internet to bypass national laws demands a co-ordinated global response. The European Union has rightly played a leading role in developing a pan-continental response to this problem. These are particularly serious crimes against children, who need special protection and care, and they produce long-lasting and serious harm to child victims. However, fighting these crimes is very difficult. Children are vulnerable, and are often ashamed and too afraid to report what has happened to them.
To implement the directive effectively, real resources have to be given to the Garda Síochána to pursue and convict the criminals involved in these horrendous activities. We cannot refer to any case pending at the moment, but I hope the necessary action is taken by the Government to co-operate in respect of a person who is facing charges in another jurisdiction. Very serious allegations are being made about a particular individual at the moment. The directive includes provision not only for the prosecution of offenders but also for the prevention of offences and the protection of child victims. It provides for the right of employers to ask for information on criminal records and for awareness-raising campaigns and the training of professionals as preventative measures.
The new directive will make it easier to fight crimes against children by acting on different fronts. On criminal law, a wide range of situations of sexual abuse and exploitation will be criminalised, covering new phenomena helped by the Internet like child grooming and web cam or web viewing of child pornography. More detailed provisions outline six levels of penalties from one to ten years of imprisonment. This will ensure greater consistency in classifications of the severity of the offence and will reduce the difference between the legislation of member states. To combat offences by travelling sex offenders and so-called child sex tourism, national authorities will be able to prosecute nationals abusing children abroad and organising travel to abuse children, and advertising sex abuse opportunities will be prohibited. To facilitate the criminal prosecution of offenders, it will now be possible to initiate a case in all member states up to and until the time child victims reach the age of majority. Confidentiality rules will no longer be an obstacle to preventing professionals working with children from reporting offences, and the police will be obliged to set up special units to identify child victims of child pornography with effective investigative tools. Child victims will enjoy more protection in the form of extensive assistance and support following an individual assessment of each child, as well as measures to facilitate access to legal remedies and avoid the trauma of participating in criminal proceedings.
To prevent sexual abuse and exploitation, convicted offenders will be individually assessed and will have access to special programmes to prevent them from committing new offences. Background checks for candidates applying to work with children will be easier and more comprehensive, and education awareness campaigns and training to detect child sexual exploitation will be deployed. To disrupt the distribution of child pornography on the Internet, member states will be obliged to ensure child pornography pages hosted in their territory are removed and to take action to have them removed if hosted abroad. They may also set up procedures to block access from their territories if they wish, but while that can be controlled in the EU, sites can be located in third countries. There must be, therefore, an international arrangement to prevent the distribution of child pornography or any other kind of pornography.
The danger associated with the access to pornography through the Internet is in the exploitation of young people. There was a recent case which occurred at an event here in Dublin and which was sent around the Internet. That was damaging for all involved, and the future of the person involved could be destroyed. I do not know if it was taken down, but those films can never be removed. They are out there somewhere and it is just so dangerous.
The Government is giving this priority. I know that from its work during the Presidency and commend the Minister's report on the issue and wish him well in proceeding with this measure as quickly as possible.
I welcome the Minister of State. I have known him for more than 20 years when we soldiered together in a younger organisation.
We are still young.
Younger.
Absolutely. It is great to see his meteoric rise in politics from being in this Chamber a few years ago to being in government. It is well deserved and well earned. He left the corporate world to pursue a career in politics and the public service, and that deserves to be recognised. His contribution as Minister of State has been well noted. His views on the future of the House will be decided by the people on 4 October, and everyone will move on from that.
It puzzles me how long it has taken to get this directive enacted. I know it is replacing an older framework going back to 2004. The issue surrounding child abuse and child pornography is very much an international problem because child pornography on the Internet does not respect boundaries and borders. That is why it is appropriate that this would be driven at European level. On a positive note, this Government is very much committed to protecting children. That has been evident from the beginning of its term of office, when for the first time in the history of the State, a senior Minister with responsibility for children was appointed to the Government. Senator van Turnhout's appointment to this House to scrutinise the Government's performance and to enhance legislation shows that the intentions were there and were acted upon. The children's referendum was certainly a symbolic step forward.
Child pornography on the Internet is proving difficult for larger police forces than ours to come to terms with. It is so widespread and difficult to control that the only way to achieve it effectively is through international co-operation, not just at European level but across the world by co-operating with the likes of the FBI. Co-operation is crucial. The directive must be transposed into national law by 18 December. Will this deadline be met by Ireland? I sincerely hope it will. When will the new sexual offences Bill come before the House for scrutiny? Will the heads of that Bill be referred on to any Oireachtas committee, such as the justice or health and children ones? Is consultation in this area necessary? Perhaps it is not, but this Bill is crucial. This and previous Governments have advanced legislation and protocols in many areas, and while it is all very well to clap ourselves on the back for this, we need to ensure we comply with all elements of the directive.
We should go beyond compliance with it. I have no hesitation in suggesting this is so important we should have even stronger laws and protocols than required by the directive.
I agree with the requirements of the directive and with the comments of the Minister with regard to education. Training in this area is very important and there has been training for teachers at junior cycle level. I welcome the fact this training will be extended to senior cycle also. There is an urgency to the situation and an awareness of what is right and wrong in this regard is very important for young children. Unfortunately, this awareness is not always provided in the home and sometimes abuse arises in the home. Therefore, schools and other organs of the State must take up responsibility and raise awareness among children as early as possible of what is appropriate and of the support mechanisms available.
We should always strive to do better. No matter how well we have done, we should always strive to do better in this area. We owe it to the next generation to do the right thing and to reduce, as much as possible, the abuse of the most vulnerable in our society, our children. The personal contribution made by the Minister following his speech shows he is committed to dealing with this and is on top of his brief in this regard. I hope all Ministers and Ministers of State and all Members are committed to dealing with this important issue.
I would like to hear when exactly we can expect the sexual offences Bill to come before us and when we can expect it to be concluded and signed into law in order that we can say we are fully compliant with all elements of the directive.
I too welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his comprehensive presentation on the EU directive. I could say a lot on issues related to the directive, but I intend to focus on article 25 which relates to child abuse material online. I welcome the commitments the Minister has given. Among the wide-ranging provisions relating to criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and exploitation of children, the directive requires all member states to take the necessary measures to ensure the prompt removal of any web pages containing or disseminating child abuse material hosted on servers within their jurisdiction. It also asks member states to make appropriate safeguards to block access for Internet users within their territory of web pages containing or disseminating child abuse material hosted on servers outside of their jurisdiction.
I do not know whether the Minister's comprehensive presentation is a sign of things to come, but I feel the Seanad's role has been airbrushed out of it. In February 2012 we had an Independent group motion on the EU directive and the need for Ireland to block sites. At the time, I was delighted my colleagues, among them Senators Mary Ann O'Brien, Fiach Mac Conghail, Katherine Zappone, Marie-Louise O'Donnell and probably every Senator in the House, supported the motion calling for a blocking of sites. We took the Minister's word that he would consider that, even though we knew at the time the ISPs and some officials did not agree with us on the need to block them. I welcome the moves being made now, but I wish to acknowledge the role of the Seanad in calling for this.
I have produced a report on effective strategies to tackle online child abuse material which is published today and I will be happy to present the Minister of State with a copy of it. Often we are told that blocking does not really work, that we will not get rid of it all and that we should not be naive. Would the Minister of State say the same to drug traffickers or suggest that we should just remove customs and borders because drugs get into the country anyway? We must put a deterrent in place to block this material. I am not living in some naive world where I believe that implementing the directive will solve the issue, but implementing it will act as a deterrent and will ensure that average citizens will not come across such material accidentally, as they do currently.
I welcome the commitment given, but I would like to see greater urgency attached to it. I was disappointed to see in the legislative programme that the criminal law (sexual offences) Bill is still under section C, which means that publication is not expected until 2014. The Minister for Justice and Equality will know that I have a long list of issues he has promised the Bill will cover and other colleagues have other issues. However, there is a problem with regard to the proliferation of child abuse material on the Internet and this is a stain on our moral conscience. I am very concerned by this and that is the reason I commissioned the report I did, in which I go through the options for Ireland and what needs to be done.
We need to think about the victim profile. Many Members attended an extraordinary briefing we received in 2012, before we moved our group motion in the Seanad. Pat McKenna of ChildWatch and Michael Moran, assistant director of Interpol's directorate dealing with trafficking of human beings briefed us at that meeting and provided us with startling figures. When they examined some of the images in question, some 74% of the victims appeared to be ten years of age or younger. We heard of images of children with their umbilical cord still attached. The prevalence is moving towards children who cannot yet speak because they cannot articulate what is happening to them. The images and pictures we are talking about are horrendous. They are a crime scene.
Another problem is the offender profile. Some 70% of the offenders are aged between 21 and 50. Some 59% are likely to be married, 41% are likely to have children and 33% are physically abusive in other aspects of their lives. What we were told at the briefing stays with me. We were told that the average person who comes across this trade accidentally is horrified and walks away from the computer. However, within a week, many will go back to the computer and start looking for more images. These images are not traded in money, but in images, so what will one do when one wants to be king of the pack but create one's own images. We must introduce a blocking system. This problem affects Irish children and children worldwide.
I have been very affected by some of the stories of children who have been abused. I cannot understand the reason behind many crimes, but I can nearly understand murder, although I do not condone it. However, I cannot understand child abuse. I cannot get my head around why people would do it. In the case of this kind of child abuse we have victims who find out that their images are proliferated across the world and that their own country will not block these images. We must ensure we have a blocking system in place.
The Minister mentioned a hotline. I call it the lesser known hotline. It is great to have it, but it is not much use if it is not publicised and people do not know about it. To be honest, I believe the existence of the hotline can be used as a cover or excuse by the ISPs who can point to its existence. This is a bit like the issue of drink awareness, where people can point to MEAS and drinkaware.ie. We need a much more independent system.
The countries that already have filtering in place are Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand, France, Malta, Australia and the UK, including Northern Ireland. All our mobile phone providers across Europe have it. Therefore, I do not accept any arguments we hear about why we cannot do it.
I commend the Garda Síochána, Europol and Interpol which are doing amazing work and I feel strongly we need to support them.
Why is there not a greater urgency to transpose the directive? We should be doing so without delay. It is great that we have the EU directive. Let us put filtering in place. Self-regulation is not working. The Internet service providers, ISPs, are being dragged to the table.
A child abuse image is a crime scene. It is a digital record of some of the most monstrous crimes against children.
This is a question of protecting children from abuse. We must take action. I plead for greater urgency. We can undertake it discreetly and efficiently, a suggestion that I examined in my report.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe. Like others, I spent time labouring on the opposite benches with him in a previous incarnation. I am delighted to see him in his current role.
I thank the Senator.
I welcome the debate on this directive. It is a weighty, important and distressing subject. Having listened to Senator van Turnhout's elegant contribution, every Senator would be moved by her comments and her correct portrayal of the issue of child pornography and child abuse material on the Internet. Sometimes, this aspect of child abuse is muddied by the language of freedom of expression, censorship and so on. It is important that we name it for what it is, namely, crime scene material. It must be combated in every way possible.
There is more to the directive. I commend Senator van Turnhout for publishing the document yesterday entitled, Effective Strategies to Tackle Online Child Abuse Material. I read the report with great interest. It raises the issue of how to deal with this problem. Everyone agrees on the need to deal with child abuse material on the Internet. Should it be dealt with through filtering on a statutory basis, as the Senator recommends, or through the means being worked on by the Government and as described by the Minister of State, namely, a structured agreement between ISPs and the Garda? Will the Minister of State consider whether a statutory basis as opposed to an agreement is necessary?
It is instructive that hotline.ie has been in place since 1999, yet is not widely known. Senator van Turnhout's report pointed out a flaw or limitation in the hotline.ie system. If the content is hosted in a jurisdiction that is without an INHOPE, International Association of Internet Hotlines, member, the system sends a report to the Garda, which will attempt to address the content through international law enforcement channels. However, there is no specific way to do so. This highlights the need to consider a domestic method of dealing with this situation through filtering mechanisms. Will this suggestion be examined?
We must be careful to avoid adopting a minimalist approach to transposition of Article 25 of the directive, which deals with the specific issue of child pornography. According to the Minister of State, it will be adequately transposed through the proposed structured agreement, but should we consider a more robust method of transposition as opposed to simply undertaking more of what we are already doing? Successes have been achieved through hotline.ie, but we must ensure the most robust method possible.
There is more to the directive than the important issue of child pornography, but much of it relates to that matter. I welcome the commitment by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to the introduction of the long overdue sex offences Bill. I share others' concerns about the timing. I note that the Bill is on the C list, the small print of which reads that publication is expected in 2014. It does not outline whether that will be in early or mid-2014. This often raises cause for concern. The deadline for the transposition of this directive is 18 December. Will legislation be introduced piecemeal to remedy gaps in that transposition in advance of the codifying Bill? I have discussed the problems posed by piecemeal legislating with the Minister, particularly in terms of child sexual abuse. We do not have comprehensive legislation on the issue. Such legislation is long overdue.
Like the Minister of State, the Minister has stated that the proposed sex offences Bill will implement the recommendations of two Oireachtas committees and reform incest law. It is welcome that the Bill will attempt a comprehensive codification. We have seen problems with the piecemeal method, in that rushed legislation has needed to be amended. For example, the 2007 legislation on the defilement of children needed to be amended due to flaws. I appreciate the need for care when drafting a comprehensive codifying law, but we have been awaiting this law for some years. If the deadline for the directive's transposition is 18 December, let us use the opportunity to introduce the overall reform that we are seeking.
Like others, I welcome the Minister's important reforms to date, including the withholding of information Act and the vetting bureau Act. The Minister of State mentioned something experienced by many of us, namely, the practical problem with delays in processing vetting applications. During the summer, I dealt with delays experienced by constituents, for example, medical students who needed their applications processed swiftly so that they could work in hospitals. We must ensure resourcing.
The protection of child victims is required by the directive. Measures have been greatly improved in this regard through the new rooms in the courts of criminal justice, the Garda policy of 2010 and the new interview suites to which the Minister of State referred. As a criminal lawyer and from a practical point of view, I stress the importance of the first interview given to the Garda by the child victim or any complainant in a sex abuse case. The importance of this statement is often overlooked at the time it is given. At the subsequent trial, which may not take place for months or years afterwards, the defence counsel will, as is his or her job, pick holes in that statement and any discrepancy between it and subsequent statements or testimonies given by the victim in court. It is important that we put in place structures to ensure that, particularly where the victim is a child, the statement is given in as stress-free a way as possible. Reporting sex abuse to any garda and initiating a criminal justice procedure is a deeply stressful process, particularly when the abuser is known to the child. We must ensure that a robust system is put in place so that children in particular are supported in every way possible when giving their first interviews.
Regarding Article 23 and the point on information and awareness, I welcome the State's support through funding from Cosc for the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, study, which I launched recently. For the first time, the study provides a comprehensive overview of levels of unwanted sexual contact in the third level student population. It is an important study. The findings were chilling, as they illustrated the high levels of unwanted sexual contact, inappropriate commentary and online and other forms of bullying. We must tackle these issues. The first step is through education, raising awareness and working in schools.
I have plenty more to say. I wish to refer the Minister of State to the Oireachtas committee report on prostitution. Many of those present are members of that committee. We made important findings on transposing the Swedish approach to prostitution law. In the context of this directive, we also made important findings on child prostitution. We received worrying reports from the Garda and others working in the area about the number of children known to have been trafficked into the State - 34 minors between 2009 and 2011 alone - for sexual exploitation. We also received submissions from Barnardos and others. We heard testimony from women who had formerly engaged in prostitution before the age of 18 years. This is a real issue and I welcome the fact that the directive will address it.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I have often stated that I value someone who has experience of working in business before entering politics. The Minister of State has that experience and remembers it well. That he was in a business that was actively involved in detergents means that he has probably come to clean up things. I do not just mean this House, but the entire system. I am impressed by how he has handled this debate. He had a script, but he went off it and provided his own opinions.
Like Senator van Turnhout, I do not understand from where the urge for child sexual abuse comes.
It is not something I have come across. I do not understand it, but clearly it happens and this is needed.
My question is whether we should require, without warrant, Internet service providers to hand over the names, addresses, telephone numbers and IP and e-mail addresses of those under investigation in order that their Internet history can be tracked. It is a provocative question. I am interested in knowing what we propose to do by way of legislation. Is putting the legal obligation to track Internet history going too far or should it at least be considered? A Bill entitled Protecting Children from Internet Predators Bill 2011 was recently introduced in the United States. As drafted, it provides that businesses offering paid Internet access, including airports, hotels, coffee shops and so on, could be forced to keep detailed accounts of what each customer does online, on the premise that the Government might one day want to review that information. Is this going too far? I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's view on this.
Should we make it a criminal offence to make available any recording, film, video, photograph or image which depicts a person below the age of 18 years in a pose or situation that may potentially arouse sexual desire? I understand this is the direction in which other EU countries are going. Should we be considering the blocking of sites here which are listed by Interpol as dangerous? If Interpol has such information, why are we not using it? Is it possible to do so? Can we keep up with technology? In 2011, Norway admitted that its recently introduced measures to control Internet payments for gambling had failed. Italy and France now both admit that 70% of Internet gambling goes offshore despite the many blocking measures they have introduced, including restricting payments and taking the Internet service providers to court. If this is the case, what hope is there of our being able to block child abuse images? Another issue is that links to certain material can be circumvented.
In 2011 major Japanese Internet service providers began blocking access to websites that offered child pornography. This led to a sharp increase in the number of cases involving file sharing programmes. In Australia, senior police officers admitted that because of the nature of cyber crime, law enforcement agencies are usually behind the curve on new technology, particularly as the traders and creators of child pornography are highly computer literate. Federal police in Australia have warned that paedophiles increasingly record themselves molesting children before swapping the images with other child abusers. Images and videos are used as currency by abusers to buy their way into transnational groups that trade the material. In some cases, police have found large volumes of material, too much for anybody to store on most personal computers. The trend towards peer-to-peer file sharing and webcam streaming has presented new challenges. This illustrates that legislation to block websites can be easily bypassed.
If the Garda Síochána does not have the resources to investigate cases - I accept the Minister of State's statement that the Garda is skilled in this area but so also are the criminals - will the introduction of legislation have any real effect on determined criminals? Can the Internet service providers here at least provide better software for parents to protect their children from harmful images? It is not an easy issue to tackle. Wikipedia Commons, which is part of Wikipedia, contains pictures of adults in sexual positions, articles on sex acts and pictures of naked adults. There are images of fully nude men and women shown on this site and cartoon illustrations showing sex acts. Should we put limits on this? Also, should schools be legally required to monitor what pupils are accessing? Would it help to block links to suspect people or websites? For instance, if a child uploads a picture of himself or herself onto the Internet, how can we stop that falling into the wrong hands? On a related note, should we police social networks? In China, a real name is required to sign up to social networks so as to avoid abuse. I know that certain news websites such as The Huffington Post are moving in this direction. We have seen how children have met abusers on the Internet. Would such a measure prevent this? Another issue is that of teachers befriending children on the Internet who may be their students. I welcome the Government's proposal to move against this and believe it will do so.
Businesses must play a greater role. For instance, Google and Microsoft have signed up to the global network initiative on the Internet. More companies should be taking an active role in making the Internet safer. We must not stop at the Internet. Mr. Frank La Rue, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, has stated that he believes it is good to block a website that carries child pornography but that in itself is not enough. The issue is organised crime that deals with children. A state must investigate and punish those responsible for it.
The issues I have raised are just some of those that need to be addressed under this directive. I welcome the directive but the complexity of this issue demands scrutiny not only at EU level but at national level, with the Government here anticipating the situation which, I am delighted to hear, it is doing. I believe that this law, when in place, will go some way towards solving the problem, in particular because technology is improving rapidly. I welcome the Minister's comments today and his enthusiasm for ensuring this will happen. I believe the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has the right idea but, like Senator Bacik, I am concerned that as the relevant legislation is listed on the C schedule of proposed legislation, it does not appear this will happen too quickly. I would welcome if it could be moved up the list. Perhaps if the Dáil sat for five days a week, we would achieve more.
Today, we are discussing a directive which, as a country and Parliament, we have helped to develop. As such, we are very familiar with it. The Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, referred to the Lanzarote Convention. Like Senator Leyden, I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There is much duplication between the Lanzarote Convention and this directive. I am also a member of the One in Five campaign group in the Council of Europe which was established to ensure the Lanzarote Convention and EU directive are fully implemented in all countries. I report regularly to the group which meets four times a year on progress in this regard.
At the end of 2012 I reported directly on progress made in this country in terms of our legislative input. As referred to by the Minister of State, much progress has been made. It must be remembered that progress has come from the fact that, since 1980, we have had 27 reports on the failure of the State and society to protect children. The Children First legislation which follows on from the Children First guidelines introduced in July 2011 will ensure we have a robust statutory framework in place and ensure compliance and best practice in child protection services. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, has stated that since the introduction of those guidelines, the number of referrals to our child protection services have increased by 25%. Standards have also been improved. There have been many reports highlighting fragmentation, inconsistency and a lack of accountability in child protection services. New performance indicators have been established, the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, has introduced new standards, and regulations are being introduced to facilitate reporting of trends from in camera court proceedings. The Child and Family Agency Bill is before the Oireachtas. Following its enactment, responsibility for protection of children will be transferred from the HSE to a new child and family support agency which will include 4,000 staff from across the HSE, child and family services, the Family Support Agency and National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB.
Also, a missing child hotline, under the auspices of the ISPCC, has been established. This should have been put in place a number of years ago.
The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act was introduced last year. Legislation on sexual offences is the only missing piece of the jigsaw. As the Minister of State and a number of speakers noted, it is an important element.
I thank Senator Jillian van Turnhout for a highly enlightening briefing she arranged in February 2012 prior to a debate on a motion tabled in the House. The subject matter was the dangers the Internet poses to children, especially in respect of child abuse material. We should use this term, rather than the term "child pornography", as the latter tends to minimise the crime involved. Child abuse material is effectively a crime scene which can be distributed globally in an instant.
A significant gap has arisen in this area. As previous speakers noted, technology continues to be one step ahead of legislators. This will always be the case. During the presentation by representatives of ChildWatch, the Garda Síochána and Interpol, I learned that efforts to block images of child abuse material will never be completely successful because some sharp individuals will always be able to circumvent them. Casual browsers who encounter these types of images may be disgusted and may immediately leave the site in question. Some will return subsequently, however, and become sucked into the whole thing, which contributes to the international problem of child abuse.
The Senator will no doubt be able to continue the debate in Strasbourg.
I ask the Minister of State to emphasise to the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the need to address urgently the problem of Internet child abuse images. They must ensure we protect children who are either victims of child abuse or may view such appalling images.
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his presentation. In common with Senators on all sides, I welcome the directive and hope it will be transposed into law before the deadline passes. I commend Senator van Turnhout for her excellent report which has filled in the gaps in knowledge that many Senators have about this issue.
I propose to focus on two issues. The Minister of State indicated that vetting procedures were already a requirement of the Children First national guidelines and that approximately 300,000 vetting applications are processed by the Garda vetting unit each year. Notwithstanding the success of the Minister in his first 18 months in office in improving vetting procedures, I am aware that processing times have increased rather than decreased. The Minister promised to provide greater resources for Garda vetting and I assume this has been done. I am also aware that the training of personnel was an issue. I ask the Minister of State to provide an assurance that processing periods will be reduced to the greatest degree possible. In many cases, people who wish to work in child care must wait for vetting procedures to be completed before they are employed. This causes considerable inconvenience. Notwithstanding this, I compliment the Minister on introducing greater efficiencies in this area. I ask the Minister of State to outline the current position with regard to resources and processing times in the Garda vetting unit.
On the measures against websites containing or disseminating child pornography and Article 25 of the directive, I acknowledge that a large body of legislation has been introduced in the area of child protection. The Minister of State referred to various Acts dating back to 2000.
Senator van Turnhout's report recommends that the Government work with large online search engines such as Google and the Internet Watch Foundation to implement a filtering system with the most up-to-date technology. The Senator correctly noted that Dublin is regarded as the Internet capital of Europe and, as such, we are in a unique position to adapt and develop the most innovative measures in filtering and put ourselves forward as a leader in this field. The report points out that Google recently announced its intention to create a global database of child abuse material, which it will then share with its competitors, Internet service providers, ISPs, and law enforcement agencies to facilitate the removal of offending material. I subscribe to the view that filtering should be placed on a statutory footing and should no longer be voluntary. I am particularly pleased that Google has given a commitment to establish an information exchange system with other online companies to ensure the list is as up to date as possible. I hope the Department will work with the company on this issue.
While it may no longer be relevant, I raise an issue that arose some years ago when I was a member of the Council of Europe and the issue of filtering and censorship, in the widest definition of the word, of unacceptable images on the Internet first entered the public domain. At that time, there was strong resistance from the United States, particularly from Internet companies, to any such measures. The US Constitution includes freedom of speech provisions which would inhibit the right of anyone to stop the information highway. Has the environment changed in the intervening years as a result of the growth in child pornography? Is there a general acceptance internationally that this problem should be stamped out, in as far as possible, through filtering? As Senator van Turnhout noted, a large number of countries have already acted in this matter. I note, however, that the United States is not one of them. Do the US constitutional rights to freedom of expression and information have relevance in this regard and, if so, do they inhibit efforts to secure worldwide agreement on the filtering out of bad images?
I welcome the introduction of this directive, which marks an important step in tackling a difficult problem. The directive helps by requiring states to set out clear offences in a number of areas, provide assistance and support to victims and take preventative measures in a range of areas.
Having spoken previously on this subject, I propose to focus on the complex issue of child pornography and how such material is disseminated over the Internet. Efforts to combat child pornography must recognise exactly what is the problem because otherwise one will not come close to solving it. Not being particularly technologically aware, I asked a computer expert to help me to understand how this works in practice.
Professor Philip Jenkins of the University of Cambridge has stated that the "overwhelming evidence is that child pornography is all but impossible to obtain through non-electronic means." However, while on the face of it, the solution to the problem is simply to remove pornographic pages, it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain access to these pages in the first place. Child pornography on the web is evolving technologically. It is not simply found through a Google search and one does not normally stumble upon it randomly. A stark example of this is the self-report system, hotline.ie. According to its 2010 report, the organisation only once succeeded in identifying and removing child pornography from the Internet in a ten year period. This was not due to a failure of the system but because child pornography is not usually found when routinely trawling the Internet.
Groups using the Internet to sell child pornography use encryption and sophisticated data destruction software to protect files and screening measures to ensure only authorised participants can enter relevant chatrooms. The former method of hosting images on websites which could be accessed by members of the public is becoming a thing of the past. There are four or five ways in which pages can avoid being on the surface of the Internet. This means that they cannot be found by using a search engine such as Google but only by using specific web addresses.
These websites may be placed in the deep web, which consists of regular web pages which are nearly impossible to find without knowing the specific web address. When the site is accessed, the user gains entry onto it by using encrypted connections, such as those used by banks when trying to access account details. Unlike the traditional centralised Internet, where each site has a particular domain name and can be accessed by typing in the web address, the meshnet, which is a new and evolving form of web, is completely decentralised. Each web domain hops from place to place. As the webpage is constantly moving, it is impossible to pin down. The meshnet is evolving in response to perceived Big Brother tendencies. As we all know, material has recently come into the public domain about the actions of certain governments in intruding into people's domestic lives. There are genuine meshnetters out there who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, simply want to talk to each other through a channel they control. The darknet, which is an anonymous version of the meshnet, is even more sophisticated and even harder to trace. Its decentralised nature means that the connection between the user and the location from which he or she is downloading is not well defined. It cannot be traced as it will be lost among other people's connections routing through his or her computer.
Tor software protects users by bouncing communications around a distribution of networks. Anything that is sent over Tor is encrypted several times and then sent to a relay. Each relay server decrypts one layer of encryption and sends it to another relay, selected at random. That process continues until it has all been decrypted and sent to its destination. Each relay only knows the identity of the one directly before and after it in the chain. It leaves a huge mess to be untangled. This system is infamously used for drug dealing, the sale of illegal goods and child pornography on the Silk Road, which is the dominant marketplace of Tor. These "goods", which is the expression that is used out there, include child pornography and children who have been trafficked. They are bought on the Silk Road using bitcoin, which is like meshnet money in the sense that payments are made anonymously and are identified through strings of random letters. I mention all of this so that Senators will understand how utterly complex it is. The only way to find out who has been using bitcoin is if someone uses the same wallet of money repeatedly and an identifiable pattern can be found, or if a person can be tracked from where he or she started by using his or her credit card to buy bitcoin. As Senators can imagine, however, bitcoin is usually purchased on the street using cash. Prosecution is difficult because multiple international servers are used, sometimes to transmit images in fragments in order to evade the law. In the absence of international co-operation, it is almost impossible to find those responsible. It is clear that this problem is almost impossible to solve.
There are two ways in which we are going to have to consider dealing with this issue. First, we will have to use our monetary investment in research and technology to try to match the skills, creativity and ingenuity these people show in their use of technology. It is important to make the point that we need to move past the idea of simple filters on Internet services. The systems used by the people who deal in this area are far more sophisticated than those which can be dealt with by means of simple filters. Second, we have to engage in significant Europe-wide undercover operations. It should be possible to use the anonymity of the system to our benefit, given that any individual can get into the system and undermine it completely.
The Senator has gone way over time.
I will conclude by asking the Minister of State to bring back the message that this is a matter of resources.
I thank the Senator for giving us some very interesting technical information.
I welcome the discussion on this EU directive. I do not wish to make an open reference to the forthcoming referendum, but I will point out that this is a perfect example of a matter that needs attention and serious discussion in the Oireachtas. This is not the first time this directive has been discussed in this Chamber. I guess that the amount of time we have spent on it is greatly in excess of that spent on it in the Dáil. My group colleague, Senator van Turnhout, has done a great deal of work in this area. As we all know, she has been constantly trying to put the topic on the political agenda. She published a superb report yesterday after doing some excellent work with senior officials. She has built a motorway of information that we can use, for which I commend her.
All of us will agree with the Senator that the protection of children is paramount. We must do everything to keep our own children and all children safe from this most brutal abuse. I join other Senators in asking the Minister of State to ensure the Government deals with this matter with greater urgency. Like Senator van Turnhout, I am pleading for this legislation to be acted on immediately. I would like it to have A1 status, rather than C status. I would be most grateful if the Minister of State could bring that request back to his senior colleague.
In the limited time available to me in this brief contribution, I would like to look at the issue of blocking and everything it entails. I am aware that I am straying from the directive slightly. I am keen to get the Minister of State's thoughts on the announcement by the British Government earlier this summer that it intends to attempt to block or limit online access to hard pornography from the start of next year. This links in with the issue we are discussing. Under the proposed new system, all British Internet users will have to state whether they want to receive pornography through their Internet connections. They will have to indicate whether they want to have the family-friendly filters on their accounts switched on. If filters are enabled, all pornographic images will be unable to be viewed. The filters will be applied to all existing accounts and new accounts at the start of next year as standard. Account holders will have to tell their Internet providers that they wish to have the filters turned off. Filters will also be put in place on all mobile device accounts as well as public Wi-Fi. All pornography streamed online will be subject to the same standards as pornography sold over the counter. In practical terms, this means that violent and abusive pornography, and scenes depicting rape, will be blocked. The Internet search providers will be responsible for blocking this type of material. The UK authorities will get enhanced access to networks to monitor the creation and spread of child abuse pornography.
As Senators will recall, I raised this issue before the summer recess when I called on the Government to examine the measure being introduced in the UK to see whether it could be introduced here. Having spoken to parents of children as young as nine, I firmly believe the lack of regulations governing online pornography is having a negative impact on the emotional development of thousands of children, and this will remain with them until adulthood. Right now, a child somewhere in this country is viewing these images, potentially damaging his or her development as a human being. A skewed impression of sex is being beamed into children's houses, or perhaps more worryingly their bedrooms. To put it bluntly, our children are being stripped of their innocence and we are standing idly by.
I was interested to hear the worrying details that Senator Hayden learned from an eminent person in Cambridge. As part of the Lisbon treaty, we have pledged to contribute €17.3 million to the European space programme this year. When I listened to the Senator, it was clear to me that serious funding is needed in this area if we are to have sufficient expertise and step up to the mark. Senator Conway said we should lead the way in this regard by going far beyond what is proposed in this directive. A great deal of work needs to be done. As Senator van Turnhout said, it is not good enough to say that it cannot be blocked or that nothing can be done. I thank Senator Leyden for blinding me with science and pointing out what can be done.
I think the Senator is referring to Senator Hayden.
I am sorry; I beg the Senator's pardon. I was confusing Senators Leyden and Hayden.
I know Senator Leyden is good, but he is not that good.
I do not mind being praised.
The record will show that I was referring to Senator Hayden. I will conclude by coming back to the point made by Senator van Turnhout when she drew a very good analogy with drugs, which is that we have to start somewhere. I ask the Minister of State to ensure this matter is placed on the A list in order that we can get it up and running before 18 December next.
In accordance with the order of the House, I must call the Minister of State now.
(Interruptions).
I am sorry that Senators cannot get in but I have no choice in the matter.
Are there many Members left to speak?
There are two Senators still to speak.
It would be shame if a Sinn Féin representative did not get to speak.
I will give up time to allow everyone to speak.
Senator Cáit Keane has two minutes. I would like to let the Minister of State reply, if possible.
It is unfortunate to have so little time for such an important debate. I welcome the Minister on his first outing to this House and I thank him for giving up time to allow me to speak about the implementation of the EU directive. As another Senator mentioned, it is a long time in the making. I know that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has been proactive on the issue since he came into office, and the different legislation the Government has introduced has been mentioned.
I welcome the European Union's willingness to protect children from all forms of sexual abuse and to enhance co-operation through the directive. I will focus my comments on international co-operation. There is no point in trying to reinvent the wheel in every country. There is a need to block and, as Senator Mary Ann O'Brien mentioned, filter systems. Other countries do that and we should all work together. We have seen what Google has to offer through its global database and information exchange systems.
I will meet Commissioner Malmström in Brussels tomorrow to discuss that area, as well as trafficking in general. The meeting is in co-operation with the European Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking and we will consider child trafficking, in particular. We all know how the web is used for that purpose.
I compliment Senator van Turnhout on the Trojan work she has done and the report she published yesterday which contains so much information. Senator Hayden mentioned that, to combat the issue, filtering systems prevent Internet users from inadvertently encountering such illegal activities. Of course, the key objective from a law enforcement perspective is to achieve the removal of the sites from the Internet. As we have seen, hotline.ie works but removing only one site in the past few years is not sufficient. Work has to be undertaken and that requires resources. I compliment the Garda on its work and the special unit that has been set up-----
I am sorry to interrupt, but I call on the acting Leader to extend the time, if possible.
I propose a ten minute extension to the debate in order that we can facilitate two more speakers who will each have five minutes speaking time.
That will take us up to 1.25 p.m., with the Minister of State replying at 1.20 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I also compliment the Garda and Interpol on their joint co-operation in the area. Not enough work is being done, however, especially as computer software is available to the Garda Síochána to gather information and intelligence on possible suspects operating in their jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies from 25 European countries, including Ireland, were supported and co-ordinated by Europol in carrying out a major crackdown in 2011 on child sexual abuse file sharing networks. The operation targeted those sharing the most extreme forms of video material, which included images of babies and toddlers being sexually abused.
Sexual abuse is second only to drug trafficking in monetary value; therefore, huge sums of money are involved, and for everybody's sake we must put the issue on the A list of proposed legislation. There is ongoing international debate about the effectiveness of blocking systems which only work on standard web pages. Some systems have become almost obsolete because, as Senator Hayden pointed out, international experience has shown that most child abuse or pornographic images are transmitted via systems such as peer to peer file sharing. Senator Quinn also referred to online digital blockers being unaffected by blocking systems. We should not put all our faith in blocking systems alone. Filtering systems are of major importance also. Perhaps the Minister might examine the UK example in this area.
The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly is publishing a report on trafficking, including child trafficking. It does not focus on child pornography which is, as we know, a hugely complicated area, but one of the report's recommendations refers to this matter. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children constitute serious violations of fundamental rights, in particular the rights of children to protection and care.
I commend the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, for her work on Children First and the updating of national legislation in this area. She is also working on ensuring the provision of additional vetting services, and we hope to see improvements in this area in which delays have been experienced. A matter which was brought to my attention which the Ministers, Deputies Fitzgerald and Shatter, suggested may be addressed is that if one is vetted for employment in a school, it will not be necessary for one to be re-vetted for employment in hospitals, community centres, etc.
We have all sought to convey the importance of debate on this matter and stressed the complexities around ensuring we take the best action and work together on a European level. An EU-funded computer project coming on stream in Portugal which we have enjoined seeks to ensure all countries take a uniform approach to and co-operate in this area. I have spoken to the Minister about this and look forward to keeping Members informed on its progress.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le mo chomhghleacaithe agus go háirithe leis an Aire Stáit faoin am breise a chur leis an díospóireacht. I thank all colleagues and the Minister of State, in particular, for extending the speaking time. I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. I hope he does well in his brief. I am sure that he is taking to it with gusto. Sinn Féin welcomes the EU directive on measures to combat the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. As others have mentioned, the directive is an important one and we must implement it fully and put the resources in place in order that it can be policed fully as well.
We particularly welcome that the directive includes important provisions which attempt to address online pornography and the online grooming of children. The fact that the directive stipulates clearly the new rules on sentencing thresholds for the various offences and that these are to become uniform across the EU is a major step forward in the battle against the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable children. The Minister's role in looking at how different jurisdictions will implement the directive will be a particularly interesting one.
It is important that both Ireland and Europe deal with child protection related Internet issues. Notwithstanding the technical blocks that other Members have mentioned, we as legislators must ensure legislation enables the people with the technical expertise to put whatever blockages and filters need to be in place. That does not need to be stipulated in too fine a detail in the legislation. It needs to be worked out by those with the technical expertise. We are all agreed, however, that the will of the legislators is that this material be blocked and stopped.
Sinn Féin considers the criminalisation of online soliciting of children is a step in the right direction, especially when it concerns the use of the Internet for grooming and for the production of child pornography. We welcome the fact that member states are obliged to transpose the new rules into national law within two years and urge the Government not to drag its feet on the issue, a call that has been echoed by other Senators.
We are very good at implementing certain EU directives, but we are less good with others. This is not the first time I have mentioned the EU reception conditions directive - it will not be the last time that the Minister of State hears me talk about it - on which I have strong views and which relates particularly to people seeking asylum. Ireland and Denmark are the only member states that have not signed up to the directive. Denmark has not done so because it has gone further than the directive calls for.
I note Senator Keane's comments about Portugal. Senator Conway and I recently visited its equivalent of direct provision in Lisbon. It is a much better model than the system we have. That is an issue to which I will return, but the Minister needs to take cognisance of the fact that our direct provision system and asylum mechanisms in this country are far lacking and do not live up to our obligations and what we should be aspiring to on an EU level. I suggest that the Minister looks at how other EU countries are handling these areas, and perhaps we will come back to this on another date.
Of the new rules contained in the directive, the one with the most significant potential impact is the one concerning the sex tourism industry. The introduction of compulsory jurisdiction over nationals who commit crimes abroad and the establishment of preventative measures to that effect are long overdue.
The sexual abuse and exploitation of children is global in nature and any measures which seek to protect children and combat trafficking and abuse must deal with these issues in an international context. We welcome this move and look forward to seeing more detailed legislation as it is brought forward.
I note that in his opening remarks the Minister of State referred to vetting. There are grey areas around the question of vetting people who work as third parties for the State, as would happen in a direct provision centre, which is basically a private service paid for by the State. For example, do all the staff in those centres fall under the current vetting legislation? Is it applicable to them?
Tá siad le moladh. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh an reachtaíocht seo á tabhairt chun cinn. Aontaím agus tacaím leis an méid oibre atá déanta ag an Seanadóir van Turnhout agus go leor daoine agus eagrais eile ar an ábhar iontach tábhachtach seo. Go n-éirí go geal leis an Aire Stáit.
Tá mé ag fanacht anseo agus ag éisteacht le gach éinne eile le huair an chloig go leith. Níl mórám le rá agam. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit ar ais go dtí an Seanad. Ní raibh mé anseo nuair a bhí sé ina Sheanadóir.
In my humble opinion, it beggars belief that 92% of sexual abuse takes place in the victim's own home. Children are being abused by their parents, which is beyond my comprehension as a parent and a proud grandparent. Family members and relations are involved - people who are trusted in various jobs by parents. In later years, children have come forward to admit that they were abused by their own parents. Some of them abused others in turn because they had been abused themselves.
As legislators, how can we encourage young people to come forward and say they are being abused by their parents? It is not an easy thing to do but we must have a mechanism to encourage them to come forward. I congratulate my colleague, Senator van Turnhout, on everything she is doing in this regard. We must listen to our children.
I congratulate the Minister of State on the provision of six locations throughout the country, but we may need more. Other speakers have mentioned the blocking and filtering of unsuitable Internet material. I would block pornographic images from all Internet users of all ages in this country - young and not so young. If these abuses are being committed by parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, we should block such images. If such measures can be taken legally then it should be done. I support the idea of filtering and blocking pornographic images from as many people as possible.
I thank Senators for all their contributions. I have listened intently to what everybody has had to say and wish to respond to the core points. I want to answer a question that was put to me concerning the status of the sexual offences legislation. I note Senators' concerns about its assignation as a C-piece of legislation. It is so designated at the moment because in order for it to move any further the Minister has to request, and obtain Cabinet agreement for, the drafting of the general scheme of the Bill. I have been informed that the Minister will be seeking that and expects to receive that agreement from the Cabinet soon. This is being treated by him as an issue of the utmost urgency. I will pass on to the Minister the Senators' views on that particular legislation, as well as my own views on it. I share Senators' views on the need to have the legislation implemented promptly.
The second point concerns the balance between the right to free speech and expression and the consequences of those rights that we all enjoy. I am very clear on this matter. We are all endowed with and entitled to rights, one of which is the right to free speech. However, rights are not infinite - they operate within parameters. Nobody can exercise their rights in such a way as to cause harm to others, either directly or indirectly. That is where liberalism runs into real difficulty. I cannot think of a greater example regarding the need for those rights to be bounded than the issue we are discussing. Senators have said those images are crime scenes. I would go further because they are torture scenes.
Absolutely.
That is it. Burglary can be a crime and many transgressions in civil law are crimes also. The matter under discussion here, however, is in a whole different universe of acting against somebody. They are torture scenes and we need to keep that in mind as we discuss how to respond to the problem.
Senator Brennan mentioned the issue of incomprehension. I find myself in exactly the same place as him. Senator Quinn also talked about the difficulty in comprehending either the motivation behind this evil or the damage it can cause to people.
It is their own flesh and blood.
Absolutely. One of the consequences of the human condition is that we can never really know what it is like to walk in somebody else's shoes. That can be a good or a bad thing. One of the bad things, however, is that we can never fully appreciate what it is like for somebody to be harmed in the way these images indicate, unless one is the victim. That is why it is so important for the EU and national governments to act in the way we are seeking to do.
I will now touch on individual comments by Senators. Senator Leyden set an important note for the debate in recognising that this is a crime without borders. As a result we need national and international institutions to co-operate effectively. In order for that to happen it requires laws, treaties and institutions to implement them.
Senator Conway also referred to that point and asked when the Bill would be introduced. I have done my best to answer that question. He also asked if the heads of the Bill will be referred to the relevant committee. I can only answer that question generally. We have given an undertaking that for all non-emergency legislation, the heads of Bills will be referred to committees. I hope such an approach would be utilised under this legislation also.
I reassure Senator van Turnhout that it was not anyone's intention to air-brush - as she put it - her contribution or that of the Seanad generally to this debate. I want to make that very clear to her. As somebody who spent a lot of time in this House, and then in the Dáil, writing reports whose impact in the light of day was questionable, I would not like to give that impression to the Senator.
The impact of pornography in cyberspace on the minds of those who see it was mentioned by the Senator and she has touched on something I agree with. One of the most malignant consequences of the Internet has been the casualisation of sexuality, as I see it. Unfortunately, child pornography is the most apt example.
She introduced the phrase "crime scene" on which I have commented and asked about Article 25, which I followed up on during the debate. I have been given to understand that the reason for taking time in implementing this article is that we believe a robust implementation of it will be very technical. The Department is taking it very seriously and giving it careful consideration. If the Senator wants more information on it, I can request it and pass it on.
The Senator's core point was on negotiations between the State, agencies and Internet service providers. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, who is sitting beside Senator van Turnhout, asked what was happening in the UK and our view in that regard. The Department has informed me that negotiations are at a very advanced stage. We can never reveal the consequences of any negotiations with any party until they are concluded. The Senator should rest assured that we want to respond as effectively as we can. While I had not read the Senator's report prior to this debate, for which I apologise, I read through it this morning while the debate was proceeding. The Senator described us as the Internet capital of Europe. I would like to hope we are but we may have some way to go towards achieving that. Either way, we are conscious of our responsibilities, not only to children within our own borders, but also elsewhere.
Senator Bacik spoke about the importance of the first interview, on which I completely agree. She asked why we are not going down the statutory route. We want to see where our current approach gets us and we will take it from there if we need to strengthen it even further.
Senator Quinn illustrated very effectively the nuances behind this debate and why it is so difficult to move it forward, which is that the vindication of one person's right can have consequences for others. Within civil society we need to act very carefully to weigh up how to deal with difficulties that we all agree need to be tackled while recognising the rights of people. He illustrated very clearly some of the practical consequences of that. I would be confident that we can deal with the evil we are discussing, while recognising and vindicating the rights of people to act in a way that either befits their adulthood or to act in a way that allows them to engage with the Internet in a way they see fit. I return to a point I made at that start. I believe all rights should be bounded at the point where they cause grievous difficulty to others.
I commend Senator Clune for the work she does in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. She touched on something with which I agree regarding an undercurrent of our history - the dark thread of our history - which is our frequent failure to look after our most vulnerable. Members from all parties and none will be conscious of this and we are doing our best to respond to it now. Tragically we are doing it at a time when the resources available are less than we would want. However, that acknowledgement is there in a way that it has not been in the past.
Senator Mooney spoke about the time lag. A few weeks ago I was discussing with a constituent of mine the number of times she had to be vetted and the delay in doing so. I have pursued the matter and have been informed that everything possible is being done to reduce the lead-time. However, the issue of training to have the right people in place to do the work is difficult.
I have to be careful not to confuse Senator Hayden with Senator Leyden because once I hear the wrong thing said I am inclined to repeat it myself. Senator Hayden illustrated very well the differences, which were new to me, between the Deep Web, the Mesh Net and the Dark Net. I made the point that we need to move beyond filters in what we are doing. I have no doubt that the Senator is correct, but I argue that one of the early steps we need to make in any coherent response is to deal with the filtering issue. She is correct in pointing out that the more decentralised any system is, the easier it is for one person to get in and cripple it. While that crippling can sometimes have negative consequences for the rest of us, in this particular case the consequences can only be for the best.
Senator Mary Ann O'Brien urged us to increase the urgency of dealing with the issue. I hope the update I have given the House will address her point.
I wish Senator Keane well in her meeting with the Commissioner tomorrow. I fully agree with what she said about the Garda. I was involved in a recent case regarding an allegation of child prostitution. Thank God, it turned out to be an unfounded allegation in that while people were making it with the very best of intentions, when it was investigated it turned out to be unwarranted. The Garda responded to it in an extraordinarily impressive way. I say this against the backdrop of having considerable engagement with the Garda on how it responds to the issue of prostitution overall, how it engages with organisations such as Ruhama and how it works with terribly vulnerable women involved in that area. When the issue of child prostitution was raised, the urgency, if anything, significantly increased and I was very impressed by that.
I am glad to hear the point Senator Ó Clochartaigh made on legislation, which is one I make frequently. Legislation needs to be enabling in the first place. It is not the role of legislation to instruct a technical expert on how to respond to a matter in a technical way. The purpose of legislation is to give him or her the power to do so and then to set parameters for him or her to carry out that role. Legislation such as this needs to be enabling and occasionally less detail can mean more in the sense that the role of legislation is to provide a foundation within which experts can do their work effectively. I agree with the Senator on that point and thank his party for supporting this legislation. I was going to say I look forward to discussing the EU reception and directive with the Senator, but that would be an inappropriate term to use, although I am sure we will be discussing it.
I was aware of the point Senator Brennan made about abuse overall. Tragically in the majority of cases it is perpetrated by people known to the victim - often people well known to the victim. That is why we need all the legislation we discussed. The Senator asked how we can encourage people to come forward. The answer appears to lie in awareness and education which are unbelievably important in responding to that. I am confident in saying that we are endowed with professionals in this area who have the sensitivity and compassion we would want them to have when dealing with this terribly difficult case. From my personal experience I know that the training is improving thereby allowing them to do their job better. We need an overall legislative framework involving the forthcoming legislation and other Bills mentioned such as vetting legislation, etc. This will create an environment which, as Senator Ó Clochartaigh said, will enable people to do the job we all wish them to do.
I thank Senators for their contributions. They have already been noted by Department of Justice and Equality officials and will be passed on to the Minister, Deputy Shatter. We are all united in trying to put in place the strongest possible response to what we acknowledge is an unspeakable evil. I again emphasise that we are not talking about scenes of crime, but scenes of torture.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.