As colleagues will recall, two principal issues were identified at the previous meeting and require to be revisited today. The first was the grades of staff to be made designated officers under the Bill; the second was the introduction of a new offence of malicious reporting of child abuse.
On the first, presumably less contentious issue, during our last discussion I undertook to consult more widely than was possible before the first meeting on the issue of who should be a designated officer of a health board for the purpose of this Bill. I said I would specifically ask the chief executive officers of the eight regional health boards for their observations. I was anxious to accommodate Deputies who rightly raised the issue and like them I wanted a workable solution. Having consulted as outlined, I am pleased to inform the committee that I will be able to meet Members' requirements.
Deputy Shatter in particular was anxious to ensure that the persons to whom reports would be made were not too restricted, and agreed to withdraw an amendment pending further information from me on the issue. I am happy to clarify this matter as it is a crucial issue in terms of the effective operation of the Bill. The chief executive officers agreed it was important the net was cast wide enough to facilitate everybody who had a concern regarding child safety. They considered designated officers to include all professional staff the public are likely to confide in or to express concerns to. This includes health board, medical, nursing, social worker, community welfare, psychological and child care staff. In view of the consensus among chief executive officers on the issue, I ask Deputy Shatter to withdraw his amendment. I hope this meets the Deputy's concerns with regard to the issue of designated officers.
The second major issue identified at the last meeting of the committee is the subject of amendment No. 5. For the benefit of colleagues who may not be familiar with the intent and justification of the proposed amendment, I will briefly outline my position. Legislation must not alone be balanced but must be seen to be. Deputy Shatter's original Bill was too much of a carte blanche for all types of allegations. The Bill, as amended, will represent a shield for the reasonable reporter acting in good faith allowing for human error but not seeking to provide unwanted protections against false and malicious reports. I consulted as wide a cross section of persons as was possible before the first Committee Stage debate and I am glad its adjournment allowed for greater consultation and publicity of the measures proposed. Nearly all opinion offered was positive and while I did not doubt the measure previously because my officials and I gave it our fullest consideration, I have indeed been heartened, encouraged and confirmed in my view of the necessity for the introduction of such safeguards by what I have been told.
As I said previously, the opprobrium heaped upon a child abuser is probably without equal. Who would argue that this disgust is not merited? However, the situation where a false allegation of abuse is knowingly made should be considered. A person only has recourse through civil law and must institute and finance such a process himself. In addition, a civil case may be of limited use if the person to be sued for defamation has little or no resources. None of us expects an avalanche of cases of false and malicious reports and there will not be much case law under this provision. However, the fact that it will, if accepted, form part of the Bill strengthens it and provides the balance I mentioned at the outset.
Deputy Shatter in his comments on the Bill referred to a number of specific instances which I will address. He mentioned persons such as teachers or doctors being afraid to make reports in case a criminal investigation would ensue. He is irresponsible and such scaremongering cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The Bill allows for persons who, acting reasonably and in good faith, communicate allegations of abuse to be afforded the protection offered by it. This is an unequivocal guarantee. It is also disingenuous to suggest that suddenly the Garda will be involved. As the Deputy will be aware, the Garda are very often the first to know of cases of abuse and neglect. Again, the burden of proof is high and the onus will be on the prosecution to prove the defendant's state of knowledge.
I have already referred to recourse to civil law. I regard this form of redress as grossly insufficient. How many ordinary people could even contemplate bringing such a case? In talking with associations representing social workers since the last meeting, it is abundantly clear they are very much in favour of my amendment. They gave me case studies and instances where such legislation is urgently needed. Deputy Shatter stated the categories of persons to whom reports were to be made were very restrictive and that, therefore, this measure was flawed in a quantitative manner. I outlined in earlier comments that I took on board the valid points raised by him and Deputy Shortall and the designated persons will cover a much broader category. I reject Deputy Shatter's amendments and propose mine. A person acting reasonably and in good faith has nothing to fear from this new offence and I commend it to the committee.
I will restate my position on amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment No. 7 reflects much of what we have already covered and represents a more accurate reflection of the purpose of the Bill as amended than its Title does. The date of commencement of the Bill is similar to date originally proposed. Amendment No. 8 which introduces a revised Long Title similarly seeks to reflect that which has gone before in terms of the amendments to the Bill.
