Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Tuesday, 26 May 1998

Vol. 1 No. 2

Children (Reporting of Alleged Abuse) Bill, 1998: Committee Stage (Resumed).

NEW SECTIONS.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 5:
In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.-(1) A person who states to an appropriate person that-
(a) a child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or
(b) a child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected,
knowing that statement to be false shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £15,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
(3) Notwithstanding section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence.".
-(Minister of State at the Department
of Health and Children.)
Chairman: It was agreed at the last meeting to group amendments Nos. 5, 7, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 7, and amendment No. 8 together.

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.

I appreciate the Minister of State coming back to us as he said he would, having considered the points made. I welcome the fact he acknowledges there is a need to ensure a large group of professionals across a broad spectrum working within health boards should be designated as appropriate persons under the Bill. My concern was that when he proposed this the person whom he envisaged as the designated person appeared to be the new child care officer who is to be appointed to co-ordinate children's services within the health board. If that person did not receive a report, the immunity provided in the legislation would not work. I made inquiries in that regard and in so far as these people have been appointed there are difficulties about where they stand in health boards, such as the degree of autonomy they have with regard to the work they are doing, to whom they report or what their role is with regard to community services.

I tried to make contact with one individual who was appointed to this position and he proved to be as elusive as the scarlet pimpernel. There was a problem in the way the Minister envisaged this working out. At all times, it was my view, as proposed in my original Bill, that reports of child abuse should go to an appropriate authority and persons - "A person who is a member or employee of a health board". The persons I envisaged receiving reports involved a spectrum of medical personnel, social workers, public health nurses and others referred to by the Minister. Having amended the Bill to some degree, we are coming back full circle and acknowledging that a system cannot be set up which allows reports to be made only to one or two individuals within each health board.

The time since the previous meeting was well spent by the Minister talking to chief executive officers in the health boards and I thank him for doing so. The Bill in the context of this provision will work in the manner in which I envisaged. There are always a variety of ways of devising legislation to put a protection in place and a procedural mechanism for dealing with issues. The Bill could be drafted in half a dozen different ways and still achieve the same objective. I have no difficulty with what the Minister proposes in this area except that, having made his inquiries, he might graciously accept that what I said at the previous meeting was right. Health board personnel under different guises with different expertise currently still receive these reports and the chief executive officers are of the view it is desirable that they continue to do so and the protection will only work if that is the case.

The new section 3 inserted by the Minister of State provides that: "The chief executive officer of each health board may appoint one or more officers of the board to be a designated officer or designated officers for the purposes of this Act". I presume the Minister of State is saying that each health board has given him a commitment that, upon the Bill coming into operation, the chief executive officer will designate this broad group of professionals as the appropriate people to whom reports will be made. I presume the new guidelines being prepared will ensure a communication network is in operation in each health board to ensure reports made are properly processed.

I bring to the Minister of State's attention the benefits which would derive from incorporating into the Bill on Report Stage my second amendment to amendment No. 2, which proposed the insertion of a new subsection (3). It required the Minister to "publish guidelines prescribing the categories of persons who may be appointed to be a designated officer . . . . ". My first amendment to amendment No. 2 proposed that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". From what the Minister of State has told us, there is even greater reason to incorporate subsection (3) and I will return to this on Report Stage. It is now accepted by chief executive officers that particular categories of professionals employed by the health boards should be given this designated status. I see no reason the Minister should not publish guidelines to ensure there is a uniform approach by each health board and that similar professionals with similar areas of responsibility are given the function of designated officer.

In introducing the guideline, I thought the Minister of State would have been assured that the procedures operated within each health board would be identical and that he would have a means of knowing whether the necessary designated officer appointments would be made along the lines he and his departmental officials have discussed with the chief executive officers. It is important that all this is clear at an early stage. The Minister should not be put in a position where, if he wants to check if the measure is working properly after six to 12 months of the Bill coming into operation, he would have to go to each of the chief executive officers to find out if they had designated all the relevant people. If he issued a guideline, it could be properly assumed that the chief executive officers would comply with it. The rationale and reasoning for this guideline are as important as those for other guidelines being worked on by the departmental committee established to provide for general new guidelines in the area of child abuse. It makes no sense that there are guidelines on everything else but not on this. I believe the chief executive officers would welcome such guidelines. While I appreciate the Minister of State and I are discussing something which has been dealt with, I raise the matter to be helpful and in the hope that the Minister will re-examine the guideline issue.

I graciously accept the arguments made by the Deputy and he was correct in what he said the last day. However, much of what I said the last day dealt with the internal management and communication mechanisms in health boards where there would have to be a designated person, such as a child care manager, with whom the buck would stop. That argument is still valid and we are consequently happy to broaden the meaning of designated persons along the lines I have stated.

Notwithstanding that, the child care manager is still the person with whom the buck must stop in terms of good management practice. I do not want to enter into an argument about being too prescriptive because we argued about this the last day. We will communicate with the health boards and the chief executive officers. We have also agreed to change "may" to "shall" which is a strong improvement. Rather than prescribing to the chief executive officers, we will communicate with them and a clear set of guidelines will be agreed between them and the Department. I am satisfied that will be sufficient.

I do not want wish to dwell on the matter as we may return to it on Report Stage. I appreciate the Minister of State saying there will be guidelines and, in those circumstances, it makes sense to incorporate subsection (3).

Another obvious reason for its incorporation is that, a year or two after the Minister issuing guidelines, it may be the experience that the guidelines are too narrow or too broad. The Minister may wish to ensure that, if there are changes, the health boards adopt a uniform approach. If the Minister has the power under the legislation to make guidelines, he would have the opportunity a year or two later to amend them with the benefit of experience, and subsection (3) would ensure that there would be a uniform change by the health boards if he did so. Perhaps the Minister of State will reflect on that. I do not want to dwell unduly on the issue because the Minister of State and I are ad idem on the substance of what we want to achieve. I accept there must be someone within the child care system who ultimately makes the decisions about addressing cases. It is important there is a clear line of reporting, that people know to whom reports can be made and that immunity applies to those reports. I was concerned the last day that we were concentrating too much on the internal mechanics of the health boards rather than on the reporting mechanism.

On section 5, I wish to return to the criminal provision the Minister is introducing. I bear no brief for anyone who maliciously or deliberately falsely accuses someone of child abuse. I accept that the making of such a false allegation can have a devastating impact on the life of the individual against whom the allegation is made. My concern is the dynamic of what this new provision introduces. It does not make it a criminal offence to make false allegations to people in general, only to a professional in a health board, who presumably would deal with it in a professional way without publicity. The Minister of State seems to address what does not need to be addressed and does not address what needs to be addressed.

I am sorry he seems to think I am acting irresponsibly by suggesting the Garda would become involved with teachers, doctors and others. He is aware from various reports which have been published that the reason this law is needed is because teachers, members of the medical profession and others who work with children are concerned that, if they report suspicions of abuse, they may be sued. The Minister of State is also aware that there have not been too many cases of people being sued. However, it is a worry in the back of the minds of professionals and a variety of reports have highlighted it so we want to remove it. I agree with the Minister that not that many people will be prosecuted on the basis of this criminal provision.

However, I am concerned that the dynamic of the civil law, which has created an obstacle in this area, will represent itself by a criminal law dynamic. In circumstances where there are allegations that the child has been the victim of abuse and where those allegations are not validated - it may be that the professionals involved cannot confirm that there has been abuse but are convinced that there has been abuse - I am concerned that the law may be used unscrupulously by individuals against whom allegations have been made, and who might be guilty of what is alleged, to frighten professionals by making a complaint to the Garda and insisting that the doctor or teacher concerned be interviewed. It is not irresponsible to say this is a concern.

Our job is to tease out the likely implications of legislation. Over my years dealing with a number of cases in which there have been allegations of child abuse I have found that people who have engaged in child abuse are extraordinarily manipulative, will do whatever they can to frighten or intimidate others who may seek to expose them and will do whatever they can to frighten their victims. It will become known that this criminal offence exists. What will happen if a ten or eleven year old child is being sexually abused by a baby-sitter or parent and is plucking up the courage to report it?

Currently what happens frequently is that the abuser threatens the child with all sorts of consequences if the abuse is revealed. These are often consequences not for the child but for other people the child is close to. Will this measure create the possibility that an abuser will tell a child that if the Garda are told the child will be investigated and possibly charged with a criminal offence? The Minister and I may sit comfortably in this room and say there is no real possibility of the Garda Síochána bringing a criminal charge against such a child but will this add an extra threat? I am not simply making a debating point. I am genuinely concerned that we are replacing one inhibition to reporting with another which will be manipulated and which will give rise to difficulty. A garda to whom a report of abuse is made - which is not established sufficiently to warrant a prosecution being brought or a care application being made - will not necessarily be the garda who will be asked to investigate whether the reporter of the abuse did so falsely and maliciously. That is not how the Garda Síochána operate.

The fact that a garda has looked into the case of alleged abuse will not prevent the person reporting the abuse being investigated, even in circumstances where there is no health board intervention. I start from the same position as the Minister. I think it is highly unlikely that any prosecutions will be brought. I am simply concerned about the social dynamic. Will this measure act as an inhibitor to someone making malicious and false allegations or will it be largely irrelevant in that context and merely provide some additional dynamic which acts as an obstacle to some people making reports?

If a school teacher makes a bona fide report about a child and following investigation there is no health board action and if the suspected abuser then asks the Garda to investigate the teacher, at the very minimum the Garda will want to interview that teacher. Having talked to the teacher they may be satisfied that no action is needed; but when the teacher next has a concern about a child will that earlier experience act as an inhibitor to reporting? This is a judgment call. It may be that the Minister is right and the law will not inhibit reporting. I am concerned that it might. It would be very irresponsible to suggest that we will see a variety of doctors, teachers and others brought before the courts. We will not but will the very fact of someone being interviewed in these circumstances act as an inhibitor?

Is not the essence of the judgment call that the teacher in Mr. Shatter's example will be the first person interviewed by the Garda as a result of the report? That is where we differ. I would say the reporter will be the most important person interviewed by the Garda in their immediate response to the report. It is not true to suggest that the reporter would subsequently be interviewed out of the blue as a result of a malicious report. The Garda will be involved from the point of the first report being made and will be able to make their own judgment as to whether the report was malicious. I have no worries about that aspect. My concern is that there are people who will make malicious reports knowing them to be false. I have been given an example of a case in recent months where a report was serious, malicious and very public. The person about whom the malicious report was made is taking a civil case in the courts. He knows that when he proves the allegations to be false there will be no retribution for the malicious reporter. There is not protection for the professional and I want to redress that balance.

The example the Minister has given is part of the problem.

Individual cases should not be mentioned.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. There will be instances when teachers and doctors will make reports to health boards seeking social work intervention which will not result in the Garda interviewing anyone. Both the Minister and his officials will be aware of a variety of cases where the Garda wait to see if validation procedures result in any outcome. If these validation procedures produce no outcome the person against whom the allegation is made might then ask that the doctor or teacher be visited by the Garda and that may well be the first occasion they are visited. That is a concern.

The Minister accepted the last day that we have no statistical information of the number of false and malicious reports of child abuse that any health board has been asked to investigate. We might be legislating for a problem which does not require to be legislated for. I would be much happier if we had some real information on this. It is for this reason I suggest to the Minister that a time for reflection on this aspect of the workings of the Bill is desirable. If we include this section, the desirability of which I have doubts about, we should not activate it until the legislation has been operating for at least 18 months. That would give the Minister the opportunity to ask the health boards to maintain statistical information during that period to indicate the extent to which this is really a problem and whether we genuinely need this criminal measure. It is a halfway house between the Minister's view and mine.

I am concerned about the genesis of this proposal. I have a great deal of respect for the social workers dealing with child abuse cases and who are permanently under pressure. Demands are made upon them which are neither acceptable nor reasonable. We require a great deal more qualified personnel to do the job and until they are provided those working in the area will be forced to engage in fire brigade action. No matter what our concerns for the social workers involved in child care work in the health boards, the Bill should be child centred.

I have no objection to the amendment the Minister proposed to the Title of the Bill and, as he said, the Bill is about providing protection to those who report child abuse. However, it does so in the context of a child centred policy intended to protect the welfare of children. I am concerned that the genesis of this proposal does not derive from child centred values. I am aware of a small number of instances in which vicious people who, presumably, have been investigated as suspected abusers have made allegations against social workers who have been involved with them professionally. They have gone so far as to put notices on walls accusing named social workers of abusing their own children. It is an appalling action to take and has been the cause of great distress to professionals working on behalf of the State whose job is to protect the welfare of children. They should not be subjected to such harassment. There are new laws which provide for the criminal offence of harassment. If one can identify a person who has behaved in such a way, that legislation could be invoked to prosecute him.

My concern is that the genesis of this provision is not about assuring protection for children but trying to put in place a mechanism, to which social workers are entitled, to ensure that social workers working with health boards do not become the object of false and vicious accusations about their family lives. They are entitled to protection but this is the wrong mechanism to deal with it. A social worker working for a State agency should not be subjected to vicious false allegations about their family lives from cowardly and anonymous sources. The harassment provisions in the criminal law can be used. Has the Minister considered that aspect?

I welcome the Minister's remarks. I am glad he has widened the definition of designated officers. I expressed the view that the new child care mangers whose appointment we await will have the job of managing the service. A major problem with the child care services has been the lack of a management element. The child care managers should not have an operational role but should be confined to managing the service and taking the strategic decisions necessary to plan them.

With regard to the penalties, I have consulted bodies working in this field and I concur with the Minister's findings. The penalties provide a good balance in the Bill. They refer to people who make a false statement knowingly. The critical element is that they must know the statement to be false and purposefully vexatious. It is the right approach to take because it introduces balance into the legislation.

It is hard to be patient with the lengthy and academic debate taking place. I welcome the Bill because it should help to remove some of the obstacles that make it difficult to report abuse. The real problem is not that people who report do not have protection - it is that children who are seriously at risk do not have protection. Our child care services are hopelessly inadequate. The Minister of State has available to him a review of the child care services carried out last year by the Eastern Health Board and IMPACT. That review found the service to be crisis driven at all levels, hopelessly inadequate and under-funded. That is the real issue facing the Minister of State. There must be a commitment from the Government to provide the additional funding required to bring our child care services up to an acceptable level to ensure children are not left at risk. This Bill is a small help in removing obstacles but the real issue is that we must be serious about committing substantial additional funding to the services.

I agree with Deputy Shortall's last point. The report to which she referred outlines the crisis in the Eastern Health Board area and I acknowledge it. The most important response is to provide extra resources. In the last budget the Government increased resources by £13 million, the highest increase for any one year. The increase for the previous year was £5 million by a Government in which the Deputy's party was involved. I acknowledge that £13 million is short of the funding needed. The challenge for me is to convince the Government that significant extra resources must be applied to child protection measures in the current year. There is not and has not been an argument about that. I agree that is the kernel of the issue.

I welcome Deputy Shortall's agreement with the amendment proposed. Whether section 5 exists or not, unscrupulous persons can make threats. It is an unfortunate fact of life. The Bill seeks to achieve a balance between the need to protect people from the destruction of their good name and the need to protect children. Our first objective is to protect children but if somebody makes a false statement knowingly there must be some redress for the victim, who more often than not, will be a professional. One case of a person's good name and reputation being destroyed is enough to justify this balancing amendment. I appeal to Deputy Shatter to accept it as a significant measure to bring balance to a good Bill.

I do not believe the amendment brings the balance to which the Minister of State refers. It is an amendment that will in practice present a problem in encouraging some of the professionals the Bill was originally designed to encourage to make reports. If the Minister was prepared to accept my amendments to amendment No. 7 which postpones the coming into operation of this provision for 18 months, I would not oppose his amendment now. That would give time for reflection. If the Minister is not prepared to do so I will oppose his amendment.

I agree with what has been said by Deputy Shortall. What we are dealing with is a small aspect of the problems that need to be addressed. The real crisis we face, particularly in the Eastern Health Board area, is that as far as we know there are 2,400 children reported as being at risk of or victims of physical and sexual abuse or neglect and whose cases - unless the Minister can tell us otherwise - have not been fully investigated. Full family assessments have not been carried out. That is a real crisis at a time of great economic prosperity. I support the Minister's need for additional resources. It is a national scandal that people are prepared to make reports about their concerns in relation to children and the largest health board is incapable of responding speedily to those reports.

A case was brought to my attention today of a child who has been the victim of sexual abuse for two years and when the parents learned of this and made contact with the health board to ask that validation procedures be carried out they were told to call back in eight weeks' time. Those validation procedures were not only required for the specific protection of the child but to facilitate the bringing of a criminal prosecution. I am sure those parents, because they are sufficiently strong enough to do so, went elsewhere to have the validation procedures carried out in a different health board area. That must be happening to quite a large number of parents who are concerned their children are being abused. It is a national disgrace that we are in this position.

I support the Minister's call for more resources. I will not pretend that past Governments have behaved perfectly in this area. I have had occasion to be critical of colleagues in this area. At a time when taxation revenue is buoyant and the State is doing a lot better than expected, there is no excuse for the Minister not getting the resources he needs to ensure that families in the predicament I have just described are provided with the immediate and speedy response necessary. If they are not given that response, people who should be brought before the courts for child abuse are getting away and other children will be put at risk.

If the Minister was willing to take on board the amendment to postpone the coming into operation of this section to give us an opportunity to experience how the Bill works, I would not oppose this provision. If the Minister is intent on introducing this provision immediately I am concerned that the signals it sends out will become unnecessarily complicated and it will in practice give rise to difficulties even though on the face of it the proposal seems a reasonable one. Having agreed to all the other amendments proposed by the Minister I will be opposing this one.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 5.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverly.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
Amendment declared carried.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

6.-Section 4* of this Act is in addition to, and not in substitution for, any privilege or defence available to a defendant in legal proceedings by virtue of any enactment or rule of law in force immediately before the passing of this Act.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

7.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998.

(2) This Act shall come into operation one month after its passing.".

Deputy Shatter has tabled amendments to amendment No. 7. How stand those amendments?

The two amendments stand. They provide for postponing the coming into operation of this new criminal offence for a period of 18 months and then give the Minister discretion to make an order to bring it into force. They interact with a later stand alone section which I am proposing which ensures that before bringing the measure into force, the Minister will have available to him information of the extent of false allegations of abuse made to health boards in the intervening period.

These amendments have already been discussed. Is the Deputy pressing them?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7:

In subsection (2), line 1, after "Act" to insert "except for section 5".

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7 put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 7:

After subsection (2), to insert the following subsection:

(3) Section 5 shall come into operation on such day as may be fixed by order by the Minister for Health and Children provided that no such order may be made until 18 months after the coming into operation of this Act.".

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 7 put and declared lost.

Acceptance of amendment No. 7 involves the deletion of section 5.

Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7(a):

In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

8.-Each health board shall no later than the 31st day of March in each year publish a report for the preceding year ending on the 31st day of December of such year detailing:

(1) the number of communications in each such year made to a designated officer of such health board by persons of the opinion that-

(a) a child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or

(b) a child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected,

(2) the number of such communications as referred to in subsection 1-

(a) confirmed by the health board to be accurate,

(b) regarded by the health board as inaccurate,

(c) undetermined and under investigation by the health board,

(d) awaiting investigation, and

(e) untrue where the health board believes the communication to have been made by a person knowing it to be false.".

This is to insert a new section. It is an important provision. One of the difficulties the health boards currently have is to ensure they have up to date accurate statistics with regard to the area of child care. I am aware there has been a substantial delay, with the Eastern Health Board in particular, in furnishing the Department with essential information in the context of policy making. This section is designed to ensure we are aware by March 31 of each year of the number of communications made to health boards with regard to children at risk. If this amendment is accepted, we will know the number of reports of child abuse made annually to health boards. By 31 March of each year at the very latest, we will know the position on the preceding 31 December.

Equally important, the proposed section provides that where the health board receives reports of a child being abused or a child at risk, we must also receive accurate information by 31 December each year on how many such reports have been confirmed by a health board to be accurate, how many have been regarded by a health board as inaccurate, the number undetermined and under investigation by a health board, the numbers awaiting investigation and the numbers that are untrue where the health board believes the communication was made by a person knowing it to be false.

This provision would ensure that the public, public representatives, those involved in social policy making and, importantly, the Government and the Ministers concerned would know within a short period exactly the situation within each health board as regards their child welfare obligations arising not only under this Bill but under the Child Care Act, 1991. The Minister of State told us on another occasion that he does not know the number of communications made to a health board which are known to be false. This will give us an insight into that.

The Minister of State did not know on a number of occasions when Dáil questions were tabled how many child abuse allegations remained to be investigated by each health board on 31 December 1997. The figure of 2,400 cases of child abuse awaiting investigation emerged through a conference held by some of the professionals in this area. These figures did not emerge as a direct reporting of figures by the Eastern Health Board at the time they became public. There has been a huge problem with some health boards providing the basic statistical information which is essential for us to establish whether our child care systems are operating.

I hope the Minister of State will take this amendment on board. I see it as a helpful and constructive proposal as regards policy making. It also allows the Minister of State and this committee, which is extremely important bearing in mind its remit, to hold to account health boards in terms of assessing whether they are complying with their child care obligations under the Child Care Act. If this committee sought information this section requires to be collated with a view to making policy proposals to Government, some of this information would not be available to us on an up to date basis. Too frequently, the Department relies on statistics which are considerably out of date.

We are heading into an emergency in the child care area because of the numbers of accumulated uninvestigated cases. The direct maintaining of information on a coherent and up to date basis does not always take place. Often we are told it is because the professionals are under pressure. We will have new child care managers and it should be their job to ensure this type of information is collated, speedily assembled and regularly available for policy makers and those who require it to ensure our child care services meet the needs which are there. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

The Deputy will be aware from our recent discussions on this Bill and at Question Time that I am not satisfied with the quantity and quality of the statistics available. However, that is not to say statistics are not available. They are not as up to date as we would wish, largely due to the fact that staff, particularly in the Eastern Health Board, are under such pressure in the work they do on a daily basis that they do not have the time to give to the compilation of statistics. They do not have technology which is a fundamental requirement in having up to date statistics made available effectively and cost efficiently. We are addressing that issue. I accept the point made by Deputy Shatter and we are attempting to remedy that. Resources and management practices are the two issues, not the need for legislation.

The working group I recently established on child abuse guidelines has already had three meetings and is examining the definitions of child abuse. I am now commissioning a consultancy study into the area of statistics in order to get an expert view on what we should be collecting. We should also remember that the boards, under section 8 of the Child Care Act, 1991, publish substantial reports on an annual basis outlining the adequacy of child care and family support services in their areas. Much other useful information is also included.

It is not desirable to try to provide for the collection of information in legislation. Categories such as "accurate", "inaccurate", etc., proposed by the Deputy are not defined and could be interpreted differently in the absence of clear definitions. My strong view is that this provision would act as a straitjacket and is simply inappropriate. I know from my discussions with Deputy Shatter that he is concerned about the effect of the new offence of malicious reporting created in the Bill. I assure him I will ask the health boards to monitor closely the number of cases arising where a person makes a report knowing that statement to be false.

I repeat it is neither timely nor appropriate to impose additional duties on the boards and, therefore, I do not support the amendment. I am having ongoing discussions with the health board programme managers and in particular with the Eastern Health Board where the major problem arises. The situation is not as stark as Deputy Shatter indicated. We continuously monitor what is happening on the ground. The Eastern Health Board has hotly disputed the figure of 2,400 outstanding investigations. The programme manager, Bríd Clarke, was specific in stating that it was not an accurate figure. It is important to deal with the facts. I have taken this matter up with the programme manager and the chief executive officer in the health board. There are no outstanding urgent cases which are not being investigated. Investigations are ongoing and take time. Less important reports are on a waiting list but the Eastern Health Board assures me there is no threat to the safety of the child in these situations. All cases where a child is seriously at risk are investigated promptly and efficiently, of which I have been assured by the Eastern Health Board.

I am having ongoing consultations and continuously reviewing the situation in the Eastern Health Board. While the period of time it takes to investigate cases is too long, I am satisfied the Eastern Health Board's response to me is adequate in terms of the present situation. That is not to say the position is satisfactory. There is much firebrigade action and we would prefer preventative action and intervention, as I said on the last occasion. The provision of up to date statistics to enable us to ascertain the situation pertaining on 31 December each year is something which I have asked the health board to expedite so that we can have the annual statistical information more quickly than up to now. That involves new technology and extra resources, which we are attempting to put in place.

The Minister of State indicated that he received assurances from the Eastern Health Board that the figure of 2,400 cases awaiting investigation is wrong. What is the correct figure?

I cannot provide an exact figure for the simple reason that it changes from day to day. That is one of the problems involved. Statistics cannot be taken as absolute. The system operates on a daily basis and the number of investigations being undertaken changes from day to day. However, I have been assured that the figures to which the Deputy referred are not correct.

With respect, of course the situation changes on a daily basis. However, I am sure the person who informed the Minister of State that the figure was incorrect knew the correct figures. I presume he asked them to provide those figures. This information has been impossible to obtain for the past five months. It is almost June. Does the Minister of State have in his possession information which indicates the number of cases of children allegedly at risk awaiting investigation by the Eastern Health Board on 31 December 1997 or 1 January 1998?

That information is being compiled by the Eastern Health Board and it will be included in its annual report.

Therefore, we do not know whether the figure of 2,400 is correct or incorrect. It merely represents gossip within the health board as to how many cases there might be. I am not attempting to be difficult or deliberately confrontational. By his response, the Minister of State has highlighted the extent of the problem. He and his predecessors have been obliged to live with that problem and I suggest they should not have tolerated it.

Like his predecessor, the Minister of State has responsibility for children. He is operating and making policy based on the latest available statistics which date from 31 December 1996. That information also became available too late. We are now almost halfway through 1998 and the Minister of State is unable to provide information about the number of cases involving children currently at risk which need to be investigated. Figures have being quoted at various conferences which may or may not be accurate. I am sure the person to whom the Minister of State spoke in connection with this matter meant well. However, they do not seem to know how many cases require investigation. That is not the way to operate a child care service, particularly in the context of the Bill which is trying to ensure that people are encouraged to report alleged abuse. People will not be encouraged to report if those reports disappear into a black hole and are not investigated or assessed.

Placing a specific statutory obligation on health boards to provide information would not be difficult because it falls within the child care definitions of the relevant legislation. The Adoption Board is required to produce statistical information on an annual basis. That requirement dates back to the Adoption Act, 1952. Under section 8 of the Child Care Act, the health boards are required to produce annual reports. However, the nature of the statistics they must produce is not delineated.

The reports to which I refer are coming on stream too late in terms of making policy. The Minister of State's Department needs to know where matters stand on a more immediate basis. At present, the only figure in the public arena that anyone can stand over is that there are 2,400 cases awaiting investigation. The Minister of State cannot provide any other figure. It is not a matter of academic debate, it is a matter of knowing the extent to which the child care services are responding to the real needs of children.

I am disappointed at the Minister of State's response to this amendment. Whatever about our disagreement on the issue of a criminal offence, I believe this proposal will facilitate the Minister of State in his work. It would allow him and his successors to ensure that health boards comply with an obligation to maintain regular annual information. The information being sought is not merely concerned with false reporting. Its provision will give us a clear view within three months of the closure of a particular year, of the number of children who have been found by the health boards to be at risk in that year, the number of investigations conducted and the number of cases awaiting investigation.

This basic information is an essential tool in terms of policy making. It is also essential in the Minister of State's battle to obtain resources from the Government. If he is not able to inform the Taoiseach of the shortfall within the health board area regarding the number of children who remain at risk because speedy assessments cannot be undertaken, the Minister of State will not be able do his job properly or obtain the funding he requires.

I recently perused a number of debates which took place in the House in the period 1981-82 when I made life difficult for the then Minister for Health, Deputy Woods, in terms of the inadequacies of the child care system. I predicted that certain disasters would occur because of failures in that area. Families such as the McColgans went through hell in the 1980s because we did not get our act together. Ten years from now I do not want to look back at a series of horrendous situations revealed in the courts where children, during the late 1990s, continued to be abused for months or years after reports were made to health boards for no reason other than that the boards lacked the capacity to respond and intervene. I do not want the Minister in charge to throw his hands in the air and claim that he did not have access to the relevant information.

There is no excuse for such information not being available. There is no excuse for the health boards not to maintain proper information systems. If there are a variety of people to whom reports of abuse can be made under the Bill, part of the role of child care managers should be to record the number of reports received and collect information regarding the outcome of investigations or the reasons for delays where such investigations do not take place. I intend to put this issue to a vote.

Deputy Shatter is being very misleading in his approach. If he believes that our legislating for statistics will in any way enhance the difficult job carried out by the health boards, particularly the Eastern Health Board, he is making a fundamental mistake. As already stated, health boards have an exceptionally difficult job to do in current circumstances. Despite the fact that 900 additional professionals have been made available in the past four years, the health boards remain unable to carry out that job as efficiently or effectively as they would wish. Additional resources are required in terms of prevention, intervention, investigation and, the least important aspect, statistical collection.

For Deputy Shatter to suggest that accepting the amendment will enhance the response to any of the needs outlined is ludicrous. I reject outright the points he made. The example to which he referred, the McColgan case, is in direct opposition to his reasons for tabling the amendment. I do not accept the points made by the Deputy. I am addressing this issue by attempting to provide additional resources to the health boards, bringing better management systems and mechanisms into place and appointing additional child care managers, a matter in respect of which the Eastern Health Board recently advertised.

One of the major difficulties for a number of the health boards was the decision of the previous Government to provide them with £10 million per year over three years and then reduce it to £5 million in the most crucial year. As a result the Eastern Health Board was obliged to postpone dealing with a number of major problems. I have since provided it with additional resources which will enable it to upgrade many of its systems and appoint extra child care managers. Previously, the health board had to abandon plans to make such appointments.

I completely reject any insinuation by Deputy Shatter that the Department, the Government or the health boards have been negligent. It is most inopportune that he should try to include this amendment as a mechanism to improve the situation. It does the opposite. I reject it outright.

The Minister of State has been in office for almost 11 months. It is an outrageous scandal that as Minister of State with special responsibility for children he cannot tell the committee or the Dáil how many children within the Eastern Health Board area have been reported as being the victims of abuse but whose cases remain uninvestigated. He cannot provide statistics on the position at the end of last week, the end of last month or even at the end of last year.

The Minister of State cannot make policy for child protection by guessing about the nature of the problem. There cannot be a black hole from which there is no information. No matter how hard pressed, the health board cannot do its job efficiently if it does not maintain accurate information about the extent of the problems it must address. No matter what kind of fire brigade operation is in place, one person must be continuously engaged in making an overall assessment of the number of cases relating to children at risk that need to be addressed.

The Minister of State advises that not only do we not have that information but it is understandable we do not have it. He also advises he will do something about the matter by forming a committee to consider the kind of statistical information that should be maintained. We should maintain statistical information for the purposes of policy making. While the statistics of themselves do not solve the problem, they indicate where our policy is inadequate, where there is a shortage of resources, where there is a shortage of staff and what we need to do to ensure that we meet our obligations under the child care legislation. We cannot do that in a statistical vacuum where even the people working at the coal face in the Eastern Health Board cannot tell us how many children are in a position where they have been reported to be at risk but whose cases remain uninvestigated to any substantial degree. That is not good enough.

This is not about party politics or point scoring; it is about the central issue of the protection of children. It is extraordinary that the Minister of State regards this amendment as unacceptable. If he has an objection he should be concerned with expanding the nature of the information that will facilitate him in doing his job.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá 7; Níl, 8.

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.

Níl

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • Wright, G.V.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, to delete lines 6 to 11, and substitute the following:

"AN ACT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM CIVIL LIABILITY TO PERSONS WHO REPORT CHILD ABUSE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO SUCH PERSONS FROM PENALISATION BY THEIR EMPLOYERS, TO PROVIDE FOR AN OFFENCE IN RESPECT OF THE FALSE REPORTING OF CHILD ABUSE AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.".

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Top
Share