I propose to take Questions Nos. 308, 310 and 318 to 320, inclusive, together.
Elements of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 relating to the disclosure of convictions are under review at present having regard to a recent judgment of the UK Court of Appeal in (On the Application of) T and others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2013]. The UK Court considered the circumstances in which it is appropriate to disclose convictions for old, minor offences with particular regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Having considered the judgement in that case, I am bringing proposals to Government to provide that certain old minor convictions will not be disclosed under the provisions of the 2012 Act. Given the close relationship between this Act and the Spent Convictions Bill, which is before the Oireachtas at the moment, any changes to the Vetting Act will have to be reflected in the Spent Convictions Bill. The amendment of the Vetting Act will also be done via the Spent Convictions Bill. Subject to the approval of the Government, I expect to be in a position to have the 2012 Act and the Spent Convictions Bill amended in the next few months. I expect to be in a position to commence the provisions of the 2012 Act in 2014.
In the meantime, the vetting of persons working with children and vulnerable persons will continue to be done on a non-mandatory basis.
Section 32 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Public Service, make regulations to prescribe fees in relation to the provision of vetting services. The question of making any such regulations will not arise until such time as the Act is commenced. Any proposals to prescribe fees will likely require some consideration of waiver of fees for certain categories of vetting applicants. Currently there are no fee charges for vetting services.
The definition of relevant work in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act requires vetting of persons engaged in work or activity as a minister or priest or any other person engaged in the advancement of any religious beliefs where the work involves “relevant work or activities relating to children” or “relating to vulnerable persons”. I believe that this is the correct approach. Any of the professions listed in the schedules to the Act only require vetting in respect of work related to children or vulnerable persons. Priests or religious persons should be treated no differently in this regard than any other person or profession. For example, teachers working in schools require vetting, whereas teachers working in adult education or in Universities do not require vetting under the Act. The purpose of the Act is to protect children and vulnerable persons and the procedures within the Act must be confined within the scope of the Act.
