Before we commence, I remind Members that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded. I welcome the Minister. Amendment No. 1 is a Government amendment and also in the name of Senator Jillian van Turnhout. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
Children First Bill 2014: Report and Final Stages
I will address amendment No. 1 first. This is a technical amendment to amend the Long Title of the Bill in order to provide for the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement by way of an amendment to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, as proposed in amendment No. 2.
As amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are being discussed together-----
Is any other speaker offering?
No. Both amendments are being discussed together and the Minister is about to speak to amendment No. 2.
This amendment proposes to amend the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and provide for the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement. As I stated on Committee Stage, the Government is fully committed to the elimination of corporal punishment and protecting children from violence. This amendment not only abolishes the defence of reasonable chastisement but will also convey a strong message which, I hope, will lead to a cultural change across society in Ireland that corporal punishment is wrong. Senator Jillian van Turnhout proposed an amendment in this regard on Committee Stage and I requested her to postpone the progressing of it until Report Stage in order that the work already well under way in my Department on the issue could be finalised. I thank her for her co-operation in that regard. This is a very important issue and it is one on which we share an objective. Many Members of the House who spoke on the issue on Committee Stage clearly share the same objective. The Senator supports the amendment as brought forward by me today.
I take the opportunity to mention the late John Boland, a former Deputy and predecessor of mine, who is survived by his widow, Kay. On 26 January 1982, when he was Minister for Education, he introduced a regulation banning corporal punishment in schools. That regulation came into effect in February 1982. We are joined in the Visitors Gallery by the relatives of the late Dr. Cyril Daly, whom I knew very well and who was also a great exponent of banning corporal punishment when it was neither popular nor profitable to do so. As a result of his stance, he found himself in conflict with those powers that he held in such dear esteem.
The amendment provides for the total abolition of the common law defence of reasonable chastisement. It does not create a new offence but rather removes something that has its roots in a completely different era and societal context. The measure asserts that there is no circumstance in which it may be seen to be in order to hit a vulnerable person, in this case a child; that from a child's perspective, there is nothing reasonable about being on the receiving end of corporal punishment; that Irish parents are no less protective of their children, nor less progressive in their parenting practices, than those in the other 19 European countries where a statutory ban on corporal punishment is in place; that the Government, by its laws, will protect and vindicate the rights of children; and that Ireland is diligent in meeting its international obligations in the area of human rights. The measure represents a significant advancement in the protection and rights of children. It reinforces the developing impetus in parenting practices in Ireland to use positive discipline strategies in upbringing of children which reject the use of corporal punishment.
The environment in which the amendment can be taken is one that takes account of the children's rights referendum. The referendum marked a milestone in the country in regard to children. The people voted in favour of children having rights and those rights that must be respected. The action we are taking is a further step in recognising those rights, making the amendment to the Constitution all the more real.
I would also like to say a word about positive parenting where we support children's self-discipline and behaviour by means of a learning strategy rather than through punishment. Positive parenting is strongly advocated by many parenting support groups and programmes. The Child and Family Agency, Tusla, has published a parenting support strategy which was launched in October 2013. As part of the strategy, the agency has launched its 50 Key Messages document, an evidence-informed guide for parents and practitioners of key messages that are important in raising children.
Family resource centres around the country provide positive parenting programmes which people will find beneficial. In other jurisdictions where similar measures in this area have been introduced research shows the number of parents who thought it acceptable to use corporal punishment has fallen and continues to fall.
I commend the amendment to the House.
The Minister, Deputy James Reilly, is always welcome to the Seanad. He is, however, particularly welcome today.
One of the first objectives I set when I became a Member in 2011 was for Ireland to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement. When the Seanad took Committee Stage of the Children First Bill on 23 September, I tabled an amendment, thanks to the expert help of Dr. Fergus Ryan, with the same purpose as this amendment. At the time the Minister said, “If I have my way, we will have this defence of reasonable chastisement removed from the Statute Book." Here we are today.
I am very aware of and thankful for all the work done by the Minister personally, officials and advisers across government, in co-operating and working together, to bring about this amendment. I extend my particular thanks to the officials of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I also thank my assistant and researcher, Amy McArdle, for all her work and support. I was heartened on Committee Stage to receive cross-party and Independent support, for which I thank my colleagues. On 23 September I cited several international and national experts. I do not intend to repeat myself today but ask that my words on Committee Stage be included in any documenting of how Ireland brought about the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement.
During the years there have been notable voices to the fore calling for Ireland to take this step. Of special note, I must thank the Childrens Rights Alliance, in particular Ms Tanya Ward and Ms Maria Corbett who have been steadfast in their support and ensuring the support of a wide range of children and youth organisations; the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, driven by the experience of children calling into its Childline service, has always prioritised ending a culture of violence against children; and the special rapporteur on child protection, Professor Geoffrey Shannon, who has through his reports repeatedly called on us as legislators to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement.
For the global leadership they have provided, I thank Ms Marta Santos Pais, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Violence against Children; Mr. Peter Newell of the global initiative to end all corporal punishment of children; and Ireland’s academics who have shone a light on Ireland’s international obligations, in particular Professor Ursula Kilkelly of University College Cork. I also thank my mum and dad, Jenny and Michael Hassett. Since 23 September, I have had much time to reflect and probe why I am so passionate about this issue. It is, of course, rooted in my childhood. My memories brought me back to a particular primary school teacher who would, on occasion, whack someone in our class across the ears with a ruler. I remember telling my mum. She said that if I was ever hit, I was to stand up calmly, walk out of the class, go to the office of the school secretary and ask for my parents to be called to come and collect me. I was lucky. My parents were ahead of their time. They respected me as an independent rights holder. I thank my mum for being here today to share this momentous occasion.
Why do we, as a society, accept that we even debate if and when it is acceptable to hit someone, let alone when that someone is smaller than us and probably does not understand why he or she is being hit? Very often, when we discuss the issue of corporal punishment, violence against children, or so-called “slapping”, one can almost feel an invisible line appear in people’s heads about their tolerance level. They say, “You know I am only talking about a tap, not a thump, a slap, not a belt, a smack, not a whack.” Of course, the issue is wrapped up in how we were raised. All too often the knee-jerk reaction of "it never did me any harm" is heard. I would add it never did people any good either.
This invisible line is very subjective and leaves children vulnerable. When someone hits a child, it is not happening from a rational place. The decision is made in a heightened emotional state when we are stressed, when we are tired and least able to engage sound and reasoned judgment. The invisible line is blurred. In extreme cases, it is rubbed out completely. One way or another, the existence of the invisible line means children are all too often exposed to an escalation of violence. The excuse, “I got a terrible fright when she ran out on the road and so I just hit her to show how wrong it is,” is used with children. We all get frights in our life, but my first reaction is not to hit someone. Why do we culturally accept that it is okay when it is a child? A caller to the “Last Word with Matt Cooper” on Today FM summed it up by saying, “My grandmother has Alzheimer’s and she is as likely to walk out into traffic or harm herself. Should I use that as a reason to slap her?”
Of course, I understand the importance of supporting parents in the vital role they play in their child’s life. We need to ensure parents have access to supports and resources when they need them. We know that the majority of parents already believe we have a ban on corporal punishment. However, I know that some parents are anxious about this change in the law. I reassure them that we all want the best for their children, for the children of Ireland. To this end, I would like to take this moment to thank Laura Haugh of mummypages.ie for its unequivocal support of the amendment. I also point to an excellent book for parents who are anxious, developed by a leading advocate in this area, Mr. Paul Gilligan. His book, Raising Emotionally Healthy Children, is a great resource which provides much advice and support.
By abolishing the defence of reasonable chastisement, we are giving life to the children’s amendment in the Constitution, Article 42A.1, which states: "The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights". We know that corporal punishment can cause serious harm to children, teaches them that violence is an acceptable way of solving conflicts and is ineffective as a means of discipline. We know that there are positive ways to teach, correct or discipline children which are better for the child’s development and health. Corporal punishment makes it more difficult to protect children from severe abuse if some forms of violence are legitimate. With this amendment, we are ensuring all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.
This ancient defence of reasonable chastisement is not an Irish invention. It came to us from English common law. Through its colonial past, England has been responsible for rooting this legal defence in over 70 countries and territories throughout the world. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the reasonable punishment defence still allows parents and some other carers to justify common assault on children. In Scotland there is another variation, namely, the defence of justifiable assault. In the action being taken today the Government is putting children first and providing leadership, which will I hope give confidence to the Government at Westminster, the devolved UK administrations and other countries across the globe to discard these archaic and disreputable defences and give full respect to the dignity of children.
Ireland will be the 20th EU member state to effectively ban corporal punishment. In doing so I hope the remaining European governments will follow suit. Irish law is being brought into step with parents, children’s rights advocates and international best practice. With this amendment, we have a way to unite and agree that all citizens are equal. There must never be a defence for violence against children. I am honoured to have championed and secured the effective ban on the physical punishment of children in Ireland.
I welcome the Minister and his senior staff to the Chamber. I congratulate Senator Jillian van Turnhout on this amendment which I fully support instinctively as a parent and grandparent. Without the support of the Minister, this would not have been possible. I admire the work and research the Senator has put into it. As deputy leader of the Irish delegation to the Council of Europe, I am especially pleased to be associated with it because it would have been to the forefront of the Council’s agenda.
Giving leadership to neighbouring countries is an interesting development.
On foot of the work done by Senator Jillian van Turnhout and in the light of the support she received, the fact that it is permitted in those jurisdictions will put pressure on their legislatures to consider the issue. What is happening here certainly proves a point. If there were no Seanad, this amendment would not have been included because nobody in the Lower House sought to move it. No Deputy decided to pursue it in the manner in which Senator Jillian van Turnhout has done. Had this House been abolished, the amendment would never have been moved. There would have been no amendment and the current position would have continued to obtain. The latter is a worthwhile point and the people recognised it. The Minister is following in the footsteps of his late colleague from north Dublin, John Boland, who brought about the abolition of corporal punishment in schools. This was a major innovation, particularly as all Members, including the Minister, will recall being in school and the fear and terror we experienced. I attended a Christian Brothers school and have a great deal of respect for that order. I will never attack the Christian Brothers because they gave me a good start in life. I refer, in particular, to Brother O'Dwyer who gave me great support at school and whom I have always regarded highly. Nevertheless, the Christian Brothers had leather straps made which allowed members of the order to inflict maximum torture on pupils. I recall the fear of getting "six of the best", as it was called, and seeing teachers standing on their tiptoes in order to inflict the maximum pain. That has stayed in my memory. This fear was not just for myself because I was not punished that much, although, like every child in the class, I was given six of the best at some stage. I recognise the name of John Boland in the Chamber today. He was a former colleague of the Minister in north Dublin and I presume he knew him well. He was the Minister who brought about the abolition of corporal punishment at a time when there was a lot of resistance to the proposal. Looking back, was it not right that it was abolished?
Teachers could physically abuse pupils in front of their peers in the classroom. If I look back to my own childhood, it was like that of Senator Jillian van Turnhout who was blessed with her mother and father and the manner in which they gave her support. That support has built her up and given her the courage to bring forward these amendments. However, I recall going home to a loving mother - my father was a stonemason and worked away from home a great deal - who was there to greet me with a cup of tea and some biscuits. I looked forward to that moment. There was never fear in my home and I was fortunate in that regard. Moreover, one continues with the example one receives with one's own family and that was something to which we never needed to resort. It is nothing about which to boast, but I was fortunate this did not arise.
I wish to make one point on which the Minister might respond. This provision should not lead to overuse or abuse of the resources of An Garda Síochána. However, a reasonable approach should be taken. One might call it a phasing-in approach whereby people will be aware of the position, will not abuse the law and will not be able to resort to this defence if they are actually challenged or if charges are brought against them. It is important that from the time the President signs the Bill into law, anyone who sees a child being abused, by a parent or otherwise, will have the right and use it to inform a member of the Garda that wrongdoing is taking place and that the law is being broken. I refer to public demonstrations of abuse which will be quite evident, which one can foresee and about which one can do something. Privately and internally, a child will be able to contact the helpline, which is fine, but the Minister should be aware of this point. The publicity that will arise from this provision and parents' awareness of it will go a long way toward achieving compliance and ensuring parents will not use force against, abuse or slap their children . There are many other ways to do it. Every family is different, but this is an important development and I am delighted to be associated with it.
I again congratulate Senator Jillian van Turnhout on her initiative in tabling this amendment. In particular, I congratulate the Minister and his officials. I presume this measure was approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday last; therefore, I take the opportunity to compliment the Cabinet also. I do so because this may not be as popular in some quarters as it might be in others. However, popularity does not matter - we are concerned with the rights of children. As the Senator noted, why pass a referendum without introducing this measure? In a sense, there was a contradiction in that the people approved a children's rights amendment without something being done to protect children in their homes or otherwise. I again say, "Well done," and offer my congratulations. I thank the Minister for going along with the amendment in the House. It shows his independence of thought and ability as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I have great faith in his ability and long may he continue his work.
I add my voice to the welcome for the amendment. I also welcome the Minister and thank him, in particular, for accepting it. He gave Members great heart on Committee Stage when he stated that if he had his way, the amendment would be accepted. I spoke at length on the amendment on Committee Stage, but I reiterate my thanks and appreciation to Senator Jillian van Turnhout for the work she put into it. She has been the driving force behind it. One sometimes might hear people stating a Senator was not elected to the Seanad but instead was nominated. Senator Jillian van Turnhout has proved today why she was nominated to be a Member of this House. She brought her expertise with her having worked with the Children's Rights Alliance and now, having utilised it, has accomplished what she set out to achieve. Today I am proud to be part of a Government party which has accepted the amendment. I speak on behalf of all my Labour Party colleagues who support fully the amendment and are delighted that it has been accepted. I am sure our leader, Senator Ivana Bacik, will reaffirm this point when she speaks.
In recent weeks I have discussed this proposal with people and told them what is happening. Approximately 99% of them are in agreement with the proposal and state it is fantastic and represents a great move on the part of the Senator. Some others have a little reservation about it. One point that arises continually relates to people's concern abjout how it will be policed and how we will know if children are being slapped at home. I recall that when the smoking ban was introduced, people thought it would never be possible to police it. However, the ban came into force and it worked. Moreover, because it involved an entire cultural change, it stopped people smoking in private houses. People who visit my home will go outside for a fag. I have never stopped them from so doing because I do not really like it in the house. Although there was no obligation on them to leave a private house to go out and smoke, they did so nevertheless. The smoking ban appears to have involved a culture change for people and I believe what is proposed will also involve a cultural change. That change will focus people's minds on the issue. They can concentrate and conclude they can no longer slap a child. Regardless of how gentle one might be in doing so, one cannot slap a child. I believe 99% of the people are honourable and will abide by this law.
I thank all those present in the Visitors Gallery who have put a lot of work into this measure in conjunction with Senator Jillian van Turnhout, the Minister and his officials. It is a great day on which I am proud to be present in the Seanad. What we are doing shows that this House was worth keeping.
First and foremost, I commend the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. It is a good day for Ireland and the State that the passage of the Bill through the Houses is reaching its conclusion. I sat on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children for the first two years in which I served in the Seanad and it was an issue the Minister constantly supported and raised. He received full co-operation from my party, as well as cross-party support and support from the Independent groupings and that has helped us to reach the position at which we have arrived. I also commend Senator Jillian van Turnhout for her eloquent contribution. Her tabling of these amendments which the Minister has accepted means that this is a good day for the Seanad and governance in the State. It is far too often the case that what we are witnessing does not happen because, although reasonable amendments are tabled, they are not accepted as a result of the fact that they are put forward by the Opposition. I am pleased that on this occasion the amendments are being accepted.
It also is important to state we have come a long way during the past 30 years in how we deal with issues pertaining to children's rights. This culminated in the referendum which, again, my party supported. It was fantastic to see that referendum proposal being passed, even though many people, for spurious reasons, did not support it. I am proud Sinn Féin supported it. I am glad that the Opposition and Government parties which supported the referendum proposal on a collective basis managed to get it over the line.
In many respects, the Bill flows from that referendum outcome and strengthens the safeguarding of children. It puts key elements of Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children, 2011, on a statutory footing. It also introduces mandatory reporting of child protection concerns for key groups that provide services for children.
Many thousands of children in the State and across the island have been abused. Many of them were failed by organisations and the State. We have all learned many valuable lessons on how we deal with these issues. That is for the good of all concerned.
I welcome the important amendments to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement from the Statute Book. It is a good day for the State. I will not say what year I was in because that might give away who the teacher was, but in one of the years when I was in primary school, we had a teacher who had a long stick and used it occasionally to smack all of the children in the class. There was only one teacher in the entire school at the time who used the stick. Fortunately, that does not happen any more. That shows we are progressing all the time.
Reference was made to parents who smacked or used correction to chastise a child. I have two children, one of whom is aged eight years and the other, four. They can be very trying at times, like anyone else's children. They try my patience but I have never once raised my hand to either of my children and I never will. However, I will not demonise people who see it as valid to give a child a slight smack. I do not agree with it; it is wrong. What we need to do is to deal with it in legislation to make sure that it is not right and that we send a message collectively from the Oireachtas that we do not tolerate such behaviour any more. While a person might consider it to be the right thing for him or her to do, that he or she is not doing anything wrong or that this is the way he or she wishes to chastise his or her child, it does not work, it is not right and it is not fair. We have all seen parents in pubs or at open air events give a child of two or three years of age a smack. That is most unfair and not the way we should chastise children when they do wrong.
I commend the Minister for the significant work he has done. He should be commended for this personal achievement. The Government should also be commended, as should all of the Senators who have done their own work on it. I single out Senator Jillian van Turnhout and commend her for the really good job she has done, given her experience and what she has brought to the Seanad on children's rights issues.
I welcome the Minister and the groups and individuals who are present in the Visitors Gallery to witness the Bill go through. I wholeheartedy welcome these two amendments. I say, "Well done," to Senator Jillian van Turnhout and congratulate her on her tenacity in pursuing this issue. That has brought us to this day when we see this historic Bill being passed, in particular for the reason that it will abolish the ancient and very much outdated defence of reasonable chastisement.
Senator Mareie Moloney rightly spoke about the cultural change that will undoubtedly be consolidated and strengthened by the passage of the Bill. I am also a parent of young children. That cultural change has happened. It is now seen as very much unacceptable to physically chastise a child. We have come to realise that there is nothing reasonable about physical chastisement, despite that outdated term we still use. It is really good to see the law catching up with it, the Minister accepting the amendments and the Bill being passed. I commend the Minister and his officials for their work in taking the amendments and getting Government support for them.
This morning the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality held hearings on the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Bill. We heard from children's rights groups on the protection of the rights of child victims of crime. The Bill is very much in keeping with that overall framework of laws in which we are providing greater protection of children's rights and the rights of child victims of crime. The laws are within the overarching framework of the children's rights amendment that we passed successfully some years ago, as referred to by other Members. As leader of the Labour Party group, I add my words of support and commendation. I congratulate Senator Jillian van Turnhout for her work on the Bill. I thank the Minister, in particular, for using the Seanad in this way. As other speakers said, it is a good day for the Seanad when we see Private Members' amendments being accepted by the Government in the House and Bills being strengthened and improved as a result.
I endorse the amendments. I welcome the Minister who has always been a great servant of children. The children of Ireland are well served by him. When he was Minister for Health, he took steps to ban smoking by adults where children were present in cars. He listened most attentively on Committee Stage to what Members said. I was in his company on the sad occasion last Thursday. Everybody who was at Garda Golden's funeral was moved by the two year old, three year old and five year old children following their father's hearse. We knew that the Minister's heart was in the right place. I am delighted that he has accepted the amendments.
Present in the Visitors Gallery are Dr. Toddy Daly, a son of Dr. Cyril Daly, and Dr. Daly's wife, Aileen. Dr. Cyril Daly campaigned for many years for this change, a point to which the Minister referred on Committee Stage. His statement on it was that to him the Irish child was a human being with human rights. Children have these rights from today as enforced in legislation.
Like the Minister, I remember the late John Boland who, as Minister for Education, in the 1980s introduced the measure on corporal punishment against substantial opposition. I also mention Owen Skeffington, one of my predecessors as a Trinity Senator. I gather the Daly family has correspondence from Owen Skeffington. I mentioned previously during the debate the famous story that someone had said he had been beaten in school and that it had never done him any harm and the Senator's response was, "The question is: what did do the harm?" We have moved away from that approach - Tom Brown's School Days, the fag system and the Victorians - to the spare the rod and spoil the child attitude. Through the views of educationists such as Maria Montessori we now see that children are interesting, fascinating, inspiring and stimulating. Why on earth would we want to impose any form of physical punishment on them?
Senator Marie Moloney was deeply moving in her contribution on the previous day's debate. She always is when she speaks in support of Senator Jillian van Turnhout on such issues. Senator Terry Leyden said it would be a suitable way to commemorate the centenary of the 1916 Rising. One of the best suggestions in that regard is that children be cherished, as in the democratic programme of that Dáil.
This is a significant day for human rights. We were all children once and, therefore, the rights of everybody are protected by this measure. In its way, it is as big a celebration as the one we had last night in the context of the celebrations in Dublin Castle on 23 May. This one is even bigger when one thinks of the number of people who will benefit in the future from what the Minister is doing today. I commend him very strongly for making this change and remembering reading notes in the Irish Medical Times from Dr. Daly, whom he knew personally as a friend. He also knew John Boland as a friend. These friendships do matter. They make us question whose children should be punished and why that power was given to big people to beat small people. We have moved away from all of that now. It is a great day for Seanad Éireann and the children of the country that the Minister, with the unanimous support of the House, is supporting the amendments.
I, too, congratulate Senator Jillian van Turnhout, not just for her contribution today but also for her several contributions in the past four and a half years since she came into this House and even before she became a Member of it. She is absolutely committed to the welfare of children. It is a pleasure to know her. I sincerely congratulate her on everything she has done so far. I have no doubt that she will continue to support children for many years to come. I thank the Minister for accepting the amendments. He is doing a fantastic job. I congratulate him on his commitment to children. He should keep up the good work.
I will make a few comments as concerns were raised by Senator Terry Leyden about the effect of the amendments on Garda resources. Tusla will still be the first port of call. No new offence is being created. Matters will be dealt with in the way they have always been addressed very seriously by Tusla if there are allegations or reports of a breach of the legislation.
This is progressive legislation. We have had a number of pieces of progressive legislation in recent years, all of which I welcomed.
Even when we were in the darkest of times financially, we did not forget the things that were important in life and our values as a people.
Like Senator Jillian van Turnhout, I acknowledge the support of the Children's Rights Alliance and Tanya Ward who is with us today and the great work done by Geoffrey Shannon as special rapporteur in this area, the ISPCC and my officials in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I also acknowledge the presence of Kay Boland, John Boland's widow, who was very supportive of him when others said he was up against, let us say, a degree of resistance in 1982. I thank all Senators but, in particular, Senator Jillian van Turnhout for her persistence and support. This is not the first Bill in which we have both been involved together. Both in her time in the NGO sector and in the Seanad, she has done wondrous work for children, on which I congratulate her. I acknowledge the presence of the widow and children of Dr. Cyril Daly who was also a great champion of this cause. I thank everyone for his or her support. We all know in our hearts that Ireland will be a better place for it.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 24, line 21, after “1991” to insert the following:
“, including a person taking care of one or more children (other than that person’s own such children) in that person’s home, but not including any such person who is a relative of the child or children or the spouse of such relative”.
I will be very brief on this amendment because I support fully the substance of the Bill. With this amendment, the section would provide that a mandated person would include a person employed in a preschool service within the meaning of Part VIIA of the Child Care Act 1991, "including a person taking care of one or more children (other than that person's own such children) in that person's home, but not including any such person who is a relative of the child or children or the spouse of such relative". We dealt with this issue on Committee Stage and believed there was reason to bring it forward again on Report Stage as a number of other amendments had been submitted. The problem for us is that the Bill defines a mandated person as a person "employed in a pre-school service within the meaning of Part VIIA of the Child Care Act 1991". Part VIIA of the Child Care Act includes childminders caring for four or more children, other than their own, but exempts childminders caring for three or fewer children. The aim of the amendment is to ensure inclusion of childminders caring for three or fewer children while still excluding relatives. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage but felt it was important to resubmit the amendment.
I second the amendment for the purposes of debate, but I appreciate, as I have said to Senator David Cullinane, that we probably have not had enough time to debate the issue in full. It is one I support fully in principle.
Schedule 2 specifies professions or occupations for the purposes of specifying classes of persons to be mandated persons in accordance with the Bill. Amendment No. 3 proposes to include a person taking care of one or more children in his or her home who is not a relative of the child. One of the reasons a person taking care of a child in his or her home is not a mandated person under the Bill is that the categories of persons set out in Schedule 2 were included in the Schedule on the basis of their professional qualifications and ongoing contact with children. The focus on a small, qualified cadre of mandated reporters will, based on evidence, improve the quality of reports made to the agency. The receipt by it of better quality reports from persons who, by virtue of their training, qualifications and professional experience, are well equipped to recognise harm to a child is likely to have a positive effect on the process of assessments of the risk for a child. The list of mandated persons was developed following detailed consideration of both the objectives of the legislation and the reserach paper on how mandatory reporting was dealt with internationally. As indicated, as the persons included in the list have been selected on the basis of their qualifications, role and professional expertise, it means that they are aware of risks to children and their responsibilities in that regard. It is anticipated that reports from these persons are likely to be of a high quality, which will assist the agency in carrying out assessments of risk in a more effective and efficient manner.
The reason childminders are not included in the requirement for mandatory reporting is that the childminding sector is not homogenous and a wide variety of arrangements, including personal family arrangements, pertain. In that context, it was considered overly onerous to impose a mandatory requirement on such a heterogeneous group of providers. However, it is important to note that, while not required to do so under the legislation, any person can and should report any concern about a child to the agency in accordance with the Children First national guidance which will operate in tandem with the legislation. This position applies to childminders as well to as any other person who has contact with a specific child or children, whether in the context of service provision or otherwise. In comparison, the formal childminding sector, namely, crèches, will be covered by requirements relating to child safeguarding statements and mandated reporting.
The Senator's concern to protect this group of children should be alleviated by the fact that there are many other professionals in contact with this group of children, including nurses who are mandated persons and GPs. In this regard, the recent extension of GP medical cards to children under six years of age should ensure greater contact between this group of children and their GPs. This is shortly to be extended further to under-12s next year. GPs are also mandated persons under the legislation. For these reasons, I am not accepting the amendment.
On what Senator Terry Leyden had to say about Garda resources and so forth, in other jurisdictions mandated reporting of this nature has led to a massive increase in reporting, with no increase in prosecutions or real cases being identified. A balance needs to be struck.
It would be remiss of the Seanad not to congratulate the Minister wholeheartedly on the Bill. While we can say it is long overdue, it is before the House. The Minister has done the work to put child welfare and protection provisions on a statutory footing. We are solidifying good intentions, which has to be commended. This needs to be resourced and the Minister took positive steps in securing these resources in the budget. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. For me, this is an emotional day, given the repeal of the defence of reasonable chastisement. I commend the Minister for having the courage to bring it forward. On so many issues, he has proved that he is a children's champion. He is an outstanding Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I thank him wholeheartedly for all he has done for the children of Ireland. He has taken a critical leadership role, for which I thank him.
I thank the Minister for the Children First Bill. With the amendment, the Title is absolutely correct, as has been very much proved by the Minister with the support of his officials. The opinion of the Attorney General was also sought in this regard and I thank the Minister for the clarification. I was not trying to put a damper on the Bill, but the point is that Garda resources are stretched. It is important, therefore, that the agency will investigate claims and that the matter may then go further.
As the Minister said, that is a very important issue.
I did not realise Mrs. Boland, widow of the late John Boland, was in the Visitors Gallery. She is very welcome. I was in the Dáil with the late John Boland when nobody in this House was here. He was an excellent Minister. It has taken a long time, from 1982 to 2015, to extend those rights. With respect to the Minister, the encouragement received from Senator Jillian van Turnhout and the support of everyone in the House certainly made it possible. We are all very pleased and honoured to be in the House today. Is it not amazing that it took so long? When the then Minister, the late John Boland, brought this forward, it was not as widely accepted as we may think. In fact, there would have been much resistance to it and educationists felt the classrooms would be chaotic, that there would be no discipline, no power and no control, but he proved them all wrong. That is one of his many legacies as Minister in the Department of Education. That stands out today because of Senator Jillian van Turnhout's amendment. It is a wonderful occasion. As we approach 2016, there is no better recognition of it than, after 100 years, we giving children rights as, I think, was envisaged in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Senator Sean D. Barrett also said this was very good and something we should be pleased to say on the eve of the 1916 Rising celebrations. That it will be enacted for 2016 is a very good day's work. I am delighted that the Minister has taken on the portfolio for children and youth affairs with gusto. He has such authority in the Cabinet that he was in a position to persuade it to accept the amendment tabled by Senator Jillian van Turnhout.
I welcome Mrs. Kay Boland to the Visitors Gallery. I had not seen her before I spoke earlier. Schools are smuch happier places since the late John Boland banned corporal punishment in them. The entire country will be happier because of what the Minister has done today with the unanimous support of the Seanad. This really is a great day for children.
We have laid thanks and praise on Senator Jillian van Turnhout, but it would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for the work he has done today. Since he became Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, he has always put children first. We congratulate him on being a fantastic Minister. Yesterday and today have been two historic days for Ireland. I am proud to be part of a Government party that achieved this.