WILL THE Government’s plans to strengthen child protection laws be robust enough to ensure young people are not failed again by authorities?
They sound impressive. Ministers are responding to the fallout of the Cloyne report through three initiatives, some of which are new and some of which have been in the pipeline for a long time.
Tough new laws to force the disclosure of information on child sexual abuse are among the most eye-catching of its plans.
Under this legislation, the non-disclosure of information about serious offences against a child will be made a criminal offence, with a penalty of up to five years in prison.
This will apply regardless of the internal rules of an organisation, such as in patient-doctor confidentiality. The sole exception will be where a victim requests that information is not disclosed.
In addition, the child protection code – Children First – will finally be placed on a statutory footing. This move means all organisations will have to follow the State’s rules on how child protection concerns should be handled.
Child protection groups have welcomed the measures, which they say will lead to a significant cultural shift in how we respond to child abuse.
But there is growing concern about whether the State’s overstretched social services will be able to cope with an expected rise in reports of suspected abuse.
A report by the Office of the Minister for Children in 2008, for example, concluded mandatory reporting “could divert scarce child protection resources, causing an extensive administrative burden”.
In addition, the previous minister for children argued against mandatory reporting on the basis other jurisdictions were moving away from such a system because it was unwieldy and inefficient.
Already, child protection services in several parts of the State are operating in “crisis management” mode, according to social workers, and are able to respond quickly to only the most urgent cases.
Additional resources or major reform of social services will be vital if the sense of crisis is not to escalate even further. Whether this kind of funding is available is another matter.
Other plans by the Government to allow for the sharing of “soft information” have long been sought by children’s rights groups. Soft information is material that is not strong enough to allow a conviction to be made, but that indicates a concern over the suitability of a person to have access to children.
Numerous reports have recommended such changes as being crucial in child protection.
The absence of legal protection for sharing this kind of information has meant that soft information has not always been shared between authorities.
Until recently, governments had argued the biggest obstacle to the use of soft information was the Constitution’s guarantee of the right of a citizen to his or her good name.
However, the new Government is preparing the heads of a Bill for a “national vetting bureau” that will allow vetting of applicants for employees working with children. More importantly, it will allow for the collection and exchange of both “hard” and “soft” information for vetting purposes.
It is likely, say legal experts, that the system could operate without violating the Constitution if it is strictly controlled and allowed a person against whom allegations are made to challenge them if they feel they are not accurate or relevant.
