New legislation to create a national vetting agency to assess the suitability of people who work with children will be 
put before the Government by the end of the year, the Minister of State for Children, Barry Andrews (pictured), has said.
In an interview with the Irish Times, Mr Andrews said that he expected to have the heads of a Bill before Government “before the end of this year”.
Mr Andrews promised to draw up such legislation last November, saying he would produce the heads of a Bill by the end of last January.
He said that producing the legislation had proved to be “much more complicated than we expected it to be”.
The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) last week voiced concerns that the lack of legislation on this front was causing major problems for organisations which work with children.
Mr Andrews said that he wanted to strike a balance between “a huge imperative to protect children, but on the other hand, you don’t want to destroy volunteerism….by having an over-burdensome vetting requirement or make people not inclined to get involved with sports clubs”.
The bureau, to be called the National Vetting Bureau, will be operated by An Garda Siochana, and the legislation is set to enable different agencies and children’s charities to share information about individuals suspected of deviant sexual behaviour.
This would include the sharing of “soft” information, relating to authorities’ knowledge of information about individuals who have not been charged with or convicted of criminal offences.
Mr Andrews also expressed the view that it is inappropriate for the Health Services Executive to fund guardians at litem, or representatives for the interests of children in care, when they were appearing on opposite sides of a court case.
The court appoints such figures, but the HSE pays for them. He also denied that the proposed children’s rights referendum was being held up by the Government’s unwillingness to hold three by-elections in Waterford, Dublin South and Donegal South West.
He said that the real issue was that the proposed wording “has consequences that we didn’t anticipate”
