As a teacher in Ireland, I have now completed Garda vetting three times in six months. Each time I was required to submit every address I have lived at since birth, across multiple countries, with no gaps. Each time the same information went back into the same database. Each time, hours of my life disappeared into forms.
I am not alone. Colleagues across schools, youth groups, and sports clubs share the same frustration. Garda vetting was designed to protect children. But has it become more of a paper-shuffling exercise than a safeguarding measure?

The Case for Vetting
To be clear: vetting matters. The National Vetting Bureau (NVB) exists for a vital reason — to ensure children and vulnerable adults are protected. Vetting checks don’t just cover criminal convictions; they can include “specified information” such as credible Garda intelligence about risk. That means someone with a troubling history may be flagged even if they haven’t been convicted in court.
Teachers, youth workers, and coaches overwhelmingly agree that children must be safeguarded. Organisations such as the GAA actively pushed for vetting because they recognised it as a layer of defence against predators. When vetting fails or is bypassed — as in the recent case where a private company placed unvetted staff with vulnerable children — the public rightly reacts with alarm. Tusla immediately cut ties with the provider. That alone shows how seriously Ireland takes the vetting regime.
There have also been real improvements. The old paper-based system once took months to process applications. Today, thanks to the eVetting platform and expanded NVB staff, most applications are turned around in about four days. In 2025, further reforms introduced EU-wide criminal record checks for those who lived abroad and centralised vetting for the early childhood sector. These are not the moves of a system standing still; they are serious attempts to modernise safeguarding.

The Problems in Practice
And yet — for those of us on the ground, the system often feels like ritual without reason. Every new employer or voluntary organisation must request its own vetting disclosure, even if the applicant was vetted days earlier elsewhere. Legally, vetting is position-specific and cannot be transferred. In practice, this means endless duplication: the same data being checked against the same database, again and again.
Does this add to child safety? The evidence is thin. The argument is that “fresh” vetting ensures no gaps — that new information might appear between one role and another. In reality, most teachers and coaches are simply running the same loop. It protects institutions by ensuring each has a disclosure on file. But does it protect children better? That is much harder to prove.
The wider failures of Irish child protection raise the stakes. The recent tragedy in Donabate, where the remains of a young boy went unnoticed for years despite agency contact, revealed how poorly communication can work between organisations. Tusla, schools, Gardaí — none of them joined the dots. The same culture of fragmentation underlies vetting. Each body has its paperwork. None of it adds up to a truly centralised, live safeguard.

A Broader Culture of Neglect
The vetting issue sits within a troubling pattern in Irish public life: children’s needs are not treated as central. The National Children’s Hospital — meant to be a flagship investment in young people’s health — has become a fiasco of delays and spiralling costs. Meanwhile, recent revelations of unnecessary hip operations in Dublin hospitals show failures of governance and oversight in children’s healthcare.
Across these cases, the theme is the same: systems that prioritise compliance, appearances, and liability, while real children fall through the cracks.

Towards a Better System
​Calling a spade a spade: Ireland’s Garda vetting system protects against some risks, but in its current fragmented form, it also wastes enormous time and public money. Reforms are underway — review groups have proposed more streamlined re-vetting and transferability across roles — but progress is slow.
What would truly protect children is a live central clearance system. Employers could instantly check whether a teacher, youth worker, or coach remains cleared, with updates if new information arises. That would be efficient, centralised, and genuinely protective. Instead, we shuffle paper, tick boxes, and cling to a process that reassures on the surface but fails in depth.
As James Joyce once put it:
“Do you know what Ireland is? … Ireland is the old sow that eats her farrow.”
Until we move from ritual to reality, Ireland will remain a place where institutions consume energy, money, and goodwill — and children remain secondary.

日本語要約アイルランドのガルダ審査制度は、子どもを守るための重要な仕組みです。犯罪歴だけでなく、警察情報も考慮されるため、危険な人物が教育や福祉の現場に入ることを防ぎます。電子化によって処理期間も大幅に短縮され、EU 域内での追加確認も導入されました。
しかし、制度は実務的に重複と非効率を生み出しています。教師やボランティアは、役職ごとに同じ情報を何度も提出しなければならず、各組織が別々に記録を持つことで全体像が見えません。最近のドナベイト事件に見られるように、機関同士の連携不足は致命的な結果を招きかねません。
真に必要なのは、危険人物や状況を一元管理する「中央ライブ・システム」です。現行制度は形式的な「安心感」を与えるにすぎず、子どもの安全を最優先にする文化的転換が求められています。