Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister. I hope there will be agreement on the motion and the amendment which, as the Minister said, are not entirely in conflict. As Senator Martin McAleese said, they are virtually identical, aside from a few sections.

I agree with Senator Martin McAleese that although this country excels in high technology, we are not blocking images from abroad being accessed in Ireland. I consider this to be a failure of will rather than a failure of technology. I welcome the Minister's statement in the amendment that the Government will bring forward legislation in the coming months to strengthen the protection of children against sexual exploitation. As the Minister is a man of his word, I know he will bring that legislation forward as soon as possible. This is critical. Unfortunately, we have been lacking and fallen behind in many ways in ensuring child protection.

An issue not included in the motion but which, perhaps, the Minister might also consider is that of listing the names of people who have offended against children. It is a very sensitive subject that is not easy to address. However, in a case in Boston Cardinal O'Malley, whom I commend, took the extraordinary step of listing the names of 132 priests who had been found guilty of sexually abusing children. It included those who had left the priesthood but had been accused before or after they had left; it even included the names of dead priests. In some cases - I am sure the Minister will take issue with this - they had not actually been convicted of anything. However, the cardinal considered it important because the people and children involved came first in terms of protection.

When the Minister is drafting the legislation in the coming months, will he contemplate making provision not only for the victims' database proposed by the Taoiseach's nominees to the House but also a list whereby convicted sex offenders would be made known to the public? If they are considered, even after their term of incarceration, to be a risk to the community, the community is entitled to know this. It is the likelihood of their reoffending that makes them so dangerous. Some have refused treatment and, in some cases, the criminal justice system, unfortunately, does not provide them with the treatment or counselling that might prevent them from reoffending. However, in cases where the authorities believe they will reoffend, they should be considered a threat on their release back into the community. There is nothing more serious than the abuse of children and where somebody is likely to reoffend, people in the community, especially the Garda, should be made aware of this in a very clear manner. The guidelines in this regard must be put on a statutory footing and obligations placed on the criminal justice system to ensure the Garda is made aware of such provisions.

I had reason to be somewhat thoughtful about Cardinal O'Malley's actions recently after I had asked a religious order in this jurisdiction to follow his course. It stated it was not obliged to do so. If one element of a religious organisation in Boston can take the lead and, without compulsion or being forced to do so by the government, put children's safety first, it is a wonder that the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart will not follow suit. I have had some very interesting correspondence with the head of the order in which it is stated the order is doing all that it is required to do and does not necessarily have to do any more. I pointed out that it could do more, as Cardinal O'Malley has done-----