Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have a number of amendments in the grouping, some of which try to do the same thing, and I am a little bit lost. It is very confusing. I do not get the point made by the Minister. There are good points in amendment No. 10. Does it remove all references to "protected persons", which would be helpful? We must get a balance. The Minister said a position of dependence and trust would exclude a neighbour, but it would not exclude a neighbour in my read of it because it specifically states it is not limited to a list of people in a category. I know some of the disability groups have found problematic the idea of a person in authority for the time being. The question was asked as to what this means. An emotional relationship gives authority to somebody. It does not necessarily end when a contract of employment ends. What does "for the time being" mean? Somebody in a position of employment has a certain hold or connection over a person. Deputy O'Brien believes amendment No. 9 would covers this point, but it is problematic with regard to the Minister's amendment No. 10. I suppose I am not helping things, but it is very confusing. There is a point about language with regard to respecting people with disabilities not just in terms of terminology, but actually regarding people having the right to have sex and to engage in a physical relationship with someone if they want to.

Obviously there are issues sometimes around capacity but if one looks at the definition here of "someone with an illness that is of a nature or degree as to severely restrict the ability of a person to guard themselves against exploitation", this is an arguable point with any citizen who is vulnerable. It is about getting a balance and I am not sure we have it in any of these amendments and whether we should be drafting something that encompasses all of them on the next Stage. I do not know.