Seán Conlan (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 is a piece of legislation which has been notable by its absence from the Statute Book. This Bill, along with the Children First Bill and the National Vetting Bureau Bill is a very welcome piece of legislation to protect children and vulnerable adults which the Government is committed to introducing.

Previous Governments initiated several inquiries seeking to establish how institutions in the Catholic Church dealt with, or rather, failed to adequately deal with the occurrences of child sexual abuse within the church and institutions. These inquiries were needed both by the victims of that abuse which was perpetrated against them while they were of an age not to be able to protect themselves, and also by the public, who needed to know the extent to which members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, knew of these abuses yet failed to act, and in a number of cases, were even complicit in ensuring the perpetrators were protected. These inquiries were also badly needed by the scores of decent members of the priesthood, who were being tarnished by the ongoing acts of those abusers among them who represented a very small fraction of the priesthood.

While the public displayed an ability to comprehend the failure of the church in reporting child abuse and while some Members of this House pursued with vigour those responsible, the Legislature, for whatever reason, failed to do what was clearly wanted by the electorate, to introduce the mandatory reporting of these crimes. A gaping hole was obvious for all to see and it went completely unattended. This Government and this Minister is addressing as a priority many of the matters which ought to have been addressed in the past, in particular, the protection from sexual abuse of the most vulnerable of those among us.

One area with which I have difficulty is the debate surrounding this Bill in the media and in the House and comments made about sacerdotal privilege or rather the lack of it as a defence. Privilege will continue to exist to a large group of prescribed persons providing legal, medical care, counselling or therapy to victims. I agree the church has major issues but I do not recall any incident where the confessional was viewed as being the source of these problems. The hierarchy certainly was a problem. The exposure of children to offending priests through school visits, altar serving, football training etc, were all problems, but in my view, the confessional was never a problem. The sacerdotal privilege of the confessional is a fundamental plank in the fabric of Catholicism. It is acknowledged as such in jurisdictions across the world. In framing this legislation, we have not failed the media nor have we failed any of the professions who enjoy privilege in protecting their source of information. However, we cannot seem to manage to veer outside of our existing legislation to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of the many of our citizens and in doing so, avoid possible constitutional challenges which will follow in the tracks of this omission, with all the subsequent costs attached. In my view, in a pluralist Republic we need where possible to be mindful and respectful of the strongly held beliefs of all our citizens. Reason and religion have essential roles in determining public policy but I believe that the State has the right to put the good of children above all other considerations.

It is vital that this legislation has the backing of those for whom we legislate in order that it is successful in delivering the protection so greatly needed by those affected by the heinous crime which is sexual abuse. Let us, as legislators, do nothing to hinder that success. Let us, as legislators, do nothing to alienate a great number of people from this process. We legislate for an intelligent and informed people; let our legislation reflect these qualities, lest it be regarded as an inoperative irrelevance.

While I agree with the provision of legislation to enhance these protections, I am mindful of concerns raised in relation to the defences which may be relied upon , as outlined in the Bill, and which are so wide a nature as to severely limit the capacity of the Bill to achieve its objectives. The Bill provides get-out clauses through the concept of acting in the child's best interest when failing to report. My concerns in this area are echoed by such reputable child protection agencies as Barnardos, the ISPCC and the Ombudsman for Children. This is essential legislation which must be right. When experts in child protection collectively voice their disagreement and concerns about an aspect of this legislation, it is prudent to ask why such agencies are of one mind. These are people with far more experience in this field than politicians and while I accept that the Houses legislate for the people, I also respect that, on occasions, the greater good might conflict with the priorities of individual groups. In this set of circumstances, I believe the train is leaving the station without some of its better informed passengers. This worries me. We are all of one mind and have one purpose and agenda, the protection of the innocent, so why can we not engage more with those who deal with this on a daily basis and improve on this aspect of the Bill before voting on it?

This is essential legislation and I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House. However, to achieve its objectives, it is more important that it is regarded as fair, is accepted and brings all the citizens of the State with it, than that it is implemented immediately. There is much work needed on this Bill and we owe it to those who need protection to sit down with all involved and get it right.

See this speech in context