Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not agree that the Minister's approach is a functional one. It is a status based approach. She talked about having an obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the word "protected" but that is out of context. The context is that we have an obligation to provide protection for the rights of people with disabilities, not create a new category of protected person. In the context of our second amendment, the Minister's provision as drafted is, in effect, singling out people with intellectual and mental disabilities as the victims of an offence of being exploited sexually by a person in a position of power. In reality, this duplicates the offence of rape. If the goal is to recognise the seriousness of abusing a position of power to sexually exploit a vulnerable adult, this could be done by providing for an aggravating factor in sentencing. One does not need to create a separate criminal offence, which is what is being done here. It is a dangerous precedent to create a separate offence which only applies to certain groups of adults, such as people with disabilities.

If a person with a disability is raped, it should be prosecuted as rape rather than as a separate special form of rape which only applies when somebody has a disability. Everybody should have equal protection under the law. Section 5 of the 1993 Act has not resulted in increased prosecutions or convictions for sexual offences perpetrated against people with disabilities. However, it has been reported that it has had a chilling effect on the provision of meaningful sexual education and support for people with disabilities due to a fear among disability service providers and others that they might be aiding and abetting the commission of criminal offences by providing support for a person to have a sexual relationship.

We know that some parents cannot deal with the fact that their son or daughter who has a disability might also have sexual desires and the right to have a sexual relationship. We are being too presumptuous and the wording is too restrictive. Like Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, I think the amendments should be pressed.

See this speech in context