Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will give some more detail on amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 57 because I did not get a chance to deal with them earlier. I am absolutely satisfied that what the amendments seek to achieve is addressed in section 22. The majority of the submissions received during the consultation process supported a specific offence, as did the Law Reform Commission in its report on capacity and consent. What we are doing is precisely what the United Nations stated we should do in being able to prosecute these offences.

In response to Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's query, we need to use two different terms in sections 21 and 22 because using the same term in both sections could create confusion as both sections are related to the protection of two different groups in line with our obligations. That is the technical and legal advice I have received. It provides for greater clarity in different sections.

There is concern about the breadth of amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 57 tabled by Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, Catherine Connolly, Thomas Pringle and Jonathan O'Brien. If they were to be introduced, the provisions set out in the amendments would mean that there would be no limitation on the range of potential victims other than that someone must have a relationship of dependence or trust with another person who, in taking advantage of that position, engages in a sexual act with him or her without the him or her giving his or her free consent. That would be included in the definition of "position of dependency and trust" as a person who occupies a position of authority. That could be interpreted broadly and would present difficulties. Without further qualification, it would apply to a wide range of persons, including, for instance, where there was employment relationships, something Deputies should note. Because of the manner in which they have been drafted, the amendments would cause difficulties.

See this speech in context