Seanad debates

Wednesday, 7 March 2007

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Mary Henry (Independent)

I welcome the Tánaiste to the House and I also welcome the Bill. I am glad the Tánaiste has upgraded the offence of asking a child to engage in sex, which is a quite serious one. The same applies to a mentally impaired person.

As Senator Terry said, we have always had to tell children of the risks involved in meeting strangers. We now have the additional risk of cyberspace, which none of us had to deal with before. Section 6 inserts section 3(2A)(a) which addresses this matter firmly in the wording "having met or communicated with that child on 2 or more previous occasions".

It is important to try to address the situation regarding the Internet and other forms of technology. Unfortunately, technology is racing ahead of us and it is very difficult to be sure that we have every corner covered. I hope the word "communicated" will cover any further developments there may be. For example, who would have thought one could do so much with a mobile phone as one can nowadays? A few years ago, it was just for making or receiving calls, whereas now it can be used for so much more, although not to good effect sometimes. We have seen cases of children being bullied by text messages, not to mention being beaten up in so-called happy slapping incidents. It is extraordinarily difficult to try to keep up with such things. Difficult as it is, however, and the Government can run numerous campaigns, parents must be alert to what is going on in this area. One would not send a child out on a bicycle without giving him or her some idea of the rules of the road. In fact, one would try to ensure a child was proficient in those rules.

We must ensure that we know what is happening on the Internet concerning our children. I commend the lady in north Dublin who managed to find out quickly that her child was being contacted by people who were soliciting him for sex. He became involved with people via the Internet. There are people who do not feel it is wrong to become engaged in such activities.

I am glad the Minister has decided to keep the term "child" as meaning a person under the age of 17 years. One difficulty facing all of us in dealing with various legislation covering the sexual abuse of children is that there are so many different statutes. The Minister has had to modify many of them in this Bill. Is there any way in which we could have a consolidated statute in the not too distant future? Sometimes it is difficult to know whether 15, 16 or whatever is the age at which it is illegal to contact children.

It is also important to address children on this issue because there have been cases where children have lied about their ages. Some time ago, there was a serious case in England concerning a child of 13 who had said she was 19 on the Internet. An American soldier came to the UK and became involved with her. It was a notorious case involving a police chase around Europe. It is, therefore, no harm to inform children that lying on the Internet is not something to be advocated.

Unfortunately, the Stay Safe programme is only implemented in 75% of primary schools. I have raised this matter with the Department of Education and Science and in this House, as have others, but the programme's application still seems to stick at 75%. Therefore, one quarter of primary schools are not bringing these issues to the attention of small children. The Minister should ask his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, to address this point. If the Stay Safe programme were fully implemented, such information could be reinforced by schools. One may find that some parents will not get around to addressing these issues with their children.

I am glad the Minister has placed such crimes on an international footing. Years ago, I proposed a Private Members' Bill on child trafficking which was eventually incorporated into legislation brought forward by the then Government. One can be sure that if somebody is doing something abroad, there is a strong possibility they will also be doing it in this country. In addition, why should children abroad be less protected than children in this country? That is an important issue to bring forward in the legislation.

While I commend the Bill, it will be hard to police. It is a difficult area to deal with because it is very private. The Government can only do so much but there is also an onus on parents to be like that woman in north Dublin by trying to watch the activities of their children. It seems awful to be spying on what children are doing. People talk about allowing children to be creative and to fantasise on the Internet, but some types of fantasy are dangerous. One must put this issue under that heading.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.