Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

This was a point that came up in the Dail yesterday. The Fine Gael Private Members' Bill was a very narrow Bill which was composed of two elements. It was obvious that the UK legislation was examined and one section was chosen as having potential for use in Ireland. Section 14, on which this amendment is based, is problematic. I wish to produce a proper grooming offence which is well thought out and properly thought through. One of the ingredients which will probably be necessary to deal with this issue is to tie down the grooming offence to something which is provable in court.

The fact that an elderly man befriends somebody in a chatroom and sends them chocolates is not of itself a criminal offence, but if one can prove it was for a sexual purpose, then one is into different territory altogether. The real difficulty is to define grooming in a way which allows a perfectly innocent act of generosity on the one hand and, on the other, which prohibits something which is part of the preparation of a child for sexual exploitation. It is a complex issue and requires a tricky drafting balance.

I am dealing with a mess myself so I am not in a position to criticise draftsmen in other countries too much. With the greatest respect to the UK draftsman, I am uncomfortable with a number of the provisions of the UK legislation. We can do a better job ourselves if we take some time. The section in my Department dealing with this issue is working on an Irish version of a sexual grooming offence. It will have to be sufficiently definite to pass constitutional muster. It would also have to be sufficiently broad to be effective. It is a most tricky drafting process. I am not happy with this amendment. Fine Gael was correct to avoid section 14 of the UK legislation and to concentrate on section 15. We have to come back to this issue on a more comprehensive basis and introduce a grooming offence.

Senator Jim Walsh inquired earlier about why two incidents of communication are required. This was done in Britain. The reason it was done is because this issue is on a vague cusp of two different patterns of behaviour and the intention is to make it necessary for the prosecution to show a pattern of behaviour before somebody could be convicted of grooming, that it was not just a case of one conversation or one chatroom event. The idea of grooming is that over a period, one puts a great deal of effort into subverting a child's self-defence mechanisms so that he or she will trust one. The pattern idea is implicit in this approach.