David Norris (Independent)

My colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, wished to contribute to the debate and probably would have done so in a manner with which I would not have agreed. It is a disgrace that his contribution will be missing from the debate because I have not been allowed to share time with him.

To move on and be positive, I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, on the Bill, in particular his clear and cogent speech. While he and I do not agree on all aspects of life, in this matter I find myself in general agreement with him. He did a good job in clearly explaining the subject matter of this complex legislation. It was extremely unfortunate that somebody purporting to represent a group of priests stated he would not take this from any Government Minister but especially the Minister. As I stated privately to him, if that remark was intended as a reference to his religious background, it was absolutely disgraceful and should be publicly withdrawn.

We have many reports on child abuse, including the Cloyne, Ryan and Murphy reports. I have spoken on every one of them in a detailed and forensic manner and in the most judicious way I possibly could. This has not, however, prevented everything I have said being taken out of context. I sympathise very much with the Minister's comments on media reports because I remember speaking on the 1998 Bill and again in 2006. During a recent election what I said in those debates was taken out of context. Practically every single Member who spoke at the time agreed with what I had said because my contribution was principled and clear. We are in a sophisticated area when we deal with this type of issue. Nobody is in favour of child abuse, unless there is something wrong with him or her. There is no point in me making that clear again because certain sections of the media find it is not profitable to express that point of view or reflect my saying it.

The case of Cardinal Brady has been raised. To a certain extent, what I would call the Brady syndrome is addressed in the Bill. Having seen the face of the cardinal on television, I could not help but feel a certain compassion for him because he is caught between his position and that of Rome. I believe he would love to resign, but I do not believe he will be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, my compassion was seriously tempered by the television programme I saw in which an extraordinarily courageous middle aged man gave details of what had taken place when he was a child. When he reported sexual abuse by one of the first child abusers, Fr. Brendan Smyth, the response was to swear him to secrecy. That is a perversion of justice and a criminal offence. The matter is that serious. He was separated from his parents, introduced to a room in which there were adult males dressed in a strange uniform present and asked about intimate parts of his body, whether seed had emerged from him, if he had enjoyed what had happened to him and, if not, why not and if he had engaged in the same activity with other boys or adult men. This constitutes child abuse in its own right. However, I continued to feel compassion because, according to my ethics and beliefs, one must feel compassion as all sinners are capable of redemption. I found that to be the most profoundly disturbing element.

There has been a development in the debate. I remember the earlier debates in the House on mandatory reporting. Some of the professional organisations were concerned because they considered they might be placed in an invidious position of violating confidence because sometimes the victims who went to them said they last thing they wanted was to be reported. That presents a difficulty. Sometimes, however, during therapy and professional mediation this attitude changes. The Minister has addressed this issue admirably in the Bill.

I turn to the question of vulnerable adults. I remember, for example, cases in which blind and elderly persons were also the victims of sexual assault in various institutions. There is also the question of capacity. Let me adapt David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, in which the lawyer, a Mr. Jackals, or somebody else says, "Let us suppose..." Let us suppose there is somebody who is just on the margins, with a very mild mental dysfunction, but who is an adult and sexually active and repeatedly engages in sexual activity with another adult. One can imagine such a hypothetical case, but I am not imagining it because I have encountered such a case. It is a very delicate and dangerous issue and it is dangerous for anybody, even in political life, to speak about such a case. The Minister is right to provide for limited defences for persons charged under the Bill, for persons such as a parent, guardian or medical profession acting in the interests of protecting the health and well being of a child or vulnerable person.When the Minister was reading his script, I marked it for "further explanation". He then, very convincingly, gave it. I remember a period during which the Garda would not interfere; it would state it was a family matter, as if incest was tolerable inside a family and the sexual abuse of children was a matter that could legitimately be conducted. I remember fighting against this in the House and believe we were in a minority on issues such as, for example, the Stay Safe programme. It was I who introduced the guardian ad litem clause in order to protect children. I am glad the Minister has said victims cannot be guilty of an offence if they choose not to report. That is both wise and humane.

There is also the issue of the seal of the confessional in respect of which a difficulty appears to have arisen. The Minister has dealt with it conclusively. He has stated: "It will continue to be a matter for a court before which a person is prosecuted to determine whether there is a particular privilege and whether it applies in the circumstances of a particular case." There has been no such case. Much of the hysteria has been drummed up by certain sectarian interests. Let us deal with the real world, in speaking about which I was slightly amused by one issue, the discrepancy to which Senator Ivana Bacik referred in the explanatory memorandum. Under its interpretation, "child" means a person under 18 years of age. In my part of Dublin I would not care to call anybody aged 17 years and three quarters a child because I know the answer I would get. There are margins of appreciation because the Minister argues a person aged 14 years must be referred to in certain sections of the Bill because he or she is capable of giving evidence under oath. There are very complex issues, but, by and large, the Minister has dealt with them admirably.

Children will be protected more after the Bill has been enacted. Every Member, from whatever ethical, religious or political background they come, wants the welfare of the vulnerable to be at the forefront. That is a principle I have pursued all my life, although when I have done so I have often been deliberately and grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented by the media and political interests. I am glad of the opportunity to express my clear view on the matter.

Children will be protected more after the Bill has been enacted. Every Member, from whatever ethical, religious or political background they come, wants the welfare of the vulnerable to be at the forefront. That is a principle I have pursued all my life, although when I have done so I have often been deliberately and grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented by the media and political interests. I am glad of the opportunity to express my clear view on the matter.

I welcome the approach being taken with the Bill, the heads of which were published, following which there was a public consultation period which gave the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality an opportunity to invite submissions and hold hearings. Although I am not a member of the committee, I have read its report. The committee provided the organisations working with vulnerable persons an opportunity to express their views and it is clear from the final report that the hearings helped it to benefit from their expertise and gave the Minister an opportunity to feed into the report. I hope we can look forward to more legislation being initiated in this fashion.

All of those who presented to the committee have welcomed the Bill which they recognise as important. Many have said it is overdue. The sensitive issue of children and their possible engagement with the criminal justice system is a consistent theme throughout the Bill which I am confident provides for balance, particularly on the issue of disclosure as it affects families, parents, guardians, health care professionals and support organisations offering counselling support to victims.

It was clear in the hearings that the use of the words "reasonable defence" or "reasonable excuse" could be prone to different interpretations. The Minister has acknowledged this and attempted to make a clear statement on how various issues would be dealt with. No doubt, they will be teased out further on Committee Stage. I refer to the word "defence" used in section 4. A defence can be used if a person, at the request of a victim, does not report an offence to the Garda or where the victim does not have the capacity to form a view on disclosure. Where the offender is not a family member, a parent or guardian can, if he or she views it to be in the best interests of the child, state the offence will not be disclosed. This can considered to be covered by the term "reasonable grounds". Where the offender is a family member and it might be deemed that it would not be appropriate for a parent or guardian to act, a medical practitioner can decide that the information should not be disclosed to the Garda. However, the Minister has made the point that there is still an obligation under separate legislation to report the matter to the Health Service Executive.

Counsellors considered a victim might not avail of support services if a report to the Garda was required to be made. In all cases the health, well-being and survival of the victim are of the utmost importance. Rather than focus on the issue of defence or issues to do with having a "reasonable excuse" not to inform the Garda, it is important to remember that the clear intent of the Bill is to protect children and vulnerable adults from the crimes listed in the legislation, including rape, sexual assault, murder and false imprisonment. The Offences Against the State Act 1998 provides that it is an offence to withhold information on serious crimes. However, sexual offences were excluded. Hence this Bill ensures that there is no doubt but that anybody who believes that a serious offence has been committed against children will have to report it to the Garda. Otherwise they will be subject to imprisonment for up to five years. The defences are limited, but they are important.

The focus of this Bill is on protecting our children. We are well aware of recent reports of how children in our society were abused and how society failed those children. I use the word "society" because it is everybody's responsibility to protect our children. We failed to act historically and we are failing to act today in many cases. I hope that this Bill will in some way be an acknowledgement to those victims of abuse and that no longer can individuals in any walk of life turn a blind eye or make a conscious decision not to act to protect children or vulnerable adults. This Bill is an acknowledgement to victims that the State is acting now. We know too well that if an abuser is not stopped, he or she will continue to abuse. The hurt and the scars that individuals have to bear for life will continue. This purpose of this Bill is to protect victims and future victims. Institutional abuse has been well documented, but we also know that most of the abuse happens within families and within the circle of trust. That is what we have to face up to. I am sure there are many situations where family members would remain silent, especially if the perpetrator is another family member. It is not good enough and it has to be stopped. The clear message in this Bill is going towards the 80% of those victims who have been abused by somebody known to their family. This Bill is a very important statement. It is for everybody in this country. There will be no way of protecting individuals or thinking that everything will be alright. The sexual abuse of any child or vulnerable adult is a crime. We need to ensure that we put a stop to it and that there is no equivocation as to people's responsibility in this area.

I am one of eight Members of these Houses who is also a member of the Council of Europe. At a meeting of the Council of Europe's social, health and family affairs committee two weeks ago, I was asked to submit a report on what Ireland is doing in the area of mandatory reporting. I was very pleased to be able to report to that committee on this Bill and on the Children First legislation. Both Bills were brought before this House on the day I submitted my report. It was an extremely important time for this country, in light of the reports into institutional abuse in particular. It was a very important opportunity for us to report to the Council of Europe on what we are doing in this area. The steps we are taking mean that we are leading the way vis-À-vis the other 47 members of that council.