Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the Second Stage debate on this Bill. I welcome it because as I have said before in the House, I am concerned about the distortion that is taking place on human rights. In places like the UN and in other international fora, it is no longer about human rights, but adult rights. This will help balance the situation in favour of children, and I welcome that. Many people here have spoken about the heinous crime of child abuse and the enormous effects it has on the victims, many of whom have been driven to extreme actions as a consequence. The majority of crimes in this area unfortunately occur within the family circle, be it family members or friends of family and so on. Incest has unfortunately been with us for centuries, and society now sees clearly the damage that is done and recognises that we need to have a full armoury available within the legal apparatus to ensure that it is prevented.

One aspect which has gone out of vogue for discussion is that of paedophilia. It is a condition that some would see as an illness, although I am not inclined to agree with that. However, it is generally recognised that paedophiles are very exploitative and manipulative people. I remember much discussion 25 years ago about rehabilitative measures to correct the process. There is no focus on that now, although we should try to get some focus on it. I am not sufficiently expert in that professional field to say whether it is an area in which we could have results. However, the debate should give some consideration to that line of thinking.

Senator Bradford made a good point that this issue tends to be hidden within society. There are reasons for that. There was an element of shame attaching within families. There was conflict as to whether the child was believed and the protection of other family members who may have been perpetrators. I have seen instances where families have been divided right down the centre as a consequence of this issue, which is so sad. Senator Bradford stated that we need some kind of advertising or educational programme to create awareness of the issue. I found some currency in my thinking for that, but I would offer a caution. I have had experience of people who were victims in the past and who dealt with it in their own way without any professional assistance, especially in recent decades when we have had many reports and high profile publicity on the issue. These people have found that much of what happened to them has come back and tormented them. There is a balance that needs to be struck. On the other hand, it has to be exposed, given the terrible consequences of paedophilia and the manipulative approach that paedophiles generally take.

It is not just in the family. We have seen many high profile cases involving people who deal with children, whether it is in sports clubs or swimming clubs, boy scouts or girl guides or whatever else. It is important that those who are involved in those organisations also have an awareness to detect where these crimes are being committed.

Much of the focus is on the Catholic Church nowadays, where some heinous abuse took place, where there was a total lack of awareness of the consequences over the decades, and where the management of these issues was certainly deficient as we look back on it. I was struck by the Vatican's response to the Taoiseach's statement on the Cloyne report. We get so much material and documentation that not everything we get is read. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the leadership of the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, introduced the motu proprio arrangements.

Subsequently, they were clarified and strengthened. It is fair to say that within the church now, the procedures and the template in place, especially the zero tolerance for priests who offend and who are then dismissed from the priesthood quickly, are to be welcomed. There was an excessive emphasis on due process, which is part of the legal structure. However, from the point of view of the church it is important that this is done. We should recognise that many of the procedures in place are superior to those the State has in place and should be considered. The problem arises when it comes to administering these procedures. Human beings such as ourselves are involved and it is down to the application and the commitment of the people who administer them to do so appropriately.

I will finish with a point on the seal of confession. I was interested in the comments of the Minister on this matter. I have strong views on the preservation of the seal of confession. Earlier this year I was in Vienna. I entered a church in Petersplatz and picked up a postcard. It showed a very nice sculpture of St. John of Nepomuk, who was killed by Wenceslaus, King of the Romans. He was King of Bohemia as well. He killed him because he was concerned that his wife, the queen, may have been having extramarital activities. He had the saint in question drowned in the Vltava River in Prague. The saint is regarded as the first martyr of the seal of confession. I do not want any Irish martyrs of the seal of confession.

There are some cases which support the idea that the seal of confession should be preserved within the judicial system. I understand the Minister takes a different view but it is something on which we should have clarity. There is too much intrusion by states in the West infringing on the whole area of conscience. We must balance this with the entitlement of people to hold religious views and to have these views protected by the State. There is no issue in practical terms because if someone has committed the crime of paedophilia, it is easy for the priest within the confessional to make it known clearly what he must do. I imagine we will return to the issue on Committee Stage and perhaps tease it out a little more. However, I have been somewhat reassured by the comments of the Minister in this regard.