Caít Keane (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. The Cloyne, Murphy and Ryan reports have clearly demonstrated the need to strengthen the law on the disclosure of information on offences against children. We did not need these reports to tell us that, as everybody knows we need legislation to protect children. It is not acceptable that there can be or was a cloak of secrecy surrounding the commission of such offences.

Much of the media attention on child abuse is focused on abuse by clergy, rightly so, but it is important to note that national statistics show 80% of childhood sexual abuse victims are abused by someone known to them, including immediate family members. Everybody should take note of this. Some 12% are abused by persons in authority, 3% by strangers and 5% by others. The clergy were held in high esteem, but they have let people down. A lot more was expected from people they respected.

The introduction of mandatory reporting requirements within a jurisdiction tends to increase the level of community awareness of child abuse, which is good. In many instances, it also results in substantial increases in the numbers of reports made to child protection departments. If there are inadequate resources available, services may be overwhelmed. However, the problem of substantial increases in the numbers of reports is more likely to become an issue under the Children First Bill 2012 which the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is introducing. With the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, she should be facilitated to ensure a sufficient number of social workers will be in place to ensure that Bill, when passed, will be implemented properly.

Criminalising the withholding of information on offences is a version of the old offence of misprision of felony. This offence was effectively abolished in Irish law when the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours was abolished in 1997 in the Criminal Justice Act. This meant that there was no longer a general duty under Irish law to inform. From the reports and debates I read dating from 1996, it was expected that some provision providing for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse would be placed on a statutory footing. In one of the debates the phrase "in the near future" was used. The measure is being introduced 16 years later. I commend the Minister for introducing it in his first year in office on foot of the reports we have received. Excuses were made. Some reports were published some time ago, but others are more recent.

I have no problem quoting from the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, with which Senator David Cullinane seems to have a problem. It contains the phrase, "for an offence of withholding information in relation to serious offences". However, it specifically excludes information on sexual offences. Questions have been asked as to why people have not been prosecuted under the Act. That is the reason and it is necessary to introduce this Bill. Serious offences covered by this Act were committed in the past. People, even within the Senator's party and with regard to the disappeared, might see fit to say it is a serious offence and come forward with information to protect vulnerable people. It should all be included. We are talking about vulnerable people under any Act. It was the Senator himself who mentioned the previous Act. That is why it is necessary to ensure all vulnerable people are protected. I also welcome section 3, which relates to vulnerable adults. That is why I include all vulnerable adults in the country.

There has been too much emphasis on confession. All the reports we have read show that all the issues were raised outside the confessional. The question of confession rarely came up. It is a secondary issue.

I refer to an incident mentioned in the Cloyne report. The Bishop of Cloyne, through his solicitor, declined to supply a particular document. The Garda report stated the solicitor said the document in question was a church document and therefore confidential. The solicitor also told the Garda sergeant that the bishop would not make a statement "in consideration for the public good and the maintenance of the confidentiality of the church". That is different from the confidentiality of the confessional. I am presuming and hoping this law supersedes that because, according to section 15.28 of the Cloyne report, the document was not disclosed. I hope the Bill covers such a situation. This is different from the seal of the confessional and has nothing to do with it. It is about withholding information from a State agency, the Garda in this case, that is mandated to investigate a horrendous crime, such as the rape of children.

I ask the Minister about reporting and the designated person. The Children First regulations established criteria for the appointment of a designated person in each organisation who will be responsible for approaching the HSE. Can the Minister clarify this?

Can the Minister also clarify the position of canon law versus State law. I am aware of a case a priest who took a human rights case to court and assumed it would be heard under State law. The judge ruled that because he was a priest, the case should be heard under canon law and dismissed the case. The Minister, in his speech said the following:

Section 2(4) also provides that the Bill is without prejudice to any right or privilege recognised in law. In that regard, this provision is simply to allow the courts to use their normal discretion in considering issues of privilege.

We all know doctors differ and patients die. Judges' so-called normal discretion must be questioned sometimes. It must be laid down in law that a judge's powers of discretion are few and far between in cases of child abuse, especially with regard to the confidentiality of documents relating to the abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult.