Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I find the Minister's response measured and reasonable. On section 4, I have some concerns. I understand why the defence has been inserted in section 4(1), whereby if a child or vulnerable person against whom an offence is committed makes it known he or she does not want the offence to be reported to the Garda Síochána, this can be relied upon as a defence in a court case. In many instances, victims do not particularly want the offence to be known; there is a reluctance as they endeavour to deal with it themselves. It is a difficult issue which I have come across.

My concern is that we are not just dealing with one victim. As we are aware, paedophiles tend to repeat and have multiple victims. In protecting a child we might be exposing others. I canvass the notion that perhaps the defence might involve not exposing the victim's name but having an obligation to make it known to the authorities that there was an allegation that was believed to be true against a particular individual. I do not know what they can do then, but at least the system should be triggered in some way to avoid a situation where, when we are rightly trying to protect the victim, we create more.

Along the same lines - I have come across some good analyses of the fragmentation of families - it is interesting that children are at greater risk in particular family groups than in others. The extreme example is that a mother of children cohabiting with a man who is not the biological father of her children. The 1993 socio-scientific analysis carried out by Mr. Robert Whelan in his work, Broken Homes & Battered Children, based on studies conducted in Britain, outlines that a child in such circumstances is 33 times more at risk than a child living with his or her married biological parents. Often times, in such situations the woman is financially vulnerable and, therefore, may feel inhibited in reporting the abuse of her children. Children are easily led and can be made to say they do not want to report something. The defence could be created within the unit, leading to ongoing abuse of a child. There are other family units in which the risk is also much higher, but I will not go further. These are the two polar opposites in this field.

We have spent a lot of time in the debate dealing with clerical sexual abuse. It is an appalling vista and has occurred in the last five or six decades. I recently saw an analysis that showed that it had reached its zenith in the 1960s and 1970s, but there was no plausible reason for this. The highlighting of that fact will, I hope, lead to its decline and eradication.

I am inclined to agree on the issue of congregant privilege. The right of the child supersedes any privilege there might be between a congregant and a priest. However, I do not agree on the issue of the confessional, as it is an important sacrament in the Catholic faith and, as I said on Second Stage, the issue is unlikely to arise in many instances. As there is a degree of secrecy, often the confessor will be completely unaware of the identity of the penitent. If he was so aware, he would be subject to his vows and not just to dismissal from the priesthood but also to excommunication. If we have freedom of religion as a fundamental principle - we look at the number of Christians who are persecuted across the globe and those countries in which there is no freedom of religion - we transgress it at our peril in various ways. Also, it is unlikely that someone who is a perpetrator will go to confession. It would be wrong, however, to focus exclusively on this issue, as it is only a small part of the overall scenario. Over-concentration on it may lead to obfuscation and others feeling they are not subject to the same critical levels of exposure. It is important that people know that the law on this serious criminal offence is unrelenting.