Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I want to give some further thought to both those amendments. I want to explain the background to them but I will not press the amendments today. This is an issue that has arisen in other legislation. I have raised this more to note it and, if need be, we will return to it on Report Stage.

There is a very important reference in the legislation which details the various members of designated professions who may determine, in the interests of the welfare of a child or a vulnerable person, that information should not be given to the Garda. That is it in a nutshell. The subsection details that a member of a designated profession means: a registered medical practitioner; a registered nurse; a psychologist and, following the establishment of the register of members of psychologists under the Act of 2005, only a person whose name is entered on that register; or a social worker whose name is entered on the register of members of social workers established and maintained under section 36 of the Act of 2005.

A concern was raised with regard to the fact that the provisions of section 36 of the 2005 Act relating to psychologists have not yet been brought into force. In theory at least, individuals at present who are untrained can claim to be psychologists. That was the reason for introducing the 2005 legislation in the first place. We must remember that what we have here is something that can be utilised as a defence should one be prosecuted. We do not want unqualified individuals self-proclaiming themselves to be psychologists without qualification who may try to utilise a defence to evade a successful prosecution and who should have reported the abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult.

The other side of the coin is that there are many professional, well-trained, very experienced psychologists in the State who can point to their qualifications and who are working with individuals who are the victims of abuse. The concern is that in the absence of this section of the 2005 Act coming into force, a blanket reference to psychologists, in the way we have it in the Bill, may make the Bill vulnerable to someone who is not adequately trained claiming to be a psychologist. On the other hand, I do not want a situation to arise whereby psychologists working in this area would feel vulnerable to prosecutions in circumstances where they should not occur.

One of the ways around this is that a psychologist could be a designated person under the provisions to which we made reference, the amendments we just included in the Bill, which upgraded earlier provisions. On the other hand, psychologists working in private practice may have an individual who comes to them who has been a victim of a sexual offence and they may not be a designated person but may receive information and genuinely deal with the matter, know of the law but conclude it is in the interest of the welfare of the individual at that moment in time not to report. They may conclude that the individual needs support, time and perhaps two or three more engagements before the possibility of reporting can be dealt with. I am merely raising the fact that I am concerned about this because section 36 of the 2005 Act is not in force and this is a form of an amendment to which we may need to give some consideration. I have some personal reservations about dealing with it in a blanket way and I will return to it. I am conscious that, procedurally, I cannot return to it if i do not give notice of that for Report Stage and that is what I am doing. Other than that, I intend to withdraw the amendment and not to press it in any shape or form today.