Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join other speakers in welcoming the Bill and I support the calls for a move towards more concise and clear language, where possible. However, I also have substantial concerns regarding certain provisions of the Bill and I would appreciate if the Minister could elaborate on them. I have tabled a number of amendments, which I know are not perfect. I am happy to move with the consensus of the House in addressing the issues in general.

The issues I am trying to address relate to two or three provisions in the Bill. I would like a clarification as to how the Minister considers that they will be specifically addressed. My first concern is that there may be situations whereby there needs to be a partial disposal of the privacy provision. A situation might arise, for example, where there is a wish to protect one child in a proceeding and also the rights of another child to be named or for his or her family to name the child. My amendments set out provisos whereby a decision in regard to one child, such as the withholding of his or her name where he or she is accused or convicted, should not prejudice the rights of another child who is a victim or witness. It is an attempt to ensure that we get the balance right in that regard.

I am concerned by the references in the proposed amendments to section 93 of the 2001 Act. That section is quite limited, stating specifically in its preamble that it applies only to proceedings before any court. My concern is that section 93, which seeks to protect a child from being named, would include the proviso that where he or she is accused or convicted of a crime, it may be seen to be in the public interest that he or she should be named.That is an appropriate proviso. However, my concern is that section 93 only applies to proceedings before any court. I am not clear as to what the protections and mechanisms will be in the years afterwards when a case is no longer before a court. I do not know if that is intentional or inadvertent. We might need to either adjust section 93 or produce something customised to this situation, which I attempted to do, perhaps imperfectly, in my amendment. Those are my two concerns. One is addressing the issue where, say, a 14-year-old who is accused or convicted of manslaughter as soon as the case is finished, and before the proceedings, can still be named. Also, we need to get the balance right that in that we may not wish the name or the image of a child who is accused or convicted to be seen. That is the reason I tabled another amendment, which is part of this grouping, which proposes to insert the words "fully or in part". It should not be a blunt case of apply or do not apply. It may be very important those provisos allowing for children to be named should apply to most children associated with a case, but not all. Is there still quite a hard binary in the Bill where we cannot balance having a different approach to the naming of a child victim versus a child who may be a perpetrator or one of a group of perpetrators in a crime? As other have said, the Minister’s amendment is quite dense. Those issues may be addressed but from my first reading of the text, I still have concerns.