Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister spoke about how it would be great if we could all reflect. That is why we should not be rushing Committee and Report Stages together so that we could actually reflect on what each other is saying. However, I must say the Minister’s logic does not stand up as to his reason for not accepting that earlier amendment about the sex abuser. In absolutely no way did the amendment’s wording exclude the possibility of the regulator having regard to other welfare conditions. There are any number of ways in which this could be worded but without prejudice for any other welfare issues to be taken into consideration by the regulator, a person convicted of an indictable offence in relation to a personal crime shall not be able to avail. I can assure the Minister, even on the basis of my short career practising law, the Minister is not on correct legal ground there. To be specific would in no way exclude the general, provided it is worded correctly. A provision stating that without prejudice to other welfare considerations, it shall not be possible for somebody convicted, etc., would leave the regulator completely clear to take any other issue into account of the kind the Minister described, such as the person accessing child porn or whatever examples the Minister gave. Can I assure him on that point, that the Minister could indeed have taken this amendment without in any way weakening the ability of the regulator to take other aspects of past history, involving convictions or otherwise, into account.

The whole approach here is to say “Trust the regulator”. The Minister gives absolute guarantees but it is not there in the Bill. He says it will never, ever happen. I have no doubt that the Minister would never want it to happen; nobody here in this room would want a convicted sex abuser or someone convicted of violence generally to be enabled and we would hope that the regulator would ask all the hard questions and that it might exclude accordingly but it is not enough to state one should not worry as the regulator will do so because we have given it all the powers in the world to do so. The Minister has enabled but he has not required. He says, and indeed I quoted it myself, that the paramouncy principle would be there and the Minister would have to have regard to that in making regulations. That still does not tell us about the facts on the ground when the regulator comes to do its work. That is why more guarantees and more strict requirements directly there in legislation are necessary.

I am taking from what the Minister has said that, in fact, the regulator is legally entitled to disregard the failure to supply a request in writing. Perhaps, one might say, the Minister may make a regulation that will require such a request in writing for a specified form to be supplied before the regulator can proceed further but that is not what is before us today. The Minister leaves it to the regulator to decide everything, to oversee everything and, indeed, to overlook anything and that is not acceptable considering child welfare is what we are talking about here today. I will leave it at that on that point.