The Protection of Minors Bill was a forthcoming piece of legislation rather than retrospective, Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami said yesterday. The introduction of the Offenders Register was one of the promises in the PN electoral manifesto.
While this Bill was geared in the right direction, one should not think that abuses would not be committed. But the introduction of this registry should not be interpreted in a way that all persons involved in children’s activities intended to abuse their position. The majority of these people contributed towards children’s development.
Dr Fenech Adami said that institutions, such as the Church, provided shelter and education to children in need. However, bad news travelled fast.
Nonetheless, there existed persons who abused their position and the Bill was to serve as a deterrent.
In other countries, where the Offenders Register was exposed unlimitedly, it had created several problems and the government was right to opt for a balance. While there would be the register, its contents would not necessarily be available to the public. It would be available to those who needed to know its contents, such as employers and organisations that dealt with children. The qualified person would have to ask the court whether such a person was in the registry.
A person whose name was included in the registry would not be able to be a member, to hold a position or employment in an institution that provided services in education, care, custody, child bearing and welfare of children.
The Bill would impose heavy fines to those organisations that employed persons with past related offences without having made the necessary verifications. Fines would vary between €2,500 and €50,000 and a prison term from three months to four years.
There would also be fines where an employer did not terminate the employment of a person found guilty of crimes against the Act and included in the register.
Dr Fenech Adami said it would also be in this person’s interests not to be near children. The court could also include a person in the Offenders Register who was not found guilty because of insanity. Meanwhile, the court was being given the discretion, where a person committed another act that was not scheduled, to put him in the register if this was in children’s best interests.
It would be unfair to include in the register persons found guilty of crimes included in the Bill before the legislation was enacted.
The Bill provided that an accused would also be put in the register during proceedings. While a person was innocent until proven guilty, Dr Fenech Adami said, this did not mean that the court could not impose certain conditions.
Edwin Vassallo (PN) said the introduction of the Offenders Register brought with it a number of challenging issues. It was important to note that it was a very detailed legislation and that it went beyond expectations.
This Bill regulated voluntary work, commercial activities, NGOs and employment. The penalties related to infringing this law were not light, and this showed the seriousness of this legislation. Anyone who employed persons listed in the register to work with children would be committing an offence.
Moreover, one had to note the legal responsibility involved. If an official such as a manager was aware that a person had been involved in a crime and did not report it, he too would be committing a crime.
It was everyone’s duty to protect children. The Bill helped protect children’s rights because it would serve as a strong deterrent.
Mr Vassallo pointed out that in a number of separation cases mothers falsely accused the fathers of abusing their children, in order to keep fathers from obtaining custody. How would the introduction of this legislation affect such cases? This possibility had to be seen to.
Another important issue to take into account was the position of social workers. Would social workers be obliged to report to the police any wrongdoings they got to know of? This could result in breaking confidentiality and the role of the social worker would be greatly affected. A number of social workers had already voiced their concern regarding this issue.
Mr Vassallo said there was the need to see that social workers were not impeded from doing their jobs properly. People needed to have complete confidence in them. The fact that they had to report any abuses to the police could reduce the trust of families when resorting to the services offered by social workers.
He felt that the Bill had to be further clarified. Once a person was included in the register, that person’s life would change completely. Legally it was valid to discuss that it was better to keep this person away from children, but a balance had to be struck.
Interjecting, Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said it was only fair that the court would have the discretion to include an abuser’s name in the register, even if not yet convicted, when it resulted through the proceedings that the case was indeed serious. He said this procedure was not mandatory and the court had to decide when to take such steps. The aim of such procedure obviously was further protection of children.
Continuing, Mr Vassallo said he was convinced that the courts used their discretion properly. But the courts had a responsibility to see that no parent used this Bill as a way to keep children away from the other spouse through false allegations. The law had to be used as a deterrent against abuse.
Noting that the Bill was putting the responsibility on parents where the accused was a minor, he asked if there was a provision in the Bill for who was the judicial representative of minors with absent parents.
Karl Gouder (PN) said that the Bill’s aim was to minimise abuse. Parents should be assured that those who were entrusted with their children would be people who had not committed offences.
An agency providing children-related services would be obliged to verify with the Offenders Register whether the person to be employed was included in it. A person who had committed these offences should not have contact with children.
Meanwhile, the Bill also protected the confidentiality of those in the register. One should also ensure that this Bill would be implemented effectively. Persons who were guilty of similar offences in the past might still be in contact with children.
Mr Gouder asked whether a person who sought the assistance of a nanny would be able to have access to the Offenders Register.
Concluding, he said that children should be protected in every sense. Those who were involved in such offences should not have contact with children.