Opposition home affairs spokes-man Michael Falzon yesterday told Parliament that the Protection of Minors Bill delegated to the judiciary a wide discretion of the powers that belonged to the legislator. In particular he was referring to a clause which gave the courts the right to include in the Offenders’ Register other crimes which were neither of a sexual orientation nor involving serious violence.

Speaking on the second reading, Dr Falzon said it was of concern that discretion was given for crimes contained in the schedules forming part of the Bill. In this case the legislative body was delegating its duties. He declared he had full confidence in the judiciary, but there were instances where the courts had been given absolute discretion.

In principle all members of the House agreed on such a register which had the aim to increase vigilance to prevent such crimes. The debate therefore revolved on the technicalities of the Bill and the discretionary measures involved.

The Bill was very wide-ranging and included the definition of institutions which practically covered many local entities and organisations. It also referred to persons organising activities for minors.

The register would contain persons not found guilty on grounds of insanity. The Bill included circumstances where a voluntary service could be given.

The proposed legislation was also wide-ranging in other matters. One had to be clear on the clause referring to the termination of employment, because it might be interpreted as bypassing a referral to the Industrial Tribunal and the Conditions of Employment Act.

Dr Falzon said one had to see how to facilitate the process of referring a case for the notification order and in particular when it would be applied. The process was cumbersome. One had to see whether the onus was to be placed on the individual to obtain a clearance certificate or whether collective action by institutions was to be applied.

One had to ensure that the court would not issue a notification order in instances where persons were found guilty of failing to pay alimony. Persons found guilty of such crimes should not be precluded from going abroad but in such cases, information should be shared with the relevant authorities. The Bill would not be retroactive but applied to convictions which were yet to be given by the courts.

Concluding, Dr Falzon suggested that interim notification orders should be refined in terms of statute of limitation. He agreed that the deterrent had to be harsher in order to prevent such crimes.