Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)

We must pass a law today but it must be good law. The Minister defended his record and that of the Government by saying they were competent, honest and truthful. I disagree with this assertion. The Government's competence was called into question by the fact that it was not prepared for this situation. The Minister should have been prepared when the High Court challenge was launched in 2002. One should hope for the best but prepare for the worst and I am not convinced he was prepared for the worst.

The Minister's honesty has been called into question. The Taoiseach asserted that nobody would walk free from prison but someone has done so. The Minister's truthfulness has also been questioned. This morning, he has blamed everyone in this House but himself. It is time for him to take some share of the blame in this affair.

Enshrining the best interests of the child in the legislation passed today is crucial. The Green Party proposes that this be explicitly placed into the law. Unless the best interests of children are a priority in the law, there is a very real danger that their interests will be placed second. We will put forward this amendment today.

Given that we have had sight of this legislation for less than 24 hours, it is crucial that we put in place a sunset clause in respect of it. I propose that the legislation lapse in two years' time. Rushed law is not good law. We have an onus to revisit the Bill in two years' time. Having a period of less than 24 hours in which to review legislation is dangerous. The Minister acknowledged that other issues have been highlighted and have come to his attention in the last few hours. We should ensure this legislation is revisited in less than two years.

I am deeply concerned by section 5 of the Bill. I am concerned by the inequality enshrined in the legislation whereby we will criminalise boys but not girls. I am also very concerned about the absurdity of not criminalising girls who engage in penetrative sex but criminalising them if they engage in other forms of sexual activity. What kind of message does this send out? What kind of Stay Safe programme is envisaged whereby a girl will not be criminalised if she engages in full penetrative sex but will be criminalised if she engages in any other type of sexual activity? This provision must be reconsidered. In light of the sexual awakening of 15 and 16 years olds, we should send out a very strong message not to engage in full sexual relations, yet this legislation provides for the exact opposite by criminalising other forms of sexual activity but not penetrative sex.

Section 5 is an absurdity. I am in possession of advice from the Ombudsman for Children in which she specifically states that section 5 is superfluous. I call on the Minister to withdraw this section. He still has the discretion of the courts and the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Ombudsman for Children is advising the Minister to drop section 5, he should seriously consider her advice.

See this speech in context