Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I will try to be helpful and move this important issue on by repeating that it would not have made any difference if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General or the rest of the Cabinet had known anything about this matter in advance. It would not have influenced the Supreme Court decision in any way and no more preparatory arrangements would have been made. We encountered a difficulty, in a way that can often happen in law, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the CC case that we had to create a defence of honest belief.

I would like to put on the record the Government's proposed terms of reference for the all-party committee, as I have not done so before now. They are:

—To review the substantive criminal law relating to sexual offences against children;

—To review the substantive law in relation to child protection;

—To examine the issues surrounding the age of consent in relation to sexual offences;

—To examine court procedures relating to child sexual abuse cases;

—To consider the implications arising from the Supreme Court decision of 23rd May 2006 in the CC case including the desirability or otherwise of a constitutional amendment in relation to the outcome of that case;

—To examine the issues of the desirability or otherwise of amending the Constitution to include a general right to protection for children; and

—To make recommendations on the issues not later than the autumn.

The proposed terms of reference are matters for discussion. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given the terms of reference to the Opposition leaders. I saw the Opposition statement that was published at the weekend which, by and large, repeats the issues which have been highlighted by the Government. As Deputy Rabbitte has said, there is total agreement, more or less, on these issues.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go back over the issue again. It would not have made a bit of difference if the Attorney General had been following this case from the time that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to put together a legal team to fight the case. The legal team, which thought it had a good case, did its best. It won in the High Court, but lost in the Supreme Court. Several issues remain such as the constitutional one. I already gave an assurance that these issues will be dealt with by the committee. A good number of bodies have lobbied on the issue of children's rights which should be considered by the committee. Other constitutional issues should also be considered by the committee. I will pass the views on to the Deputy if he so wishes but they are best dealt with in the committee. While the full judgment of the Supreme Court has not been released, several difficulties arise out of it that we need to deal with quickly. The Government is prepared for its front people to deal with these issues in the early autumn.

The O'Sullivan examination is concentrating on the 1995 procedures. I have already stated there was a breach of one of those procedures which will be reflected in the report. The official dealing with the case did not follow the procedures. I am sure the official does his or her best at all other times. However, in this case procedure was not followed. There is no more to it than that. However, if the procedures had been followed, it still would not have made any difference. The report would have gone to the Attorney General but he could not have influenced the Supreme Court decision. The official was not going to highlight to the Attorney General the need to draft a new Bill.

It is not a question of difficulties between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions were fighting the case. It was their staff which had co-operated on the case. An investigation into the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which was not involved in the case, and the Attorney General's office, which was working in co-operation with the joint team, will make no difference. It was only the notification of the procedure, coming from the 1995 report, that the Attorney General should have been made aware of. This will come out in the O'Sullivan report. As we get near to the end of the session, this committee needs to be put in place to get on with the work. There are some substantive issues that have been discussed at great length that must be dealt with by the committee.

See this speech in context