Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Schedule to the Act of 2006 is amended, in the row relating to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, in the third column of that row, by the deletion of "Sections 3 and 4" and the substitution therefor of "Section 3".".

This is an important amendment and the Minister referred to this issue earlier. The amendment reverses the repeal of the offence of gross indecency. The offence was created under section 4 of the 1993 Act, which was repealed in the Schedule to last year's Act and we seek to amend the Schedule to reverse the repeal of that offence. On Second Stage, I mentioned it was patently clear in the Ferns Report that the offence of gross indecency had a major relevance to the enforcement of criminal law until the Minister abolished it last year. I do not know whether that was by mistake or intent because he has signalled both since. However, this offence comprised a significant part of the charges laid against Fr. Sean Fortune, allegedly one of the most egregious offenders who occupied much space in the Ferns Report.

The legislation is primarily before us to rectify one mistake in the 2006 Act but it does not deal with another error, which I presume was the inadvertent decriminalising of the offence of gross indecency. When I pointed this out, following the short time I had to conduct analysis with my legal advisers on this last year, it was hotly denied by the Minister in the House. I had to leave the House to have a letter typed up, which I handed to the Minister to make the point with emphasis. He then took a different tack and pretended that the offence was obsolete but, in last weekend's newspapers, the Department put out the line that the abolition of the offence of gross indecency was intended all along on the basis of gender equality. The bottom line is the offence provided a measure of protection for young boys aged between 15 and 17 years until it was abolished last year. This protection was deliberately crafted and put in place by the former Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, when she presented the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 1993 to the House.

I fully accept there may well be issues regarding gender proofing of age based on a zone of exemption but the offence should not simply be abolished pending resolution of that issue. The offence should remain in place and the broader issue can be addressed because there are issues to which we must return. This lacuna should not remain. The measure was designed to protect young boys aged between 15 and 17 years and it was deliberately inserted and crafted by Máire Geoghegan-Quinn before being deliberately or inadvertently deleted last year. I ask that it be restored and if there are issues relating to gender equality, we should deal with them, as we have resolved to deal with other issues relating to the legislation at a later date.

See this speech in context