Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

It is extremely opaque. To be fair, my officials examined the Fine Gael Bill and saw what was done. It tweaked the 1998 pornography Act and brought in a travelling having groomed offence. Those are two fairly safe changes.

I am grateful to Deputy Howlin for raising this issue. It underlines that certain provisions introduced in UK legislation are extremely vague in their ambit. Section 14 of the UK Act states:

14(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and

(b) doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to 13.

Section 14(1)(a) is extra-territorial in context. Sections 9 to 13 of that Act encompass a series of child sex offences.

I do not wish to make a point on Deputy Howlin's drafting. However, his amendment states "doing it will involve the commission of an offence under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006", which is territorially bound to Ireland. It does not lie easily with the previous subsection in his amendment which mentions "any part of the world". I do not want to go down this road.

Returning to a point I made previously, interestingly the amendment does not cover sexual assault. To commit this version of the offence, one must prove it was for buggery, intercourse or the aggravated sexual activity in the 2006 Act. A mere sexual assault would not be covered. Therefore, one must prove exactly what type of perverted behaviour was in contemplation when the arrangement was made. It would be almost impossible.

See this speech in context