Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

At every step of the way, we have unveiled the complexity of the legislation in this area and the absolute requirement for care in that regard. Anybody who reads the transcript of this debate will be less secure in their belief that the House has legislated well for these matters. I genuinely believe we will have to return to this issue at an early date. I am not looking forward to the complex and difficult debate that will ensue on that occasion. We will have to make judgment calls on a number of issues. I am not convinced that the Minister's explanation of the last point we considered is accurate, but I do not have time to reflect on it adequately or get proper advice on it. The net point is that it is important to enact two provisions into law. The first of those provisions will close the gap we identified last week. The second provision, which was proposed by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, has been embraced by the Minister. It will prohibit grooming and travelling to use children for sexual gratification. It is important that we adopt those two measures.

Careful work needs to be done throughout this area because there are large holes in the body of our child protection law. The consolidation Bill that has been promised by the Minister needs to front-loaded. The production of such a Bill in any area is complex, but it will be particularly difficult in this area. Perhaps the Minister will indicate a timeframe for that Bill. Does he have a team of officials working on it on a full-time basis? When can we expect the Bill? It is obvious that those who are developing the Bill have to presume that the House will speedily pass a resolution to cause a referendum to be put to the people and that the people will allow us to create the zone of protection that the all-party committee envisaged. A substantial amount of work can be done, with that proviso, to improve the existing law vastly. We will have to make some hard calls.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and I have been in dialogue with the Minister of State with responsibility for children, in particular. I do not know what the Government's firm view is on the development of a zone of protection based on age. I do not know what its settled view is on the age of consent. We need to go beyond political deft footwork to the point of determining what we can agree on a consensual basis. We should not try to hand-trip each other on these matters because they are too important. We need to provide for a general joined-up process. It was too smart by half to have a protection amendment ready to roll, in the absence of any mention of an agreed zone of protection in terms of age, or an agreed age of consent for sexual intercourse. The Government needs to outline its views on such matters so we can make progress with them speedily. I will not pursue amendment No. 5. All of my amendments have unveiled the frailty of this enactment, which is far from comprehensive. It attempts to plug one identified loophole, but we will have to try to plug many other loopholes very soon.

See this speech in context