Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late. I thought there were four matters on the Topical Issue debate but there were only three.

The amendment was discussed on Committee Stage. I pulled out the transcript of the Committee Stage debate this afternoon to make sure I was correct in what I am about to say. We raised the issue with the Tánaiste on Committee Stage . She gave a commitment that she would look at it for Report Stage. She said, "It is an interesting issue and I will examine it. The gender anomaly was upheld as recently as 2012." The Tánaiste went on to explain the case in question, which we discussed on Committee Stage. My amendment would remove what the Tánaiste is proposing, which is that:

Any female person of or above the age of 17 years who with consent permits her grandfather, father, brother or son to have carnal knowledge of her (knowing him to be her grandfather, father, brother or son, as the case may be) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a lesser term of imprisonment.

I understand very well that this is the current situation if one is male. If this amendment was accepted and if the Tánaiste's proposal in section 28 was withdrawn, incest would still be illegal on the Statute Book for any female person of or above 17 years. The penalty, as has been outlined by Deputy O'Callaghan, would revert to the penalty within the 1908 legislation, which is a term of three to seven years. This is not a case of removing the section and it suddenly becoming legal. It would still be illegal to have carnal knowledge of one's grandfather, father, brother or son. The question we are being asked by the Minister is to increase the sentence from three to seven years to life imprisonment.

Given that I raised the matter on Committee Stage and that we are now on Report Stage and the Tánaiste has not brought forward her own amendment, I do not believe she has demonstrated that it would be in the public interest to increase the sentence of three to seven years to life imprisonment. The Minister has not articulated her position. The only rationale she gave on Committee Stage was when she said, "The male offence would still be life. That is my point. We were equating the offences." I understand that the Tánaiste is trying to equate the offences but she still has not demonstrated what public good would be served by increasing the sentence from three to seven years to life imprisonment. We are not talking about sex which is not consensual. Let us be very clear on that. There is adequate legislation to deal with somebody who is having sex without consent. We are talking about a female over the age of 17 years who, with consent, would still be committing an illegal act and would still be liable for a prison term of three to seven years as opposed to life imprisonment. Unless the Minister can demonstrate the rationale behind the increased prison sentence, it is my intention to press the amendment.

See this speech in context