Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House for this debate and I very much welcome what he had to say. Members requested a debate on this matter yesterday morning and this morning and the Deputy Leader kindly acceded to that request. I am pleased that the Minister actually attended.

I listened to Senator Cummins say that there were questions to be answered, but the substantive questions have all been well covered by the Minister. Senator Cummins asked a question regarding section 1(1) of the legislation. The answer given in the Dáil this morning was that there were either six or seven people in prison currently under that section. Senator Brian Hayes has broadened this aspect to include section 1(2) in respect of which there may or may not be implications. That has not been struck down as unconstitutional and as of now it is unaffected.

The House has acted responsibly in the way it has conducted the debate, although that does not always happen in the other House. On an issue of major concern to the public, many people will express their concerns through the media. That is to be expected and it is probably right in a democracy that this happens. However, it behoves us to take a more measured view of the situation. Undoubtedly the appalling situation where a person in his 40s, who was convicted of having sex with a girl of 12, was released from prison is one which none of us could accept or condone.

We need to consider the issues of the age of consent and gender equality, which are complex. Young people are sexually active at an earlier age than perhaps our generation. They face many challenges. One would certainly have to raise questions as to some material in teenage magazines. Young people are also exposed to such material on television and the Internet. There is a huge responsibility on us as legislators, but also on parents and society generally, to ensure children are safeguarded. Exposure to explicit sexual details at an early age is not healthy or good for young people's formation. It is an issue which should be considered. Reports also seem to indicate that young people in their very early teens are having sex. That should be taken into account in terms of how we manage this issue. We need to legislate but we also need to provide education and support systems which tackle this issue.

If two consenting young people engage in sexual activity and both are below the age of consent, the boy is guilty of an offence but the girl is not. That is a serious anomaly. My position was that it should be an offence for both parties but when I thought about it I considered whether it might lead to a situation which would make girls reluctant to come forward where they had not given consent and statutory rape had occurred. It is a complex area of which we need to be careful.

I listened with interest to the Minister speak about the fact that the release of Mr. A from prison is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I understood him to say that a prosecution would not automatically be expunged where the section under which a person was prosecuted was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court and that other factors would be considered which might keep the person incarcerated. Where there is such a disparity between ages, as in this case, common sense should dictate that a person guilty of such an offence should not be released.

In regard to double jeopardy, if the appeal to the Supreme Court is not successful, we should look at the way in which technicalities are used in cases by intelligent, hardworking lawyers who have researched the legal position. I am not sure we should necessarily allow a situation whereby somebody who is obviously guilty of a heinous crime and who has been prosecuted under a section of an Act which has been struck down cannot be recharged where a technicality is invoked. I distinguish between that and where a jury of the person's peers made a decision as it would be different if the person was convicted by a jury. I am not sure the public welcomes technicalities being invoked. I know we must safeguard people and that we cannot continue to prosecute people until we get a guilty verdict.

I welcome, as I am sure other Members do, the decision of the Supreme Court to hear the case on Friday. That is a responsible decision and the court is dealing with the case as a matter of urgency, which is what we wanted. I noted that the Supreme Court judge, in announcing that decision, said these matters cannot be rushed. There is always a danger when there is much hysteria and public concern, which we all share, and when the media are pushing the issue that we get ahead of ourselves. It is a time for steady heads and a steady hand on the tiller. In that regard, the Minister's outline of the situation was welcome. Obviously, we want the legislation as soon as possible but when it comes before us, it should be evaluated to ensure it does not include other lacunae which will cause problems for us in the future.

The House has done a service by inviting the Minister and having him enunciate an outline of the Government's position on this matter. I and others in the House welcome the fact the Government has decided to restore the protection of children under the age of 15 years and to deal with the issue of 15 to 17 year olds.