Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I wish to share time with my colleague, Senator Norris. I welcome the Minister and deeply appreciate that he has come to the House. An earlier speaker made the point that he was very much on the defensive. He spent the first ten minutes scotching stuff in today's newspapers. I strongly believe the Minister should have come into the House yesterday to explain, in a non-confrontational manner, what he said this evening as I heard answers to some important questions — questions to which we wanted answers yesterday to try to deal with queries.

The points the Minister made that the existing charges of rape and various forms sexual assault remain and that children are not unprotected should have been put on the record yesterday. It would have been very helpful, although I accept he would not have had all the information.

Having heard the debate, I do not want to see legislation next week. I am prepared to take the stick I will get for saying so. The Minister referred to the implications of Supreme Court decisions in previous cases. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal on Friday but presumably the judgment will be deferred. Either way this will have a serious impact on the Minister's approach to whatever he does afterwards. These matters are interconnected but they are not the same.

I would like to see the legislation published next week and opened to public discussion for a period before we start to deal with it. It should not be published on Tuesday, discussed on Wednesday and passed on Thursday although I am aware of all the pressures on the Minister to do that.

I said yesterday that there were three parts to this issue. First, I wanted the Minister to come into the House and explain the position and we would argue the toss. Then I wanted to distinguish between the age of consent and the current problem with the law. The Minister tonight roughly outlined the impact of the current situation. Senator Cummins has raised serious questions which I presume the Minister will answer at the end of the debate. Assuming that he deals with that and there is an audit, as Senator Brian Hayes suggested, at least we will know the confines of the problem facing us.

There seems no reason to pass legislation next week. The public needs to know that if someone is facing a charge the DPP has a choice of charges to lay before that person. Senator Cummins said that apparently gardaí are telling victims they cannot go ahead with cases in which they were going to prefer charges of statutory rape. That attitude needs to be scotched immediately because it is clearly wrong. Whoever says that does so on the basis of misinformation or lack of information. That needs to be stopped, otherwise it will run like a bushfire.

The legislation should be published. There should be some debate on it among all who are interested. It is nice to see interest in legislation at such a broad level. Let us get views on it. This House should have time for a proper Committee Stage debate, unlike the other House which seems to pass legislation at a clap. The Minister should do that, keeping an open mind as he always does on legislation in this House, deal with it and bring it back to the House. We can explain to the public that this is the best way to move forward. Early publication is more important than early legislation. Let us see the Minister's thoughts, respond to them, get a general view, and deal with the issues as they come forward.

The Minister spoke about a judicial review, sought by whom I am not quite clear, on the basis that people engaged in plea bargaining. Is there really such a thing as plea bargaining? We know there is but can it be stated as such? I do not know how that works because I was under the impression that ostensibly it never happened, although it did happen, like national partnership agreements. The Minister said there is enough information on the files of these people to allow other charges to be laid against them but that statutory rape was chosen. Does that allow an opportunity for further charges to be laid against these people around the same issues on which they have already pleaded or been found guilty of statutory rape? Would that be double jeopardy? People would wish that to be clarified.

Can the Judiciary take into consideration the issues of common good raised in today's Irish Independent? Every time we try to make our legislation black and white we lose out, whether in regard to drink driving or other issues. Mandatory sentences are an example. Will the Minister explain how, although there is a mandatory sentence of ten years for dealing in drugs, judges frequently decide that is not reasonable and apply lesser sentences. I do not argue with that. In the cases I have examined they have been right, as they have been to raise questions about having to sentence people on charges of statutory rape. If they could use discretion on such a clear mandatory provision in legislation could they have chosen not to listen to an argument of honest mistake? Is it not the essnce of judgment that one takes circumstances into consideration because they alter cases, and come to a conclusion on that basis?

I thank the Minister for coming into the House, although it would have been better to have this debate yesterday. We need to scotch certain issues and hard questions need to be answered.