David Norris (Independent)

I too am glad the Minister has come in here this evening. It is important that he has done so. He came in to confront the issues forthrightly and by and large he did that, although there are some areas with which I am not satisfied. The Minister was very angry. He used the phrase "incandescent with rage" but as he spoke I felt he was incandescent with rage. The country feels the same way about the violation of a 12 year old child who was fed with drink and raped, and the man pleaded guilty. I cannot understand how any human being with a conscience would walk free having pled guilty in that manner. There is a defect in that man's conscience. I could not do it had I been guilty of this terrible crime.

The Minister's anger, however, was sometimes misdirected because it focused on charges that have not been laid against him. Nobody in this House ever suggested that the Minister or any member of Government or any Member of either House was indifferent to the suffering of children, or carelessly or needlessly neglected something. Nobody said that and I most certainly did not, but I did say some things repeatedly in various debates that were never heeded.

I have looked at the issue of consent, for example, which underlies this matter. I am not an expert in law but I suggested that one way of approaching this was to consider a principle of consent, rather than an age of consent, which may always cause some difficulty, and let that be referred to a court. In this type of case it is blindingly obvious that an offence was committed. I know, however, of a case in which two teenagers had consensual sexual relations and the male was convicted and jailed. That is not right. I never thought it was right and said so in this House. I am not trying to say I was right and I told the Minister so because this is not the moment for that kind of talk, nor is it the moment for partisan politics which will only demean the entire process.

Many people are confused because there appear to be conflicting views emerging from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Attorney General. That is what people perceive. I am confused about this matter but I agree with the Minister that he could not possibly convict someone retrospectively. I am glad he said that because, dreadful as this case is, it would be awful to rush an Elastoplast solution through with the result that, because we did not want one guilty man or even three or six guilty people to get away, innocent people would be jeopardised. We must protect the innocent in this matter.

I did not interject, because this is too solemn and serious a moment, when the Minister's anger overcame him and he cited the reform of the criminal law on homosexuality, as if this was a response to the Law Reform Commission. No, it bloody well was not. It came about because I took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights, having failed to get a judgment that a major violation of fundamental human rights was in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution does not protect everybody.

The Minister is right to say we should not claim to be wise after the event. The Law Reform Commission did not, apparently, say there was a constitutional flaw, but it did say — in the words of the Minister — the law was unduly harsh and totally out of step with other European countries. Was that not a signal? Should the Government not have acted on that rather than say it was not under this Minister's watch? For God's sake, if we are concerned about the welfare of people in the country, should we not pay attention when the Law Reform Commission says "the law is unduly harsh and totally out of step". A phenomenon I have noticed time and again with the Government is that when a difficult issue arises it is kicked to the Law Reform Commission and then damn all happens. That is a pity.

It is important to acknowledge that the Minister has come into the House to discuss this issue. I hope he has reassured rape victims, because many people are concerned about rape. I hope there is support for the family involved in this matter and that they are reassured by the Minister. I hope too that some good legislation results from this situation.

I want to refer to something that was stated repeatedly last night on "Tonight with Vincent Browne". The Minister has referred to a sex offenders' register, but those on the programme stated with clarity and certainty that there is no such "animal" in the country.