John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister to the House and acknowledge the fact that he has always shown himself amenable to coming here and engaging meaningfully in debate. I thank him for making himself available at a time when it may seem like a whirlwind is going on around him with regard to dealing with these difficult issues. I know the Minister and all Members have the same sense of dismay at what has occurred and at the situation in which we find ourselves and he has expressed his outrage at the developments resulting from the Supreme Court judgment.

This debate has its origins in the Supreme Court decision in respect of section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. Senator Brian Hayes referred on the Order of Business to the blame game having started. I am certain there is little to be gained from the blame game. As I said this morning, the House has a good tradition of dealing with these matters in a balanced, reasonable, considerate and compassionate way. I hope we will do that again.

The main focus must be on the concerns of the citizens, particularly the protection of young people. The central question concerns what we are going to do now. I agree with what Deputy Kenny said in the Dáil, namely, that we must have some measure of unity in our attempt to protect young boys and girls. We must have a combined will on the part of the Oireachtas to deal with this difficulty. It is not just a matter for the Minister or the Government, but for the Oireachtas.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I want to state our utter outrage at the repercussions of the recent judgment. Nobody has a monopoly on outrage or compassion and the Minister emphasised that in what he said. No right-thinking person could fail to be appalled that a man who plied a young girl with alcohol and pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge should walk free. Nobody anywhere could condone that.

It is important that we make it crystal clear to everybody in this jurisdiction that there is no legal limbo. There is no green light for perverts nor a gaping black hole, but there is a particular problem with which we must deal. The Minister was right to speak about the myths being peddled in a scare-mongering way on this issue. The facts are as follows: first, our criminal code still prohibits sexual offences against young persons; second, the crime of rape remains part of our law and the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions are duty bound to uphold and enforce these laws; third, a person who has sex with a girl less than 15 years of age can be charged with sexual assault; and, fourth, consent cannot be given by a person under 15 years of age regarding the offence of sexual assault.

Everyone should know that the crime of sexual assault carries a penalty of 14 years in prison. They should know that a sexual incident with a minor where force is used carries a penalty of life imprisonment. A case of aggravated sexual assault carries a penalty of life imprisonment. These penalties are in addition to the penalties for rape offences. The so-called Mr. A case does not change these facts. The laws and severe penalties are in place. Parents need not have fears about this. Those evil persons who might entertain thoughts of breaching these laws should be aware that they are subject to these penalties and the full rigour of the law.

The so-called Mr. A case does not change these facts. Following the Supreme Court decision, prisoners convicted of breaching section 1(1) of the 1935 Act can apply to be freed on the basis that the law under which they were convicted no longer has any legal standing. This was the route pursued by Mr. A. His application was successful because he had been convicted of a breach of that section and had already served two years of his three-year sentence. That does not negate our strict laws on penalties relating to sexual assault and rape pertaining to young people or anyone else. We should also remember that it is possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions to proffer fresh charges, for example of sexual assault, against those freed under the Supreme Court decision.

We must now look forward. The blame game is a pointless exercise. Whether we go back nine, 16 or 70 years, we should not suggest that the people who drafted the laws did so in the knowledge they contained this defect. Every legislator over the years tried to do the best for the people. No Government or justice spokesperson suggested changing the law or including a mistake in respect of age as a reasonable defence. Such debates serve neither parent nor young person and are about party politics.

I am glad the Minister consulted widely on this issue this afternoon with the Opposition parties. Hopefully, we will agree a way forward. We are all outraged by this matter, but we must deal with it. Members have shown themselves in the past to be amenable and capable of dealing with such difficult issues.