Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Section 3(9) states, "No proceedings for an offence under this section against a child under the age of 17 years shall be brought except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions". In other words, it is not mandatory for the DPP to take a case. I am saying that it should be a child under the age of 17 years, or a member of the peer group referred to in the amendment, who would be 24 months older than the person. The DPP would, therefore, have discretion, depending on the case compiled, to effect the prosecution. That might be better than enshrining it in legislation because people have a responsibility to bear once they are over that age.

I agree with Senator Norris that the age of consent should be 16. The issues of imprisonment, sentencing and penalties, which I said are too low, should, therefore, probably only be increased when that age of consent issue is addressed. However, there is not a consensus on that.

I note Senator Cummins included a pecuniary fine with regard to the offence in his amendment. That is not contained in the legislation. It is interesting that one of the cases before the High Court involved a person who got an eight-year sentence, with two years suspended. Subsequently, however, in a civil case taken by the victims, that individual was obliged to forfeit a substantial sum, in excess of €600,000, to them. There should be financial penalties in addition to custodial sentences, but they should not replace the latter. Financial penalties would provide part funding for counselling. We need joined-up thinking and it is ideal that the Minister of State, who has responsibility for children and who has concerns in this area, is present. Let us hope that the debate that will follow this legislation will address all these issues, that we shall reach a consensus and that the outcome will be really good legislation to protect children.