Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I agree that this should not be a time for points scoring. What has happened in the Houses in the past couple of weeks, though it may not be seen that way to the public, is that the Opposition is holding the Government to account. That is our duty. I am glad we are dealing with this Bill today. As the Minister said, were it not for what happened we would not have the Bill today or next week. In fact I do not know when we would deal with the Bill. I am glad that, because of the pressures out there, the Minister came to realise how important it was to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency.

As a mother and as a woman I feel strongly about this issue. I noticed that the protest group outside Leinster House today comprised mainly women. I do not have much time for Joe Duffy being outside. That is populist. I understand the women who came along and how they feel. I accept all the points made by the Minister including the point that from 1935 it is understandable that the issue was not addressed because one would not necessarily have anticipated the Supreme Court judgment and the Law Reform Commission did not say the law was unconstitutional.

As the Minister has said, nobody would want to make it easier on the accused because of the circumstances and the vulnerability of children and that they would have to be interrogated in court. The case should have been anticipated so that when the decision was made, prompt action could be taken. There is no question but that the Government was taken by surprise and the Minister was not, unfortunately, jolted immediately into action. There will have to be systems to ensure the Minister anticipates serious cases such as this. I said on a previous occasion that it was interesting that the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform tried to anticipate the outcome of the Eurovision Song Contest but an issue as serious as this was not anticipated. Whatever the reason it should not happen again.

The Minister said there was a need to resource the DPP. There is a need to resource the DPP and the Attorney General's office to ensure appropriate communications and that cases such as this are anticipated in future.

I read the Law Reform Commission report but it did not state that the particular section was unconstitutional. It sought reform of the section but did not raise any such issue. I do not agree with everything in the Law Reform Commission report of 1990, some of which has been implemented. When dealing with this type of issue the Law Reform Commission needs to take into account that the people who would have made submissions would be the professionals who work in the area but not many parents would have made submissions. Parents have important views on this issue and that is the reason for the reaction and the protest outside the House.

I would not agree with the idea that we should allow for no crime if there was a five year difference because there is no equality between a 15 year old and a 20 year old. I don't even think there is equality between a 15 year old and a 17 year old. I agree that there should be no crime for sexual intercourse between children but there should be different levels of culpability. The signal should be sent out that we want to discourage teenagers of that age from having sexual intercourse. At the same time, there are ways around the issue of whether they would get custodial sentences. As far as I am aware, in England they differentiate between those under 18 and over 18 who commit crime, and they provide for lesser penalties. In addition, they have guidelines as to whether one would take a prosecution. Perhaps these are issues at which we here need to look. That is another day's work.

While I will discuss amendments put by my colleagues, I have decided not to table Labour Opposition amendments because much has been teased out. My view was always that the net issue had to be dealt with. I am glad the Minister did not lower the age of consent without a more comprehensive debate. My instinct would be against that but I would be willing to take part in a debate on it. I am glad he decided not to do that in this Bill.

There needs to be a further review. All the anomalies raised need to be looked at. These would be my main concern. Perhaps we should ask the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to look at this issue, particularly with a view to looking for anomalies and loopholes, and produce a report. It should not include all the other matters.

Perhaps some time we will decide to lower the age of consent. My view on it is that just because children are having sex at a particular age does not mean one should accept the reality and lower the standard. There are many children who do not. If we lower the age of consent, there is always a chance that there will be a percentage of children at a lower age having sex, and that is not behaviour we want to encourage.

There are many different ways in which we need to look at this. The Minister needs to ensure that we do not criminalise young people unnecessarily but at the same time we want to send out the correct signals to children.

My personal view is that those aged 16, 15 and 14 are still children and we should protect them. There are many reasons that it is better for them not to have sex at that age, for instance, they are not mature. All the studies about the development of the brain confirm that they are not mature at that age. They do not have physical maturity. There are all sorts of issues in the area of health, for instance, how being sexually active at that age might increase one's potential to get cervical cancer. All such issues must be taken into account.

Then there is the issue of how people feel about it. A report published recently stated that many people who had lost their virginity at a young age expressed regret. I acknowledge that there are many ways to deal with that issue, but not necessarily by lowering the age of consent.

A legitimate issue of gender equality has been raised. In fact, the Minister raised it and then we raised it. I can see from where he and the Government are coming on this issue. I accept the point that he does not wish to stigmatise teenage girls who get pregnant and realise he wants them to draw down all the available services. However, one wants to make sure that the fathers of the children, particularly if of a similar age, are included in terms of responsibility as a parent. That is a matter the Minister must take into account also.

On the other hand, in our society girls, including those as young as eight, are much more exposed to sexual issues than ever before. Ireland is lax about this matter. If one walks into a particular petrol station in my area looking for a newspaper or magazine, all one is faced with are the men's magazines, covered in the pictures with which we all are familiar, which take over the magazine stands. Not all petrol stations are like this; some are more discreet. There are children going into that petrol station to which I refer to buy sweets, etc. That is the type of view of womanhood with which young girls are faced.

There is a particular issue about protecting young girls because they are treated as objects more than is the case with boys. There are many issues such as peer pressure affecting them. As we all will be aware, peer pressure can even occur among people very close in age.

We should look at how other jurisdictions deal with the various issues. There is an issue, not necessarily surrounding not criminalising a teenage boy or teenage girl who is involved in sex, but perhaps to ensure that there is a lesser penalty and it is looked on differently.

We must examine how the UK, the US and other jurisdictions have dealt with this matter. A recent discussion panel on "The Late Late Show" included both a member of the Law Reform Commission and a mother of two sons. The latter referred to educating young people about sex and the law. Many people do not know the age of consent. Many newspapers have made mistakes in reporting the events of the past few weeks. They do not appear to understand what the law was before the constitutional case. We need to educate people to address the fears that stem from a lack of understanding. The steps outlined by the Minister must be taken, along with those suggested by Mr. Kieran McGrath in an article in Irish Social Worker. We need more education in respect of the law, which sends out messages to adults and children. The Minister's Department should take steps in this regard.