Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

We are obviously meeting in quite extraordinary circumstances. I very much welcome the decision of the Supreme Court this afternoon to allow for the re-arrest of Mr. A, who was at the centre of the recent controversy. I listened to the 1 o'clock news and understand that Mr. Hogan's principal argument before the Supreme Court was that Mr. A had not raised the issue of constitutionality at the original trial. We have not yet seen the judgment and have just been informed of the court's decision but I wonder why the issue was not raised when the case was originally before the court. It seems it should have been a pretty seminal point in any appeal.

We all welcome the latest Supreme Court decision. The court originally struck down section 1(1) of the 1935 legislation on the basis that it did not provide for reasonable doubt in that the accused could not claim he did not know the age of the person concerned. Am I correct in saying Mr. A could not have used this defence because the child in question was 12 years of age? Will the Minister inform the Houses of the ages that obtained in the six other cases? If one of the girls in question had been 14 or 15, presumably it could be argued by the accused that he did not know her age. These issues are important and need to be raised because the defence of one not being reasonably aware of the age of the girl in question does not apply in Mr. A's case. However, it could well apply in the others and this caveat must be placed on the record of the House.

Last Wednesday I and other members of my party asked whether the Government could indicate the total number of cases the DPP had decided not to prosecute from January 2005 to 12 May. Has the Minister this information to hand? I understand the Tánaiste made a commitment in the Dáil yesterday that it would be to hand by yesterday evening and that we would have an indication of the total number of cases that would now not go to trial based on the striking down of section 1(1) of the 1935 Act by the Supreme Court last Thursday. This information would be useful.

I warmly welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. It is entirely right and proper that parliamentarians should comment on its decisions, primarily because it is the only one of our courts that can interpret the Constitution. If we cannot comment on its decisions, who else can?

I accept fully the common-sense approach to which Senator Tuffy and others referred. It is entirely appropriate for the Oireachtas to enact legislation setting out general principles on what it regards as appropriate behaviour. It may well happen in certain circumstances that the State will decide not to prosecute persons but this does not mean the Oireachtas should not have the power, in itself, to set out such general principles. I make this point because nobody is suggesting people who involve themselves in an action at a particular age, be it 15, 16 or 17, should be criminalised. However, it is entirely right that the Oireachtas should have a view and set out the general principles that apply to the mores and behaviour expected of people of a certain age.

I am sure the Minister accepts the concerns over the sexualisation of women of a very young age, and that age is becoming younger. There is a view that we should just accept it, but I do not agree with that. I speak to parents constantly and they are concerned about this increasing sexualisation of young girls. We have a responsibility to put general principles into our law. My party made this proposal to the Minister in regard to fining persons of a certain age as opposed to applying custodial sentences. In the Lower House, the Minister stated that he did not want working class boys being obliged to pay out €1,000 in the District Court. In this Bill, however, the minimum fine for an offence is €6,000, so I am not sure if his argument applies.

It was a retrograde step on the part of the Taoiseach in 1997 to incorporate the equality and law reform sections into the Department of Justice. A separate Department for equality and law reform needs to be created because the issues that have convulsed the nation in the past week would stand a better chance of being resolved away from the current Department, which deals with a range of issues related to the Garda, security and so on. We need to learn the lessons of the particular mistake to which I refer.