Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister for State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to the House. I am delighted the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, was here. I compliment him on the outcome of today's appeal to the Supreme Court. The short-lived freedom of Mr. A, who is supposed to be resident in Bray at present, is of great relief to everyone concerned. He will be returned to Cloverhill Prison to serve out an extremely lenient sentence for the crime he committed against a 12 year old. It was outrageous that he availed of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down section 1(1) of the 1935 Act.

As far as I am concerned, section 1(1) of the Act was good. Did the Government consider an amendment to ensure that section 1(1) of the 1935 Act was made constitutional, by an amendment to that section to include males as well as females? Many inside and outside this House fundamentally disagree with the striking down of this section by a member of the Supreme Court, which is his authority and right. We are not in a position to criticise him but we can question that decision. I am not surprised that the Attorney General, the DPP and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were confident that the challenge to the striking down of the section would be successful. That is a fair assessment of the situation.

I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on his work in relation to children. He was very much involved in drafting this Bill. On television last night, both on the six o'clock news and "Prime Time", he allayed the fears of many people by his careful exposition of the situation. He wisely ensured he would not come into conflict in any way with the Supreme Court prior to its decision today.

Have the Minister of State and the Government considered whether the President will sign this Bill tonight? Is the Government arguing the case that it would be preferable to refer it to the Supreme Court to ensure its constitutionality? If this Act is challenged we will be back to square one. I do not recommend it but I put the question from the point of view——