Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I appreciate the point made by Senators Norris and Ormonde regarding the functions of Seanad Éireann, which primarily relate to the revision of legislation. In the Government's defence, it has agreed that many of the issues that cannot be visited in this legislation will be revisited in the context of all-party consultations. In addition, extensive all-party consultations preceded the introduction of the legislation. While that does not address the interests of Independent Senators, who make such a marked contribution to the proceedings of Seanad Éireann, we are faced with the fact that since the Supreme Court decision last Tuesday week, an essential weapon in our armoury for the protection of children against predators has been absent and there is, therefore, considerable urgency about the enactment of this legislation. The Government has been criticised for not having a Bill ready the following day. This debate and our discussions in Government have demonstrated that these issues are not simple. Drafting legislation to address the immediate situation requires much consideration. I offer this as a defence to the criticism by Senators Norris and Ormonde of the expedition of this process.

I am aware that the Fine Gael Party is concerned to include targeting those with responsibility for children for penal sanction when they abuse the trust vested in them. The Government went some way to accommodating this by including different penalties and categories in section 3(1) for any person who defiles a child under the age of 17 years. Normally the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years but where he or she is a person in authority, the sentence is a term not exceeding ten years. A definition of a person in authority is included in the interpretation section, similar to the amendment tabled by Senator Cummins.

The Senator also proposes to legislate for a person more than 60 months older than the victim. I agree with the Senator's ambition but the Supreme Court judgment was based on the principle that a person making an honest mistake as to age should have a defence. For this reason, we should be cautious about introducing further terms or age limits in the primary legislation. We will not change the basic age limits prescribed in the 1935 legislation. It would be dangerous to introduce other periods of age or time in the context of the response to a Supreme Court judgment that stated that honest mistake as to age could be a defence.