Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I too welcome the Minister and the Bill itself, which is an example of political parties co-operating on questions of importance and real concern to people rather than turning them into partisan issues. That is to the benefit of the Houses and society as a whole. This Bill arises from the emergency legislation passed last year, but everyone in the House welcomed it at the time because there was a need to fill the lacuna that existed as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in the CC case, in which the defence of honest mistake was upheld, thus affecting the Statute Book. If the emergency legislation had not been passed, we would have created a much more serious situation in which serious offences would not have been prosecuted.

It is inevitable that where legislation is passed in an emergency, not everything may be picked up, leading to the scenario that has arisen in this case. That is why in the Houses we have a general tradition of not taking all sections of Bills together and allowing time for them to be digested and considered after Second Stage and for amendments to be tabled in a sensible manner. That is good practice, but there are times, such as arose last year, where that is not practical.

I also welcome the Minister's outline of the change in the offence of soliciting or importuning. Hitherto it has been a summary offence, but it is now to be indictable. Neither have there been powers of detention, and the case would be heard in the district court, but now it is rightly to be treated as a much more serious offence. In that regard, the Joint Committee on Child Protection, of which the Minister was a prominent member, recommended the enactment, as a legislative priority, of an offence of child sex abuse, following proposals from the Law Reform Commission. Such an offence would include other forms of sexual contact or behaviour falling short of full sex. It very much falls into that category, and the Minister has followed part of that report by introducing this legislation and treating the crime as the serious offence it is.

Child protection is a major issue, but I have also seen instances where people who were somewhat mentally impaired were taken advantage of. It is very much appropriate that there be protection for them in this legislation too. I note the Minister's comments on the defence of honest mistake and his belief that it is unnecessary to include it in the legislation. It struck me that if one introduced one of the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Child Protection into all legislation, namely, if we created a zone of absolute protection through a constitutional amendment, one would have legislation on the Statute Book at absolute variance therewith. That situation might ultimately prove even more serious, so there is a strong element of logic in what is being said and in the line being taken.

I very much welcome section 4, which deals with what the Minister referred to as sex tourism. It is abhorrent that people who are upstanding citizens at home should deviate from those standards when they go abroad. That many western tourists have gone to Asia and elsewhere to exploit children involved in the sex trade is unacceptable. I welcome the fact that that offence, if committed abroad, will incur the same judicial process and penalty as if it were committed in this country. That is a good measure. One section provides that this offence can now lead to bail being refused on certain grounds, which is also a good proposal. These are serious offences and should be considered as such. We regard the downloading of child pornography from the Internet as a serious offence, so surely somebody soliciting or grooming a child for sexual activity is committing an even more serious offence. I am glad that provision is in the Bill and that the offence will be added to the list of offences which can require a person to be placed on the sex offenders' register.

Section 3(2A)(a) as inserted by section 6 of the Bill refers to: "Any person who . . . intentionally meets, or travels with the intention of meeting, a child, having met or communicated with that child on 2 or more previous occasions." Why is the number 2 cited rather than it being on any occasion. Is there a significance with regard to the number 2 being included in the paragraph?

Would that section cover grooming or preparing a child for any sort of immoral activity short of full penetrative sex? All speakers would agree that when it comes to children, we cannot be too protective. During recent decades, various crimes have come to light, not just in Ireland but also across the western world and, I am sure, further afield, which have clearly illustrated the need for absolute diligence and care in this respect. The Bill represents a positive step in that direction. I commend the Minister on introducing it and look forward to it being passed by the House, as it has been by the Dáil.