Seanad debates

Wednesday, 7 March 2007

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Feargal QuinnFeargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Tánaiste to the House and welcome the Bill. I congratulate him on accepting Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion last week and for moving as quickly as he did. We are not used to speedy legislation like this. I note that the Tánaiste also praised Deputy Rabbitte, for which I congratulate him.

I abhor so-called quickie legislation, as I think we all do. We never want it and, therefore, in passing this Bill today, we do so with reluctance while recognising the need for it. We should be ashamed of ourselves, however, because we accepted so-called quickie legislation last year, in both Houses, and missed this particular point. We are not lawyers and cannot be expected to identify such points, but it concerns me when, on occasion, I see insufficiently serious attention being paid to some Bills.

I felt a great deal of pride when I was elected to this House, as all of us did. We accepted a great deal of responsibility on our shoulders to examine every Bill in detail. We clearly did not do that effectively last year. There are 166 Members of the Lower House and 60 Senators, but I am not sure how many spoke on the matter or investigated it. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not seeing it. Is it possible that the omission in last year's legislation was not a mistake but was done deliberately by a person in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel? It did not enter our heads until recently that such a scenario could arise.

I accept everything that has been said and share Senator Henry's sentiments, but let me take the case of the Control of Exports Bill that came through this House the week before last. That Bill enabled us to prosecute a citizen who acts as broker for the sale of armaments abroad. I asked the Minister if this was a sensible arrangement that could be enforced if that citizen left the country 20 or 30 years ago but still held an Irish passport. I suggested it would be better if the Bill referred to residents of Ireland. The Minister accepted my point and sought to find the correct word, be it resident, domicile or something else.

I mention this because, in section 6, this Bill refers to any citizen of the State who intentionally meets a child having met or communicated with that child on two or more occasions. Is it possible to enforce this legislation on a person who happens to be a citizen of Ireland but left ten or 20 years ago with no intention of returning? Can we bring this person back to Ireland or can we prosecute him or her in another country? The Minister has covered the other point I made last week relating to a resident of Ireland who travels to another region.

I congratulate the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, on the Bill and on moving as quickly as he did on the issue. I am ashamed that the Bill we passed last year created this problem without us noticing. This is why we must be very careful to avoid so-called quickie legislation that passes through without us paying the necessary attention.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.