Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Stay Safe would not be in the style of a certain bishop of a diocese near Cork city.

I welcome the Bill. At the risk of attracting the sort of headline I do not want, I am mindful of a letter written by the late Judge O'Leary about some issues in life and society and the apparent determination to create a climate in which people can be easily branded. It is in this context that I will make a few comments which I hope are reasonably thoughtful.

The Labour Party had a hand in the legislation and the Minister responded promptly and efficiently when we raised the matter. The Bill is necessary to close a loophole. Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, in the past two years I have identified mistakes in three different Bills, two of which originated in the Other House. One, the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill, which had been in the Dáil for four years, had an in-built contradiction and the Minister had to return to the Other House to amend it. The second Dáil Bill was the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. Several weeks ago, amendments tabled by the Government to deal with the issue of nursing homes were shown to be in conflict with the Government's stated purpose and the legislation had to be amended on Report Stage. Quality assurance would be useful to ensure such errors do not occur. Given that none of the Bills in question was rushed, perhaps more questions and answers are required in the Office of the Parliamentary Draughtsman.

Pursuant to this issue, I will raise a number of points I am sure my Labour Party colleague in the Dáil raised last night. My party believes the 2006 Act mistakenly removed the offence of gross indecency from the Statute Book. We could argue forever about this offence but it emerged from the Ferns report that a particularly nasty, since deceased, individual whom I will not name was prosecuted with the offence of gross indecency. I understand the Minister indicated at the time that the offence was obsolete and perhaps he is correct. It was identified as one of a range of offences to protect children from offensive behaviour by adults. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the matter.

My party has tabled an amendment on another issue I wish to raise. I am enthusiastic about legislation to protect children and prevent grooming. We all accept that the offence of grooming should mean inducing, inviting or coercing children to engage in an illegal act. The phrase used in the Bill is "sexual exploitation". Who would object to people being penalised for anything which is intended to lead to the sexual exploitation of children? I unequivocally accept the requirement to do so.

Why does the provision prohibiting grooming, which is defined as meeting a child for the purposes of sexual grooming, require that a person must meet with a child on two or more previous occasions? Why is it that a person who can be shown to have met a child or attempted to meet a child for the purpose of sexual exploitation must do so on several occasions before he or she is deemed to have committed an offence? I may be missing something here but I would like this explained. If a person of my age meets a child and it is clear from the context of the first meeting that the purpose of that meeting is sexual exploitation, I do not see why a second or third meeting is required for an offence to be committed.

Another issue identified by my party's legal advisers relates to paragraph (b) of section 6. This paragraph provides for an amendment of section 3(3) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 in regard to the definition of sexual exploitation of a child. One element of this definition is "inviting, inducing or coercing the child to participate in or observe any activity of a sexual or indecent nature". Members should note that this provision does not refer to illegal activity of a sexual or indecent nature but any such activity. We should consider what this means.

Where does this provision leave a 17 year old who has a date with a 16 year old and engages in the types of activities in which teenagers have engaged for generations? Such activities are not illegal in this State and God forbid they ever should be. We cannot assume our children will remain entirely celibate from age 13 until adulthood. There is a degree of experimentation that happens among teenagers under 17 years of age. I understood us all to know the difference between such activity and sexual exploitation.

As the Bill is written, however, it is clearly an offence to invite or induce a child, as defined by this legislation, to participate in any activity of a sexual nature. We should think this through carefully. Is this what we want to do? We might all wish teenagers were more restrained in their activities; all generations would like the generation of teenagers that follows to be better behaved. One can only imagine how well behaved teenagers must have been 1,000 years ago. Marcus Aurelius or somebody else commented on the sinfulness of the next generation.

We are the first generation, however, that is in danger of turning what is part of growing up into an offence. The simple solution, which I understand is contained the British legislation, is that the definition of sexual exploitation should be amended to specify that an offence takes place where a child is invited, induced or coerced into participating in or observing any activity of a sexual or indecent nature that is unlawful. This would offer sufficient protection. As it stands, we are in danger of creating the offence of dating. That is the legal advice I have received. We are essentially saying that two teenagers who engage in activities that go beyond simply sitting in the cinema looking at each other are committing an offence. We all remember what it was like at that age.