Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

-----under the issue of academic value.

We are trying to comply with the constitutional requirement in relation to the article on blasphemy and the requirement that it is to be punishable in accordance with the law. We are not having a constitutional referendum for the reason Senator Walsh referred to, namely, we have other priorities as a Government and as a Parliament. We should stick to those priorities and deal with this as much as possible.

In the Dáil we listened to the Opposition, which put forward reasonable amendments, despite the play-acting of the Labour Party in particular and, indeed, Fine Gael. I have no doubt Fine Gael got strong advice from its legal advisers, but it chose to ignore it, to the effect that there had to be an offence. Fine Gael decided to oppose the section, knowing well that any lawyer worth his or her salt would say that under the Constitution there is an absolute requirement to have this. That is the situation unless we change the Constitution.

We phrased and framed the new section 35, putting in a new definition of "blasphemous matter" along the lines proposed by the Law Reform Commission in its report. We included the term "outrage" as proposed by the Law Reform Commission so as not to widen the scope of the offence. We inserted a requirement for mens rea as regards intent. We wanted to avoid criminalising a person who might not know that the matter in question is insulting because he or she is not aware of a particular religion. There is no definition of religion. Again, in consideration of some of the points raised by Senator Mullen, that is to be left open to the court, which I believe will take a wide interpretation, particular on the issue of subsection (3).

We are taking out the imprisonment aspect. People say we should have left it alone, but we do not have that option because of the Corway case. However, if we were to leave it alone, it would mean someone could be put in prison for blasphemy for up to seven years. I am taking that out so there will be no provision for imprisonment under the legislation; there will be only a monetary sanction.

Senator Bacik raised the issue of the €25,000 - it was originally €100,000. This was to show that if there was to be a prosecution it should be in relation to a substantial rather than a relatively minor offence. As always, the jurisdiction on indictment is commenced in the Circuit Court and obviously there would be a right to appeal to the High Court ultimately. The reason we reduced the figure from €100,000 to €25,000 was to assuage some of the criticism that a fine of €100,000 was too large. The fine imposed was up to €100,000, it was at the discretion of the court. Reducing it to €25,000 still gives a signal to the effect that a prosecution is not to be taken unless a very serious offence is involved.