Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I join Senator Cullinane in very much welcoming Senator van Turnhout's initiative in tabling the amendment for debate. I agree with her sentiments although, as Senator Cullinane has said, the issues raised are so complex I am not sure about the wording that has been used. The amendment is welcome because it gives us the opportunity to debate a couple of issues. The amendment tabled by Senator van Turnhout raises the issue around what she has described as consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity, essentially between teenagers where there is an age difference of not greater than two years. This issue concerns the age of consent, which like Senator Cullinane I believe should be lowered to 16, not least because that is the age of consent to medical treatment under the 1997 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, so it would tally with that.

I was also very much encouraged in that view by a recent seminar on the age of consent that both the Minister and I attended. The seminar, which was hosted by the Royal College of Physicians, was held a couple of weeks ago during the first sexual health awareness week. At that meeting the issues Senator van Turnhout seeks to address were central to the debate which was led by young people in transition year who participated and who had mixed views about lowering the age. Many of those present seemed to think 16 would be a more reasonable age. That is somewhat different from what Senator van Turnhout seeks to do, but it is similar. One of the difficulties with the wording is to say that this is consensual activity where in fact it is not legal currently if the teenagers concerned are younger than 17. There are complex issues at play.

A second issue that is raised in the amendment, which again is useful in terms of debate and which we debated on Second Stage and in the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, is that of reasonable excuse. In section 2 the offence of withholding information provides that it is an offence to fail to disclose information without reasonable excuse. One of the points the committee made in its report to the Minister is that many of those who had given evidence to the committee hearings had submitted that there should be a detailed list of what constitutes reasonable excuse. In a sense, section 4 sets out a range of circumstances, essentially of defences, but what Senator van Turnhout is doing is showing us that there is not a definition of reasonable excuse itself currently in the legislation. She has suggested one definition. It is a complex area as to what should constitute reasonable excuse. I raised a number of points on it on Second Stage. I was reminded of it again this morning at a conference on mediation organised by the Legal Aid Board at which I was speaking about the heads of the mediation Bill that we are also dealing with in the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. The Minister will be aware of the issues as he has great experience in this area.

One of the points raised with me is that frequently in the course of family law disputes and in mediation on family law issues is that there is disclosure of abuse during the proceedings and the negotiations and that it can place practitioners in a difficult position, especially if they believe the disclosure is made for particular reasons. I do not wish to press that point because I do not suggest that should be included within the definition of reasonable excuse, but for me it illustrated the practical difficulties the legislation will face in its implementation by such a wide range of people, not just counsellors and doctors who deal directly with children but also people who deal at arm's length with the parents of children where disclosures are made.

These are complex issues and I do not have an answer, but Senator van Turnhout has done us a service in raising the issues around age of consent and the definition of reasonable excuse. I would ask the Minister perhaps to consider whether there can be any way of constructing an amendment on Report Stage that would take account of some of the concerns that have been raised.