Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her response. I have found her concluding remarks very unsatisfactory and I would like to deal with some of the points that the Minister and Senator Norris made in this regard.

Our knowledge now of paedophilia and of the effects it has on victims is far superior than it might have been some decades ago when some of this went on. Therefore, it is important that we send the correct signals to society, perpetrators and the Judiciary as to where we rate this particular offence on the criminal code.

Senator Norris pointed out, and I had already made reference to it, the phrase "on summary conviction". Is it not the case, Minister, that when the evidence is gathered, and when the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions assesses that evidence, it will determine whether the charge will be made on summary conviction, on conviction on indictment or, if the case goes to a lower court, they might decide that it should be a conviction on indictment?

With regard to what Senator Norris has said, mens reais part of the defence, if it applies, that can be made in whichever court the case is in. Also, mens reaforms part of the consideration before the judgment is determined. That means there is nothing to prohibit the person before the courts, who is being charged, with being able to defend his or her position legally with the various arguments that his or her legal team can put forward in defence. What we are talking about here is after all of that and when the particular judgment has been made. We are talking about what the sentence should be and this is where I digress considerably with the Minister. She talked about various levels of exploitation. In the first instance, that will be taken into consideration, depending on whether the case goes forward on summary conviction or conviction on indictment. Some evaluation will be made with regard to that and with regard to the levels.

Section 3 clearly sets out that this is a deliberate attempt when somebody is found guilty for (a), (b) and (c). Section 3(1) states:

3. (1) A person who for the purposes of the sexual exploitation of a child—

(a) pays, gives, offers or promises to pay or give a child or another person money or any other form of remuneration or consideration,

(b) provides or offers or offers or promises to provide, a child to another person, or

(c) obtains a child for himself or herself or for another person,

shall be guilty of an offence.

Regardless of whether they were only the ones that got money from it, in my opinion they are as guilty as the people who sexually exploit the children. This comes back to the best interests of the child. I have to say that I was sceptical when I saw this Government put a referendum to the people about the best interests of the child. There is no Government in the history of the State, and in my lifetime, where the child is more vulnerable because of the actions of this Government over the period.