The Oireachtas Committee on Children's Rights will have to bite the bullet on the age at which a child would be protected by any proposed legislation, according to Alan Shatter TD (FG). He was speaking at the first public meeting of the committee yesterday, which was addressed by the two rapporteurs, Prof Finbar McAuley and Geoffrey Shannon, who had prepared written reports for it.
Prof McAuley, who had prepared the report on the criminal law, said that a constitutional referendum was necessary to reinstate the offence of statutory rape, where sex with a child under a specified age was an offence of strict liability. There is a proposal before this committee from a previous committee that the age should be 16 generally, but 18 where the perpetrator is in a position of authority.
Brendan Howlin TD (Lab) asked him if he had any view of the age at which a child attracted such protection. He also asked him how he would deal with the issue of people in authority.
Prof McAuley said his opinion on the correct age was of no greater value than that of "the driver of the number 10 bus" as this was a judgment call rather than a legal issue. However, he stressed that any legislation that followed such a constitutional amendment should distinguish between older adults and young people of a similar age involved in sexual experimentation.
He also said that the law relating to sexual offences needed to be reviewed, and any law on statutory liability seen in the context of such a review.
Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan said that once you legislated for sexual experimentation among young people, consent became an issue. The whole question of strict liability meant that there could be no consent.
Michael Noonan TD (FG) said the only way to proceed was by constitutional amendment, and it would not be possible to get it by the effective deadline of St Patrick's Day unless the issue of strict liability was decoupled from that of more general protection of children.
Mr Shannon said that a constitutional amendment was needed to permit the vetting of those working with young and vulnerable people through the use of "soft" information. This was information that gave rise to concerns about a danger to children, without a conviction having been obtained against the person.