Dail Report:Minister for Justice Michael McDowell rejected claims that a loophole in the law had left children vulnerable to sexual predators.
He said that he had read and heard some comments over the past few days to the effect that children had been left unprotected against the nefarious activities of predators.
Even leaving aside for a moment that the provision had rarely if ever been used to convict persons, "there is no shortage of more serious offences which gardaí can use to charge persons".
The Dáil passed the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill to close the loophole.
"What has happened that has given rise to this Bill is that Section 6 of the 1993 Act was not updated when some of the sexual offences, for which it would be an offence to solicit or importune another person for the purpose of the commission of a sexual act, were repealed."
The Minister announced that he was accepting a Fine Gael Private Member's Bill introducing a sexual-grooming offence.
He had asked the Government to incorporate the substance of the Bill into the measure he was introducing.
Mr McDowell conceded that he and his officials had overlooked the issue last year.
But it was also true that when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) came before an all-party committee nobody had seen the loophole raised by Labour leader Pat Rabbitte, the Minister added.
"So it just shows you that when you scatter your legislation across a number of statutes, it is possible to make the error of the kind that was made on this occasion."
Fine Gael justice spokesman Jim O'Keeffe said that if Fine Gael had run its internet-grooming Bill in Private Member's time yesterday, it would have frustrated the Government's emergency legislation.
He added that Fine Gael was happy to withdraw its Bill to allow the Minister to go ahead and to facilitate the "repair session" which the Government was currently engaged in.
"As I said, this is a Bill that I first introduced almost three years ago.
"In the intervening period, I have received numerous assurances from the Government that a bigger, better Bill was being drafted and that it would soon be available."
Labour spokesman Brendan Howlin said the offence they were seeking to re-enact had a very curious legislative history, which seemed to have been characterised by some fundamental errors as to its purpose.
It was perhaps noteworthy, he said, that the legislative history was characterised by four guillotined debates, of which last night was the latest.
Arguing for constitutional clarity on the Government's Bill, Mr Howlin said the Minister had argued that, in general terms, statues dealing with offences against children were not unconstitutional simply because no defence as to the age of the child was spelled out in the legislation.
"But defences are put into Acts creating offences not just because the Constitution requires them.
"They are also put into Acts so that the Oireachtas can define the substance of those defences, instead of leaving the courts at large and without guidance.
"If the courts are obliged to read a defence of mistake into this Bill, on whom will the burden of proof lie?"
Sinn Féin spokesman Aengus Ó Snodaigh called for a coherent code of law covering offences against children to be produced, adding that provision should also be made for mandatory protection for vulnerable child witnesses during all court proceedings.
