I wish to share my time with Deputy Eoin Ryan who is presenting this Bill with me.
Private Members' Business. - Child Pornography Bill, 1996: Second Stage.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The exploitation and sexual abuse of children for commercial purposes is a problem that is not confined to any one nation. It is an international phenomenon which is universally condemned. Unfortunately condemnation is not sufficient. Moral opprobrium is not sufficient to deter the people involved in this evil business. Something more is needed. Most of the data which exist regarding the extent and nature of the problem have focused on North America and Northern Europe.
The 1986 report of the permanent subcommittee on the investigations of the United States Senate concluded that the US market for child pornography is widely thought to be the most lucrative in the world. In developing countries, the extent and existence of child pornography is often dwarfed by the magnitude of other problems such as poverty, infant mortality, hunger and disease. There is little reliable data on the subject. It is internationally recognised that children are at risk from those who engage in the production, exhibition, distribution and consumption of child pornography.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which has been ratified by an overwhelming majority of nations identifies child pornography as a violation against children and requires that nations who are parties take measures to prevent the exploitative use of children in pornographic materials. Article 34 of the Convention requires countries to take "...all appropriate national, bilateral and multinational measures to prevent ... the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity ... and the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials".
Legal measures to deal with child pornography vary considerably among European countries with no common approach to production, distribution or possession of child pornographic material. In England and Wales the Protection of Children Act, 1978, makes it a criminal offence to take, distribute, exhibit or possess even one indecent photograph of a child. In the Netherlands, the manufacture, dissemination, transport and export of child pornography is illegal. In April 1995 the law in the Netherlands was changed to provide sanctions for the possession of child pornography. Section 207a of the Australian penal code, passed in July 1994, imposes criminal liability for the possession or acquisition of child pornography.
Ireland has many statutes directed towards criminalising sexual conduct involving children. Those who would seek to produce pornographic material involving children in this country can rightly suffer a wide range of sanctions. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, makes it a felony for any person to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15 years. The penalty for this offence is a sentence of imprisonment up to and including life. Consent is not an issue. The offence is there to protect young women. The age of consent in Ireland is 17 years. It is an offence punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment for any person to have unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl between the age of 15 and 17 years. Consent is not an issue. The prohibition is on the act, as the law correctly concludes that a child of that age is not in a position to give an informed consent to sexual activity of this nature.
The Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, and the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, provide for a sentence of imprisonment of up to life imprisonment for the offence of rape. It is worthy of note that a sentence of life imprisonment was actually imposed by a judge in the Central Criminal Court in recent weeks after a lengthy contested trial. The 1990 Act also provides for a sentence of up to life imprisonment for other acts of sexual violation which are now described as rape, contrary to section 4 of the 1990 Act.
We can, I believe, be satisfied that our laws are adequate to deter the manufacture or production of child pornography in this country. That is not the end of the matter. Filth of this nature is only produced because there is a demand for it. It is produced because there is a market for it. People are involved in the distribution, sale and purchase of child pornography. It is an evil trade designed to corrupt and has no place in a free society. The Bill which I introduced today is one which I believe will command the support of all Deputies. It is one which has no party political purpose. The objects of this Bill fit comfortably within the ideals of every political party and every individual Deputy. It is a Bill designed to decimate a trade in degradation by criminalising the possession of child pornography.
It fills a gap in our legislation, a gap which has become all the more apparent because of the prevalence of home-video cameras and selfdeveloping cameras. It is a Bill which will have a very small impact on the world market in child pornography. If enacted and enforced by all countries it would decimate this evil trade throughout the world. By enacting this Bill we can take a small but significant step towards curtailing child pornography.
The Bill prohibits the possession of indecent material and indecent photographs. There have been difficulties in other jurisdictions in the past in defining child pornography. This Bill seeks to avoid those difficulties by relying on internationally accepted definitions. In defining what is meant by child pornography, the Bill uses the definition adopted by the Council of Europe i.e. "any audio visual material which uses children in a sexual context" and the definition used by the International Criminal Police Organisation INTERPOL i.e. "the visual depiction of the sexual exploitation of a child, focusing on the child's sexual behaviour or genitals". By adopting these internationally accepted definitions of child pornography it is intended that the prohibition contained in the Bill should apply to all categories of internationally recognised child pornography.
In the Bill the age of 18 years is used as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as being a person under the age of 18 years. I recognise this definition is far from being universally accepted. In all Australian states and territories child pornography legislation defines "child" as a person under 16 years of age. In Canada a minor, for the purposes of child pornography, is a person under 18 years of age. In various jurisdictions of the United States minors as young as 15 may legally consent to sexual activity with an adult. However, the same adult could not create, distribute or possess a visual record of that activity because federal child pornography statues define a minor as any person under 18 years of age. The definition of "child" contained in this Bill is internationally recognised and accepted.
The Bill is directed at every category of exploiter in the child pornography industry. It is directed at the producers, including photographers, publishers and creators of home videos. It is directed at the middlemen including procurers and compliant parents. It is directed at the distributors as well as child pornography collectors. I hope the enactment of this Bill, if accepted by the Government, will represent an ever present cloud of worry for all those who participate, at whatever level, in this evil trade.
The Bill seeks also to deal with difficulties which arise from modern computer technology. It is regrettable that its development has made a tremendous impact on the production and distribution of child pornography. It has transformed the production of child pornography into a sophisticated global cottage industry. Anyone with access to a computer and a modem has access to commercial on-line services and to the Internet, a remarkable global network of nearly 30 million people joined by computers. Amongst many other things such access means it is possible to send and receive pornography. The Internet is becoming an increasingly significant factor in child sexual exploitation. This House will have to be vigilant and aggressive in devising means of protecting children from the misuse of this technology. The Bill recognises that images can be distorted and altered by the use of computers and it includes what are termed pseudo-photographs in the category of materials prohibited.
The World Congress Against the Commercial Exploitation of Children which took place in Stockholm in August was the culmination of a process of global mobilisation against the commercial sexual exploitation of children which began in 1994 when the "End Child Prostitution in Asia Tourism Campaign" was launched. A total of 1,341 delegates from 125 countries participated in the congress which called for increased protection of children, including the criminalisation of the possession of child pornography. This Bill is a response to that call. I met the Irish branch of UNICEF which strongly advocated the introduction of a Bill which criminalised the possession of child pornography.
The provision of penalties for the offence of possession of child pornography is guaranteed to strike fear into the hearts of the ultimate consumers of this wicked enterprise. If there was no demand there would be no production and if there was no production there would be no exploitation of innocent children on the scale which, regrettably, takes place. There is a direct causal connection between the ultimate purchaser of child pornography and the corruption and exploitation of children. This is why the Bill proposes a sentence of one year's imprisonment and a fine of up to £1,000 in respect of the offence of possession of an indecent photograph or any other indecent material defined in the Bill. People who use or possess child pornography must be made responsible for what they have brought about. They are responsible for encouraging and fuelling the child pornography industry which is socially and morally re-prehensible and causes harm to the most vulnerable members of society. For those reasons, it is a proper area for the criminal law to act in and restrict and for society, through the Legislature, to intervene in and create criminal penalties.
I hope that with the co-operation of Members this measure can become law in the near future. I also hope it will be enforced with determination as the imposition of jail sentences on a number of people for the possession of child pornography will have the effect of decimating this trade. We can do no more than legislate for our own country and co-operate with international bodies in seeking to outlaw trade in this material. If all countries were to act in a similar fashion it would result in a global crackdown on child pornography and those who prosper from it.
Adults who participate in the child pornography industry deserve to be condemned and punished. However, there are different degrees of participation in this industry. For example, the ultimate purchaser is in a different position from the manufacuturer or distributor who have made a commercial decision to become involved in this trade for monetary gain. Different criteria must apply to persons who deal in or promote child pornography by way of sale or distribution. They are the godfathers of this type of crime and must be treated seriously. They are directly responsible for the commission of reprehensible actions against children for monetary reward. The punishment for these offences must reflect the evil involved. The Bill proposes a penalty of ten years' imprisonment and-or a fine of up to £100,000 for persons found in possession of child pornography for the purpose of distribution. This is a potentially harsh punishment but it will punish those people responsible for particularly despicable actions.
The punishments proposed in the Bill are neither excessive nor unjust. They fit the crimes involved and are richly deserved by those who participate in this trade. We must ensure that people who are not deterred from participating in the child pornography industry on moral grounds will be deterred from participating in it on financial or other grounds. We must put all the obstacles available to a democratic society in the path of the purveyors of child pornography. Every possible deterrent must be used and, if necessary, people must be sent to jail for lengthy periods. The Bill contains the usual ancillary powers of search and arrest necessary to make its primary objectives enforceable. It is also designed to permit the Garda to root out and pursue all involved in the child pornography trade.
I earnestly ask all Members to support the Bill. I acknowledge that the Minister of State and the Minister for Justice have shown considerable generosity in the past in accepting Opposition Bills. I have responded to this attitude by keeping a completely open mind on Committee Stage and by accepting reasonable amendments which leave the central purpose of the Bill intact.
The criminal law is the sole weapon in a democratic society for countering evil and it should not be used in a profligate or dispassionate manner. We must move slowly when creating criminal offences and be sure that the activity involved warrants criminal sanction. The possession of child pornography is a reprehensible activity which deserves criminal sanction. The measures proposed in the Bill do no more than bring Ireland into line with other countries in the western world which, during the past five years, have found it necessary to amend their laws so that they can fight more effectively against child pornography. This is a measured, limited and potentially effective Bill and the only persons who will suffer from its enactment are those who participate in the trade of child pornography either as dealers or consumers. I am sure that, like me, Deputies have little sympathy for people who are directly responsible for the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children. They should be on the receiving end of the criminal law and the existence of a statute such as this will act as a considerable deterrent.
I commend the Bill to the House and earnestly request all Members to support it. I ask the Government to accept the Bill in the full and certain knowledge that the Opposition can present legislation but it is the Government who decides whether it is enacted.
The legislation is necessary at this juncture, it is extremely unfortunate and tragic that it has to be introduced but there is no escaping the necessity for it. I ask the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, to accept the legislation in the spirit of magnanimity in which it is put forward. This House will do a great service to the public if it enacts this legislation.
This Bill is being put forward with the best of intentions. At the conference in Sweden the Minister of State and I attended workshops which dealt with the exploitation of children, an issue about which everyone feels very strongly.
The Child Pornography Bill has been put forward in response to the massive public concern at the increase in child sexual abuse and the discovery of individuals and groups who have preyed on young children who have had no protection from the State or its institutions. The Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, introduced by Fianna Fáil and at present before the President for signature, will outlaw sex tourism, while this Bill will close loopholes in the law which enable child sex abusers to ply their evil trade through photograph collections, contact magazines and the Internet. For paedophiles pornography is the theory and child sex abuse is the practice. The two are proven to be directly connected in a series of respected academic studies. It we are serious about tackling child sexual abuse, we must first ban the production, sale, distribution and possession of this form of pornography. The Bill will enable us to achieve these objectives and I urge the Government to support it.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, ratified in Ireland in 1992, imposed an obligation on States to protect children from "all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or other persons who have care of the child". Under Articles 34 and 35 of the convention we are obliged to put in place legislation and policing measures "to prevent any coercion of children to engage in unlawful sexual activity, prostitution or exploitative pornographic performances". Almost seven years later, despite a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission to introduce a new specific offence of child sexual abuse and in the face of sexual scandals exposed on a weekly basis by the popular press, we the legislators have failed to tackle the abusers. Fianna Fáil's Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill and this Child Pornography Bill are two concrete actions now under way. We owe it to all the children concerned to put in place these basic measures as a matter or urgency.
Article 40.6.1.ºi. of the Constitution provides that "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law". The limitations of existing legislation to control the production or possession of pornography is shown in the judicial and public perception of section 1 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1946. This section defines "indecent" as including "suggestive or inviting to sexual immorality or unnatural vice or likely in any other similar way to corrupt or deprave". Pornography is now seen to be a relative term, in the sense that it relates to what the individual sensitivities of the public will tolerate. The current emphasis in the objection to pornography is the direct link to violence against women. Society objects to depictions of women and children as sexually subordinate objects and willing victims of sexual violence. While there may be an ongoing debate regarding the commercialisation of pornography and the availability of magazines on the shelves of newsagents in recent months, there can be no doubt that child pornography in its explicit or subtle form will not be tolerated in modern Irish society. Criminal sanctions against distributors, retailers and others who allow pornography to become available to children are the best way of enforcing this principle. In general, if younger people see women treated as mere objects for sexual gratification, we must balance educational initiative in our schools to counter this message which pervades from many magazines, videos, songs and television programmes. This is not thought control, but a reasoned and proactive response from legislation to a reality in a free information society. The Video Recording Act, 1995 is a step in the direction of ensuring that children in particular are not exposed to gratuitous sexual or violent scenes through age certification of films. The policing of such measures can be effective only if it is carried out at the production and distribution levels.
It is difficult for us as legislators and parents to utter the realities of child sexual abuse and its expression in child pornography. It is accepted by law enforcement agencies, including the Garda Dublin Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Unit that there are three types of paedophiles. There are those who "groom" children; there is the introverted offender who hangs around outside school gates and there is the sadistic offender who has to hurt children to get sexual pleasure. He is more likely than any other child abuser to abduct and murder his victim. The horror of children abducted and murdered in Belgium has brought this reality home to many of us. Many paedophiles claim that children are wicked little creatures, wanting and waiting for sex and throwing temptation in the paths of unsuspecting adults. One paedophile said he could not be expected to resist the advances of children "after all they know exactly what they are doing". An expert who spoke at the conference said it is common for paedophiles to show no remorse and that they believe the child encouraged them to carry out the act. Therefore, child pornography is not the tawdry glamour of the playboy centrefolds, but the evidence recorded on film or video type of serious sexual assaults on young children.
Child pornography ranges from posed photographs of naked and semi-naked children, showing various explicit acts and other base activities. Children of all ages are photographed. The reality of child pornography is that it cannot be produced without a child being sexually abused. Failure to grasp that essential truth which, above all else, separates it from adult pornography lies behind 20 years of legislative confusion throughout the world. In those twenty years child pornography has become established as a world wide commodity.
Magazines are sent to customers in Ireland, the rest of Europe and the United States. The single largest geographical source of commercial child pornography has been Scandinavia. In 1969 Denmark removed all restrictions on the production and sale of any type of pornography. The result was a short lived explosion in adult pornography and the birth of the commercial child pornography. The most widely traded child pornography magazine originated in Denmark. The magazine, written in A5 format, with a colour cover of a naked child, frequently no more than five years old, is depraved. Some of the photographs inside are of toddlers in various poses. These magazines also provide a contact service for paedophiles enabling them to advertise for child pornography and child sexual partners. While legislation in recent years has clamped down on the production of such material, the collectors of these magazines have become the new producers for the child porn industry. Individual paedophiles are now known to record themselves abusing children in photographs and on videos. They are then sold, bartered or exchanged with other abusers. In effect, legislation aimed at eliminating child pornography has merely eliminated the middle man, requiring paedophiles to deal directly with each other. Although the abuse they record may have taken place years before, the paedophile industry continually recycles it.
A paedophile involved with a child or with several children realises that his victims will grow older and out of his age or development preference. The paedophile also recognises that there will be periods in his life when he will not have a victim to molest. Paedophiles therefore have a compelling need to record the act of physical molestation with their victims. They will use whatever tools are available, ranging from memory, diaries, computer recordings photographs, films or video tapes. The most graphic and popular method now used for paedophile rings is the Internet where photographs and descriptions of child sex abuse are freely traded by paedophiles. The existence of these pornographic images is especially disturbing to the exploited child who lives with the knowledge that a record of his or her humiliation endures for years afterwards.
The US Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act which sought to protect children by banning material with indecent content from computerised network. Contravention of the Act was punishable with a fine of up to $250,000 and two years in jail. It was struck down in June, 1996 as being unconstitutional but I understand it is currently the subject of a Supreme Court appeal.
There are certain software producers available which enable parents and teachers to block the availability of certain programmes on the Internet to children although none of these are regarded as fully effective. The challenge of restricting access to child pornography on the Internet is addressed in the Child Pornography Bill which makes illegal the possession of any photographic image which may be an image made by computer graphics or stored on computer disc or other electronic means.
The less explicit version of child pornography is the soft kiddie porn which is subtly presented in advertising promotional material. As a society we must attempt to draw a line, however difficult this may be, between acceptable portrayal of children in advertising and the unacceptable presentation of children by sexual innuendo. We recently had a public outcry when a young girl was portrayed in a provocative manner in an advertisement in a popular magazine. While most advertisers are careful to portray children as children, some have stepped over the line.
Society cannot claim to abhor the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and women in pornography and yet allow the portrayal of children as sexual objects in the popular press and in advertising. The sight of young children selling jeans in a seductive manner pleases paedophiles. We all know children do not naturally sit or look that way. We learned at the congerence in Sweden that paedophiles are attracted to this. At one of the workshops people showed a collection of such photographs found in paedophile houses. This is glamorising children as sexual objects by presenting them in inappropriate sexual contexts. Children should be protected, loved and nurtured not used and abused. They should be treated as children.
I encourage consumers, when faced with this type of unacceptable advertising, to write to the Advertising Standards Authority, refuse to buy products which use children in this way, tell manufacturers what they are doing and why and become more aware of how children are being used. This type of pornography is also referred to indirectly in the Bill in regard to photographs of an indecent natre presented to give the impression that the subject is a child even though the subject may be an adult dressed or undressed as if the subject were a child.
The Bill creates the specific offence of taking any indecent photograph or photographic image relating to a child and also makes it an offence to distribute, show or have such photographs in one's possession or to publish or adver such photographs. The Bill covers not only photographs and text for magazines and written publications, but also photographs and text on any computer media whether on disc or on the Internet.
The Bill also envisages the prosecution of companies if they are the offender and will prevent individuals hiding behind limited liability companies as the producer, importer or seller of such indecent material. The directors and officers of the company can be personally prosecuted if they are responsible for the offence.
The Bill also gives a right of entry, search and seizure following a District Court order made on the application of a Garda inspector who has reasonable grounds to suspect a premises contains or is being used for the promotion or sale of child pornography. The Bill refers to a power of forfeiture which closes a major legal loophole where pornographic material is confiscated by the State for destruction. It could be returned to the offender under current legislation. The Bill also imposes a fine of six months on summary conviction and up to three years on indictment for possession or promotion of child pornography.
I urge all parties and the Government to support the Bill.
The Government has no objection, in principle, to what this Bill sets out to achieve and for that reason is not opposing its Second Reading. I want to make it clear, however, that I will be proposing an alternative approach which will have the effect of achieving the Bill's objective, but in a more complete and effective manner. My approach will involve bringing forward proposals for updating our law in this area and giving effect to those proposals by way of amendments to the Children Bill, 1996. That Bill is currently awaiting Second Stage in this House and already contains a number of child protection provisions. By adopting that course I expect the law will be updated with the minimum of delay and there will be no need to progress this Bill any further. Notwithstanding the work of Deputies O'Donoghue and Eoin Ryan on the Bill, I consider that the alternative approach I am proposing will be in the best interests of children. I say that because there is no getting away from the fact that the Bill before us is seriously flawed and would not do enough to protect children.
There has been a heightened awareness of the problems of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation following the discovery of the Belgian paedophile ring last August and the Stockholm World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children the same month. Those events gave a massive impetus to progress in this area and ensured the problem of child sexual abuse found its rightful place at the top of political agendas.
The detection of the paedophile ring in Belgium shocked not just the Belgian people but people all over Europe and beyond. While there had been concern about child sexual abuse before that case, for many that concern manifested itself in an abstract way. There may also have been a naivety in many quarters about the nature and extent of such abuse. The Belgian case changed all that. It opened our eyes to the vileness of paedophile rings and showed us how organised paedophiles are.
The second event in August that highlighted the child sexual abuse problem was the Stockholm World Congress which the two Deputies mentioned. Ireland sent to that congress a strong team which I headed and a number of Deputies and Senators also attended including Deputy Eoin Ryan, one of the co-authors of this Bill. That congress made a valuable contribution in drawing attention to the extent of child sexual exploitation but also, importantly, in setting out an agenda for action. That agenda sets out a practical plan for progress on a number of forms of sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography, to which I will return later.
In the context of pornography generally, there are differences of opinion about whether it leads to sexual abuse. Put briefly, there are two opposing camps — those who argue pornography causes sexual abuse and those who maintain it may be cathartic, that it may provide a release for the urges of those with perverse inclinations. Where child pornography is concerned, however, I regard that debate as irrelevant. I take that view because a crucial point that needs to be borne in mind where child pornography is concerned is that its very production involves child sexual abuse. Much of that abuse is of a very serious nature. There is no doubt that child pornography is a serious problem and many aspects of it involve many people at different levels, from those engaged in the production of child pornography to other who distribute it and those who consume it.
The question of what constitutes child pornography is quite a complex issue. Standards applied in different societies or countries are highly subjective and contingent upon differing moral, cultural, sexual, social and religious beliefs that do not readily translate into law. Even defining what constitutes child pornography in any one country can prove a difficult task.
Another problem one encounters when dealing with child pornography is the dearth of information on the extent and nature of the problem. It is difficult to get hard information on the extent of the problem here and it is of little consolation that similar situations seem to apply in other jurisdictions. Most of the available data concern North America and Northern Europe, places that have played a key role in the production, distribution and consumption of child pornography.
In developing countries the view has been expressed that the child pornography problem is not of the same magnitude as other problems such as poverty, infant mortality, hunger and disease and, not surprisingly, in those countries there is often little reliable data on the subject. Nevertheless, it is fair to conclude that the pornographic exploitation of children is a phenomenon that exists worldwide and it would be foolhardy of us to assume we are in some way immune to it.
Estimates of the number of children worldwide involved in child pornography range from thousands to hundreds of thousands. While it is very difficult to obtain accurate date, the extent of the availability of child pornography indicates that a significant number of children are being sexually exploited in this way. In most countries it is children such as those on the margins of society or those from deprived backgrounds who are especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation and to being seduced and coerced into the production of pornographic material.
It would, however, be naive to assume that these children are the only victims. Producers of child pornography frequently target children with whom they have contact through their work or otherwise. Sadly, in many countries, including developed countries, it is the unfortunate reality that child victims may come from homes where their parents use them to create child pornography or where their parents offer them to others for the same purpose.
Tackling the problem can be difficult due to a lack of clarity about what constitutes child pornography, the lack of data regarding its production and distribution and the shifting patterns of production and consumption. As many Deputies will be aware, technological developments have made it even more difficult to tackle the child pornography problem. Many people associate the Internet with the problem, but other newer technologies are involved too.
Child pornography seriously affects its child victims. There is the trauma attached to the making of child pornography. This can involve the vilest of sexual abuse. I will spare the House the details of the depths of depravity that can be involved. The trauma for many of the children abused in the making of child pornography may be compounded by other forms of abuse. They may, for example, be forced into prostitution with all that that entails.
As it does in relation to many other child-related matters, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out a clear international standard for us to follow in tackling the child pornography problem. At a general level, Article 19 of the convention requires States parties to take appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child. Of particular relevance in the current context is Article 34 which provides that States parties shall undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual abuse. The article goes on to state that for these purposes, States' parties shall, in particular, take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent, among other abuses, the exploitative abuse of children in pornographic performances and materials.
The Stockholm World Congress elaborates on the requirement of the convention in its Agenda for Action to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The congress's Agenda for Action calls for action from States to promote better international co-operation. Measures at that level are intensifying.
Within Europe undoubtedly effective action has been taken in relation to the problem of child sexual abuse and exploitation in the course of our Presidency of the European Union. For the benefit of Members who may not be fully aware of these developments, I shall give the House a brief outline of the action taken.
Trafficking in persons and the sexual exploitation of children was one of the priorities of the Irish Presidency. Events in Belgium served to make us all the more determined and focused our attention on ensuring that all appropriate action was taken to deal with the problem, with particular emphasis on child sexual exploitation. To underline that fact I should point that the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 and 29 November, in which I participated, gave political approval to a number of important measures to tackle the problem of trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children.
The first measure was an Irish Presidency proposal to extend the mandate of the European Drugs Unit to trafficking in human beings which will cover the activities of paedophiles and those who supply children to them as well as the trafficking in women for the purposes of sexual exploitation. In effect, this will confer on the European Drugs Unit the responsibilities in relation to this form of activity which will be held ultimately by the EDU's successor, EUROPOL, when the convention establishing that organisation is ratigied by all EU member states. The extension of the European Drugs Unit remit will facilitate co-operation, the exchange of information between police forces and allow that unit to provide any assistance it can in relation to these activities.
The second measure agreed was a Belgian proposal to establish a programme for the exchange and training of persons responsible for dealing with sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings.
The third measure was a joint Belgian-Irish Presidency proposal concerning the creation of a directory of competences and specialisations in the fight against particular crimes of this nature. Those proposals will significantly assist international co-operation between operational police forces.
The fourth measure approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council is probably the most relevant in the context of this Bill: the council approved a joint action obliging all member states to undertake a major review of their laws on the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings. This will mean that all member states will render trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children criminal offences and provide for the punishment of perpetrators of those offences. Of particular importance is a commitment by member states to ensure that all aspects of the exploitative use of children in pornography is criminalised including the production, sale, distribution and possession of such pornography.
The Stockholm Agenda for Action calls for various measures to protect children at national level. Before going on to talk about changes in the law in relation to child pornography, I want to refer briefly to the problem posed by the Internet in this regard. For some time I have been concerned at the manner in which the Internet is being used not just to carry child pornography but for a variety of other harmful purposes. To address the problem, officials from the Department of Justice met representatives of the Irish Service Providers and UNICEF in early October and discussed the problems which had to be faced in addressing this difficult issue. It was generally acknowledged that controlling pornography on the Internet raised a wide variety of technical and legal issues which could not be addressed exclusively on the domestic front. The option of some form of self-regulation by the service providers was discussed and will be re-examined shortly.
However, because the harmful use of the Internet extends beyond its use for child pornography, the Department of Justice proposed to proceed with the establishment of an interdepartmental group to study all the implications of the Internet.
As part of a further initiative, the Taoiseach asked the Minister for Justice recently to set up a group to tackle the problem of harmful and illegal content on the Internet, including child pornography, and to specifically include representatives from the private sector. It is proposed to bring together the thrust of these ideas and arrangements are in hand to establish a group that will include both public and private sector enterprise.
One of the principal means of enhancing protection of children is through changes in the law. The Agenda for Action specifically calls on States to develop, strengthen and implement national laws to establish the criminal responsibility of service providers, customers and intermediaries in child pornography, including possession of child pornography.
The existing law in relation to pornography is contained principally in the following — Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992 and Video Recordings Acts, 1989 to 1992, which provide for censorship of books and magazines, films and video recordings. The task of censorship is carried out by the Censorship of Publications Board in relation to books and magazines and by the film censor in relation to films and video recordings. In addition, there are appeal boards to decide an appeal against decisions of the Censorship of Publications Board and the film censor.
While those laws may be adequate to deal with some aspects of child pornography, I am satisfied they are inadequate to deal with all aspects of the problem. For example, the legislation does not criminalise the mere possession of child pornography, nor are the penalities sufficiently severe.
In recognising the need to update our laws, I am at one with the thrust of this Bill. I also share Members' conclusion that there is need for urgent action to update the law in this area. Lest I be accused of foot dragging I want to make a particular point clear.
Following the Stockholm Congress work took place in the Department of Justice on reviewing our child pornography laws but could not be satisfactorily progressed until relevant developments in the context of the European Union, of which I was aware came to a conclusion. I referred earlier to the joint action which obliges all member states to undertake a major review of their laws on the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings. Among other things, that instrument places an onus on member states to criminalise the exploitative use of children in pornography. The offence should be comprehensive and extend to possession of child pornography as well as its production, distribution and sale. Late last month the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels give political approval to the joint action. It would have been most inappropriate to have concluded the review of the child pornography laws without taking account of the text of that joint action. I still assure the House that not only will that joint action be taken into account in the context of my proposals for updating our laws on child pornography but that the work will be carried out expeditiously.
As regards the details of the proposals before the House, I appreciate the difficulties faced by an Opposition party in bringing forward a Bill such as this. I am conscious of the fact that Fianna Fáil does not have the benefit of the resources available to the Government in preparing legislative proposals. Having said that, there are flaws in the Bill which the Government believes will not be possible to resolve without adopting a different approach and this will become clear from my observations.
The Bill was introduced before the finalisation of the text of the EU joint action on the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings to which I already referred. It does not, therefore, take account of that instrument's requirement that member states criminalise certain child pornography related activities. Those activities are not adequately covered by the Bill. I accept that the Deputies could not have been expected to have been aware of the significance of the developments in Europe and I am not criticising them for that. I am raising the matter because it is important to be aware that the joint action conditions, in an important way, how we approach this task of bringing forward legislative proposals.
A number of the Bill's problems seem to be related to the fact that the Deputies chose to follow an unsuitable legislative model. The Bill is based on the UK Protection of Children Act, 1978, which is inappropriate in a number of respects, notwithstanding that the Deputies have taken account of amendments to that Act made by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994. It is not that the UK legislation does not go some way towards dealing with child pornography, but that the 1978 Act seems to focus too much on photographs and related materials as well as related activities instead of taking a broader view. I will come to the consequences of that approach in a moment when I discuss the text of the Bill's sections.
There is nothing in the text of the Bill to suggest that consideration was given to how it fits in with existing law. For example, although a major focus of the Bill is indecent photographs, there is nothing about how its provisions fit in with section 18 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, which makes it an offence to sell or import for sale any indecent picture. It seems that photographs, including "photographic images", are different from pictures, a word which is not defined in the 1929 Act. Whether the Deputies intended the two categories to be separate is not clear.
I now turn to specific sections of the Bill. There are one or two aspects of section 1 with which I am unhappy. I would be interested to hear why the Deputies used the expression "photographic images". I note that the Bill takes account of changes made by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994, to the Protection of Children Act, 1978. Most of those changes involve provision for what are referred to in the UK legislation as pseudo-photographs. For the benefit of Deputies who may not be familiar with the expression, pseudo-photographs are made up by combining a number of photographs. Using computer technology, a photograph of a child's face can, for example, be superimposed on a photo of an adult body to produce child pornography. At the Stockholm Congress there was a demonstration of how this is done and of how disturbingly realistic the outcome is. Instead of using the expression pseudo-photographs, the Bill refers to photographic images. It seems that the expressions cover the same ground and I would be interested to know why the change was made. I am assuming there is more to it than an attempt to disguise the authors' source of inspiration.
The definition of child in paragraph (d) of section 1 needs to be reconsidered. By defining a child as a person under the age of 16 years, the Bill follows the equivalent provision in the UK's Protection of Children Act, 1978. While that age makes sense in the context of the UK, it bears no relation to the situation here and is not appropriate to our circumstances.
The principal shortcoming of section 2 is that it fails to cover a number of activities related to child pornography. For example, the section does not prohibit the sale of indecent material. It is not clear why that is the case but possibly it is considered that sales are covered by the reference to distributing indecent material. I have doubts that that is the case and in support of these doubts, I am aware that in other jurisdictions the sale and distribution of child pornography is made an offence.
A more glaring and puzzling omission, despite what Deputy O'Donoghue said, is the fact that section 2 does not make it an offence to possess child pornography for personal use. There is a growing realisation that such possession needs to be outlawed and various international instruments encourage states to do so because, as I have already stated, its production involves child sex abuse. Yet, all the Bill does is provide for the possession of indecent material with a view to it being distributed or shown to others. I am not sure whether Deputies O'Donoghue and Eoin Ryan took a conscious decision not to criminalise mere possession, but it is strange that a Bill which is so firmly rooted in UK legislation did not follow the UK lead in relation to mere possession. For the information of the two Deputies, the relevant provision in UK law is section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988. I have no doubt that the possession of child pornography for personal use needs to be made an offence and it will be provided for in the legislative proposals I will bring forward in the near future.
Section 2(1)(a) seeks to include in an inappropriate way provision in relation to texts. While I have no difficulty with the principle of so doing, when it comes to the execution a problem is encountered because the reference to text does not fit in with the rest of the paragraph concerned. One can take or make an indecent photograph or photographic image but I have doubts about the appropriateness of referring to taking or making a text. This may seem to some Members to be a minor drafting point, but it is worth mentioning because it is symptomatic of the sort of thing that can happen when an inappropriate legislative model is used. The UK's Protection of Children Act was designed to deal with indecent photographs and related matters and it is difficult to stretch it beyond that.
The entry search and seizure provision in section 4 of the Bill may need to be dealt with in greater detail as may the provision for forfeiture in section 5. The penalties provided for in section 5 are on the low side and may not give our judges sufficient scope to deal with the more serious child pornography related offences. It would be unsatisfactory if, for example, the head of a paedophile ring, who was at the centre of its child pornography activities, having been convicted of producing such pornography, could not be sentenced to more than three years in prison.
These are some of the more substantive points but the Bill also raises a number of minor drafting points which need to be attended to. For example, the Bill would need to be gender-proofed, section 7(2) is superfluous and would have to be deleted.
What the foregoing clearly indicates is that the Bill is flawed in many respects. The Government has always shown itself willing to take on board Private Members' Bills, subject to amendments, where that was the appropriate course of action. In this instance, however, the Bill's flaws are of such a fundamental nature they are incapable of being rectified by amendments. As I indicated at the outset, I will, therefore, bring forward my proposals with a view to incorporating them in the Children Bill.
I should emphasise that the course I am proposing will amount to a more thorough updating of the law on child pornography. It is also capable of being given effect quickly in that the Children Bill is already before this House and its Committee Stage, on which I propose to move my amendments, is likely to take place early in the new year. I hope the House agrees that the course I am proposing is the better one. I know we all want to ensure that to the greatest extent possible steps are taken to outlaw all aspects of child pornography and, therefore, afford the greatest level of protection to vulnerable children.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Joe Walsh and Martin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am pleased the Government is not opposing this Bill. Ministers often announce they will not oppose legislation, but then they introduce their own Bills. The Intoxicating Liquor Act is a typical example of where the Government brought in its own legislation which incorporated everything in the Fianna Fáil Bill. I compliment Deputies Eoin Ryan and O'Donoghue for introducing an extremely important and pertinent Bill. Child pornography is lurid, disgusting, anti-social and a plague which must be eradicated. We must legislate so that every nuance, detail and occurrence is removed from society. In particular, those involved must be held responsible. We must impress on those who control the airwaves and print media and are involved in the importation of magazines that child pornography and exploitation is totally unacceptable in our society. We must ensure they are made aware that what they do damages children and that they must act in a positive manner. Legislation on this issue must be welcomed.
I am also conscious that pornography, child abuse and paedophile rings are prevalent in many cities in this country. I have a problem with channel 18 which is transmitted by a local television company in the Cork area on Friday and Saturday nights when parents are out socialising and their children are looked after by young babysitters. The Minister is aware of the dangers that are inherent in houses where there are young children and babysitters. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest young people flicking television channels at the weekend in Cork come across lurid and pornographic films with illicit sex scenes. Some of these have been videotaped and in one instance the video was for sale in a school on the following Monday morning to other children. We have made calls on the group in question to ensure such channels are not available so easily to young people and, unfortunately, they have gone unheeded. It was suggested to us that a parental control box should be put in place but this could only be done at a cost to parents.
The initial shock and revulsion over the paedophile outrages in Belgium have given way to urgent reflection. That is important and welcome. Everyone is now looking at how such rings can be prevented by greater national and international controls. Attention has been focused on appropriate penalties and mandatory sentencing for such offenders and especially on the need for international controls on trade in child pornography and the sophisticated network which maintains and sustains it. It is a loathsome crime dramatically illustrated by the Belgium experience through the horrific circumstances surrounding it. There is no doubt much can be done if the political will exists.
People often ask us to distinguish between child abuse and paedophilia. Child abuse victims respond to counselling, education and behavioural orientation. Paedophilia is a more highly structured, even ideological system of belief, based on a serious argument that children consent to sexual involvement. I was surprised and worried that at a conference during the summer in Cork Ms Mary Crilly of the Cork Rape Crisis Centre indicated we do not have to go outside Ireland to become aware of what is happening. Within the Southern Health Board area the incidence of child abuse from 1990 to 1996 has trebled. Ms Crilly said analysis by rape crisis centres found that a vast number of people are involved in this business in Ireland. She said society appeared to be excusing paedophilia. In Ireland there was no body of research on the subject that she or her colleagues knew about. If there is, why have the rape crisis centres not been asked for their views? She further stated that the problem of paedophilia would have to be recognised for what it is. Something would have to be done about it as children were not being listened to when it mattered most. She particularly stressed that children had no voice when it came to pornography. The rape crisis centres suggest they must be listened to and the increase they have indicated clearly illustrates that we have a major problem on our hands. Deputies Eoin Ryan and O'Donoghue have brought this to our attention and it is important that it is addressed. This Bill goes a long way in ensuring that.
Deputy O'Donoghue stressed the problem with the Internet. The best selling pornographic CD-ROMs are available at the push of a button on the Internet to those who wish to utilise the material which grossly exploits millions of vulnerable children around the world. There is widespread abuse of the Internet and other electronic media by child pornographic users. This legislation proposes that indecent material including data stored on a computer disk should be outlawed. Fianna Fáil has already introduced the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1996, to provide that Irish criminal law is extended to try sexual offences against children committed elsewhere by citizens of the State or by persons ordinarily resident in Ireland. This means, for example, that any Irish resident who commits a sexual offence against a child in the Philippines or Thailand will be subjected to the rigours of Irish law. There should be no escape route for any such sick individuals in our society.
I wish to be associated with the congratulations to Deputies Eoin Ryan and O'Donoghue for introducing this important legislation. I am surprised, yet not terribly disappointed, the Minister of State was so mealy mouthed and negative in regard to this. Whatever else is not working in his Department, the word processor is because we have the same old line about flawed legislation which is impossible to amend. How often have we heard that in the past year and a half?
How often has the Deputy used it?
I know all about it and am able to talk with some authority on the matter. The line that word processors should be outlawed in all Departments is so hackneyed that it is sickening when used in regard to such an important matter as the protection of our children from depraved people, people who bring a great deal of shame on everybody. It is timely that Deputies O'Donoghue and Ryan have brought forward a measure to constrain people who involve themselves in this sordid activity. Society will support the House on this measure. The criminalisation of this activity is extremely important and the sentence imposed should be sufficiently severe to deal with the crime.
This activity was brought home to us earlier this year with the Belgian experience. Many people thank God this activity does not take place in Ireland, but it does. A recent conference in Cork revealed startling statistics in that regard. A worldwide report suggested that as many as ten million children are enslaved in child prostitution, the sex industry, sex tourism and pornography. Those are shocking statistics. Individuals who trade in and distribute grossly offensive material should be severely chastised. The children involved are the most helpless in society.
Despite having a very high standard of living, with an excellent economy, as late as last week a report revealed that in the past 12 months there was an increase of 150 per cent in the homeless, many of them children as young as 12 years of age, who roam the capital and other cities. Those unfortunate children are the most labile in society and run the risk of involvement in paedophile rings, a regrettable section of society who regularly trade in pornographic material. We must address these issues. It is unacceptable for a Minister to abuse Deputies who bring forward positive legislation in this regard. The children involved are crying out for help and it is a disservice to treat such depraved behaviour in a cynical way.
At the conference in Cork it was stated that in terms of pornography children have no voice and often no choice. We must ask ourselves what are we as legislators doing about this sordid activity. We have a responsibility to the children involved to introduce legislation to have the activity criminalised and outlawed. To this end Fianna Fáil has produced this Bill to prohibit the possession, making of or trading in photographs, images or literature relating to children, or pornographic material. As my colleague Deputy O'Keeffe said, that extends to videos. The material in some videos on sale freely throughout the country is bestial and sickening, and the sooner we pass laws which will outlaw that type of activity the better.
Under the proposed legislation people found guilty of having in their possession or under their control an indecent photograph or indecent material will be liable on summary conviction to severe terms of imprisonment. We propose that people found guilty of taking, distributing or threatening to distribute, publish or advertise the availability of an indecent photograph of a child will be liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.
Child pornography is no longer confined to what is termed the more traditional paper medium of magazines, leaflets and pamphlets. As regards television, in the Cork area channel 18 is beamed into thousands of homes. Many responsible people have brought this matter to our attention and asked us to update legislation in this area. Countries throughout the world have taken this matter in hand and updated legislation to ensure that videos, television, the Internet and CD-ROMs, vehicles used for this type of exploitation, are classed as indecent material. Data stored on computer disc or by any other means will be outlawed under this legislation.
I strongly support the Bill and call on the Minister to take it seriously. If amendments are necessary to strengthen it they will have the full support of the House. It must be a priority not only of the Government but of the entire House that child pornography is criminalised without delay so that abusers are prevented from using child pornographic material to seduce children. We cannot allow that to continue.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I pay tribute to my colleagues, Deputies O'Donoghue and Ryan on their initiative in bringing this excellent Bill before the House. They were successful in terms of the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill which was accepted by the Government and is awaiting signature by the President. That team has been active in a legislative sense on a number of other issues. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that the Government did not have the generosity of spirit to accept this Bill and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage, where amendments to it could be made. It is disgraceful that the Government should send the wrong signals to the country by not accepting this legislation. The reasons advanced by the Minister do not justify the Government's stance. The Minister's basis for rejecting the Bill is flawed and flimsy. He advanced no fundamental core reason for not allowing the Bill to pass Second Stage in its present form.
With the previous Government's acceptance of Private Members' Bills put forward by Deputy Shatter, I thought a new era had emerged in Irish politics in which Governments were becoming more amenable to accepting such Bills, irrespective of the hue of the Government or Opposition of the day. Deputy Shatter's good work in his specialist area was accepted by the then Government. This Administration continued that policy in accepting Bills put forward by Deputy O'Donoghue on his own and Deputy Ryan and Deputy O'Donoghue together. I think the reason for not accepting this Bill is that someone does not want the Deputies to notch up another success — it is as mean-spirited as that. An extra Bill would be too much because the record would look too good.
Particularly as it is copied from the British.
Deputy O'Dea might not like it either.
As spokesperson on education, any legislation I have seen from civil servants in that Department has been copied from the British. The Minister should be the last person to complain about the copying of British legislation. That has been a feature of Irish life for far too long. Irrespective of that, it is the wrong signal to send.
I thought Fianna Fáil was trying to get away from that.
The Proceeds of Crime Bill was not copied. It was quite original and the Government rushed to accept it.
We helped the Deputy to do it.
Acting Chairman
Let us deal with the Bill in front of us, please.
Even if it was British legislation, that in itself does not invalidate it.
This legislation is not suitable.
The Minister's said that, because Europe had not got its act together, we could not advance our legislation and must wait for a joint initiative.
Waiting for Godot.
It is necessary to lead on this issue. The Minister is right to say there are different needs in different countries and I would not be too confident in awaiting a joint initiative from the EU because I am not happy about the standards applying in other EU countries. We cannot take a strong enough line against people who trade in child pornography, which is the same as abusing children. We should send the strongest possible signal from this Legislature, irrespective of what happens in Europe, that we will deal harshly with anyone in possession of child pornography.
Good. Why not ban it for personal use? This Bill does not do that.
This Bill should be accepted if for no other reason than to send that signal. As a Legislature, Opposition and Government could use Committee Stage to deal with amendments or improvements to the Bill. There would be no difficulty with that.
I am concerned that all we have done on the use of the Internet for child pornography is to set up an interdepartmental group. An extraordinary feature of modern technology is that something which should be a tremendous educational tool is being used as a vehicle for promoting trade in child pornography and abuse. We must urgently police the Internet and introduce legislation to protect children who use that technology from being exposed to this material. Children should have access to the Internet in schools but only under specific guidelines and controls with adult supervision at all times. Technology is one of the most important aspects of this problem and it must be tackled. Deputy Ryan represented us at the Stockholm world conference, which generated much of the momentum on this issue. We should not lose any more time in introducing legislation to criminalise child pornography, which is what this Bill does. It criminalises the possession of pornographic material.
It does not criminalise possession for personal use.
It does. Thus far in his legislative career Deputy O'Donoghue has not been too far wrong in matters of the law.
Will the Deputy give way to me on this point?
I will not. I have only two minutes left.
I am following the new procedure.
If the Deputy does not give way that is his prerogative.
The Minister has interrupted me at will and I have entertained his interruptions in a tolerant matter.
Will he give way to me legally? Is he afraid?
No, I have the utmost confidence in Deputy O'Donoghue.
I have just one question for the Deputy. Does he refuse to give way?
I do on this occasion.
If the Deputy is so much against pornography, why does this Bill allow its possession for personal use?
It does not. I urge the Minister to read the Bill again. The Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill was accepted by the Government and sent a powerful signal from this Legislature. It was well received internationally and did us no harm. There is no good reason for not allowing this Bill, which concerns the rights of children, to pass Second Stage. The Minister for Education introduced the Universities Bill to which she herself will propose about 30 amendments. It is not a big issue to amend a Bill on Committee Stage.
The Government is dragging its feet because it does not want to give too much credit to Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Ryan, who have been productive and effective on the legislative front and tackled issues of major public concern. We know from experiences in Belgium and this country that this is a top priority with the Irish people and they will not look favourably on the Government for giving such a negative reaction to a pro-active way of dealing with one of the most horrendous aspects of modern society, not only in Ireland but throughout the world.
Practitioners and professionals in the education community are crying out for protective legislation. We must put the needs and rights of our children at the top of the political agenda but I am not sure we are doing so in terms of bringing legislation before the House. I am a great admirer of the work of Mr. Cian ó Tighearnaigh and the ISPCC, who have advanced the rights of children for many years. This Bill endeavours to give primacy to the needs of the child, which should be uppermost in all our minds. Particularly in this season of goodwill, we should put aside party politicking and the normal political jealousies and allow this Bill to go to Committee Stage, where I am sure Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Ryan will be more than generous in accepting Government amendments and improvements to the Bill. They have proven to be so in the past, not least on the legislation to seize the assets of criminals, which was introduced by Deputy O'Donoghue and accepted by the Government under pressure. It has turned out to be the most effective legislation against organised crime. We can thank the Opposition parties for the introduction of that package, particularly the Bill, which is hurting the most in the criminal world. The Government should learn from that and accept the Bill.
Debate adjourned.