Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Apr 1998

Vol. 489 No. 5

Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill, 1997 Second Stage

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." One of the most important functions that we have as legislators is to ensure that our legislation offers children the type of protection to which they are entitled and which will provide them with the opportunity to enjoy a carefree and happy childhood. The Bill before the House offers further assurance that all that can be done by way of legislating is being done to protect our children from having their childhood blighted by abuse, in particular by sexual abuse.

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill, 1997, is the latest legislation that offers protection against sexual abuse. There is no need for me to recite a list of such legislation; suffice to say that even in the recent past we have passed the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act, 1995, which arose from a Private Member's Bill which I introduced in the previous Dáil; the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996, which I also published by way of a Private Member's Bill; and the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, with its important "stalking" provision. In addition, the Children Bill, 1996, will update the law on the protection of children from abuse, including sexual abuse, in certain circumstances.

In the pipeline are two important documents which I hope to publish shortly: the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences and the interim report of the working group on the illegal and harmful use of the Internet. The discussion paper will deal with many issues relevant to child sexual abuse, including the age of consent to sexual relations and other matters raised in the Law Reform Commission Report on Child Sexual Abuse, issues surrounding the establishment of a sex offenders or paedophile register, and child prostitution. The working group on the illegal and harmful use of the Internet will report on the very difficult issue of what we can do at a national level to deal with objectionable material such as child pornography being transmitted to this country from all parts of the globe by means of that most personal and modern means of communication, the Internet.

How international agencies co-operate and share their expertise in trying to understand the problem of child sexual abuse and the role child pornography plays in that abuse was brought home to me recently when I had the privilege of opening the first Conference on Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe — or COPINE Conference — in Dublin Castle. This is a project funded under the EU STOP programme; it is a partnership between the child studies unit in the Department of Applied Psychology at Cork University, the paedophile unit of the London Metropolitan Police, An Garda Síochána and the Association for European Law Enforcement Co-operation in Brussels. The conference addressed many issues of importance, including paedophile activity on the Internet, something that can only be realistically combated through international co-operation. While such international co-operation is critical in tackling the problems of child sexual abuse, we must not lose sight of the need for our own national response.

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill, 1997, is an important and integral part of the ongoing programme of legislation aimed at providing comprehensive protection against sexual abuse or exploitation. There are many forms that sexual exploitation of children can take, ranging from direct physical sexual assaults to the depiction of children in pornographic materials. The making of child pornography constitutes child sexual abuse and often it can involve the most horrendous violation and abuse of children. With increasing globalisation and greater movement between countries, new forms of child sexual exploitation have begun to emerge. To deal with the continuing and changing nature of the problem, imaginative and novel responses by law enforcement agencies and legislators are required.

This Bill also represents a response to the awful events surrounding the Belgian paedophile ring which was uncovered in 1996. The tragic fate of the young Belgian children who fell victim to that paedophile ring galvanised the EU into immediate and effective action. It was during our presidency of the EU, when those events came to light, that a joint action on trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children was negotiated. This Bill will give effect to the provisions of that joint action so far as it applies to children.

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill offers protection to children against exploitation and abuse primarily in three ways. It protects against trafficking in children for the purpose of their sexual exploitation. It protects children against being used and abused in the making of child pornography. By criminalising possession of child pornography, it protects children from being abused by persons whose fantasies have been fuelled by watching child pornography. The first and second of these protections are obvious, the third not so obvious. However, with the proper treatment and therapy paedophiles may be persuaded to stay away from what to them is temptation. One such form of temptation is child pornography.

Possessing and looking at child pornography by paedophiles poses a real risk of harm to children by re-enforcing cognitive distortions and fuelling fantasies. Child pornography can also be used in "grooming" or conditioning possible child victims into believing that what they are watching constitutes normal behaviour. There can be no comparison in this context between the possession of child pornography and the possession of other forms of pornography for personal use. This is why it is necessary to specifically outlaw child pornography in all its manifestations. The making of and the use made by paedophiles of child pornography is frightening. Most of us will never see it unless we come upon it accidentally because it tends to circulate among paedophile rings and not otherwise.

There may still be some people who think of paedophiles as pathetic old men, as much to be pitied as feared. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paedophiles may appear to be ordinary people who live apparently ordinary lives. They can be highly manipulative and seductive, often charming themselves into people's confidences so that they can insinuate themselves into a position where they have unsupervised access to children. They are capable of taking the long view, even spending years to get themselves into a position of trust with the parents of their targeted victim. They will similarly use the devious side of their character to obtain positions of trust, power and responsibility directly over children. Not all persons who possess child pornography are necessarily paedophiles. However, all paedophiles will probably possess child pornography; it could almost be described as a necessary accessory to their activities. It is this connection between paedophilia and child pornography which this Bill targets.

I would now like to give a brief explanation of the more important provisions in the Bill. Section 2 contains a definition that is central to the success of the Bill, the definition of "child pornography". Defining the expression "child pornography" is something of a departure from what might be considered the traditional way to legislate in matters such as this, to leave it to the court to interpret what is meant by "obscene" or "indecent". It is important in a Bill of such crucial importance to give the prosecuting authorities and the courts a clear indication of what exactly we as legislators mean by the term "child pornography". It does not matter how the child pornography is represented or how it is made — it is caught by the definition. For example, section 2(2) puts it beyond doubt that any figure resembling a person that has been generated or modified by computer graphics is comprehended by the definition of "child pornography" if it conveys the impression that the figure is that of a child. This means that any person who would try to circumvent the legislation by means of computer technology would not succeed. This is an illustration of how legislation must be in a position to deal with the clever misuse of developing technology to frustrate the law. There are two exceptions in the definition: first, it will not apply to any film in respect of which a certificate under the Censorship of Film Acts is in force and, second, it will not apply to any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recording Acts is in force. In other words, if the censor has passed a film or video for release, the provisions of this legislation will not apply. These are common sense exclusions which will mean that the present criteria in respect of obscene or indecent material in films or videos passed by the censors will not be affected by the legislation.

The other important definition in section 2 is that of a "child". There are several different ages for which one could make a case. I have decided that the most logical and appropriate age is 17 years, that is, the age of consent to a sexual relationship in this jurisdiction.

Section 3 is the first of four sections in which new offences are created. Section 3 makes it an offence to organise or knowingly facilitate the entry into, transit through or exit from the State of a child for the purpose of his or her sexual exploitation. It will also be an offence to provide accommodation for such a child while in the State. This section gives effect to one of the most important aspects of the EU Joint Action on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Children. The seriousness with which this offence is regarded is reflected in the penalty, which can be imprisonment for up to life on conviction on indictment. The ingredient in this offence which makes it so serious is that it deals with children who have been taken from their family, community and, indeed, their own country and trafficked across international borders to another country, possibly on the other side of the world, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. We are giving a clear message in this provision to any would-be traffickers in children that they would use this country for their despicable trade at their peril. We will not allow children to be brought in or out of this country for the purpose of sexual exploitation and we will not allow this country to be used as a transit point for such children. What makes this provision so necessary and urgent is that, as we have seen in the recent past, although thankfully not in this country, such trafficking does occur.

The term "sexual exploitation", which is used in section 3, is comprehensively defined. It includes more than trafficking in a child for the purpose of using that child to produce child pornography. It incorporates trafficking the child for the purpose of inducing or coercing him or her into prostitution or participating in other sexual activities.

The other offence created in section 3 reinforces a provision in section 17 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. Section 17 deals with the abduction of children by persons other than their parents and has a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of seven years imprisonment. The extra ingredient in this provision is that the taking or detaining of the child is for the purpose of his or her sexual exploitation and, because of that extra ingredient, we are providing a higher penalty on conviction than for the offence in the 1997 Act, up to ten years' imprisonment.

Section 4 of the Bill makes it an offence for any person who has the custody, charge or care of a child to allow that child to be used for the production of child pornography. It parallels a provision in the Children Bill, 1996, under which it will be an offence for any person who has the custody, charge or care of a child to cause or encourage the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or buggery with that child or to cause or encourage the seduction or prostitution of, or the commission of a sexual assault upon, the child. Section 4 and the provision in the Children Bill, 1996, are aimed at persons such as parents or guardians who, for whatever reason, but usually monetary gain, allow their children to be so sexually exploited. Is there a worse breach of trust than parents allowing their child to be sexually exploited by others?

Section 5 is aimed at persons who would profit from child pornography although it also catches persons who are involved in the child pornography business for other reasons, as the profit motive may not always be a significant factor in the dissemination of child pornography. Under this section it will be an offence to knowingly produce, distribute, print, publish, import, export, sell or show any child pornography. While elements of it are required by the EU Joint Action, it is a comprehensive provision which attempts to deal with any person who is knowingly involved in any way in the child pornography trade. The word "knowingly" is necessary because it is possible for child pornography to be distributed or imported without the knowledge of the distributor or importer. This arises in particular in the case of those involved in providing Internet services who would not be in a position to police everything that is available on the Internet. This issue will be dealt with in the report of the Working Group on the Illegal and Harmful Use of the Internet to which I referred. The prosecution in any case will, therefore, have to satisfy the court that the defendant knowingly distributed or imported, etc. child pornography.

Section 6 will make it an offence to knowingly possess child pornography. This provision is also required by the EU Joint Action and, from some of the comments I made earlier about the potentially horrific effects of child pornography, there is little more I need to say to explain or justify it. The offence of possession will not apply in two circumstances: first, where it is in the possession of a person who is exercising his or her functions under the Censorship Acts or the Video Recording Acts and, second, where possession is for the purpose of the prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences under the Bill. The term "prevention" can be interpreted widely and will allow persons who are, for example, preparing an exposé of child pornography or organising workshops or seminars on the effects of child pornography to go about their business without fear of prosecution. The offence of possession will apply, however, where, for example, a person downloads child pornography from the Internet.

I mentioned that the maximum penalty on conviction for trafficking in children will be life imprisonment. The maximum penalty on being convicted for possession of child pornography will be five years on indictment. The other offences all carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. These are without doubt severe penalties but they are necessary if we are to offer our children the protection they deserve. There can be relatively minor manifestations of some of these offences and the fact that provision is made for a summary charge in some cases reflects that.

The remaining provisions are relatively straightforward and routine and at this stage I will make a brief comment on one or two of them. Section 10 will amend the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, by allowing evidence to be taken from children by television link in cases involving child trafficking and child pornography. It does this by adding the offences created in sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Bill to the other offences in the 1992 Act for which children can give evidence by television link. Section 11 amends the Bail Act, 1997, by adding the offences under two of the sections of this Bill to the list of offences in the Schedule to the 1997 Act for which a court may refuse bail to a person on the ground that such a refusal is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. The offences being added to that Schedule are those for which I consider there would be a likelihood of the person committing a further offence while on bail.

This is a critically important Bill. Some years ago the necessity for such a Bill might not have been as clear as it is today. Everybody will agree, however, in light of what we now know and the advances of modern technology, that this legislation has become essential. I hope it gets a speedy passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas and can become law without delay. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Bill which will strengthen the legislative measures which aim to protect children from sexual exploitation by targeting two manifestations of such exploitation, child trafficking and child pornography. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland has ratified, places general obligations on states to take action at national and international level to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. This obligation is not confined to child nationals of a particular state. Article 34 of the convention refers to the protection of children from all forms of sexual abuse and requires states to take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity and the exploited use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices.

In 1993 the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights stressed the need for states to address the problem of exploitation and abuse of children and to provide effective measures against harmful child labour, the sale of children, child prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Working Group on Temporary Forms of Slavery have adopted a programme of prevention on the sale of children and child prostitution which calls on sending and receiving countries to adopt measures to prevent child sex tourism.

It is difficult, in the absence of clear evidence, to arrive at a conclusion on the extent to which Irish people take part in sex tourism or the extent to which it is organised here. Nevertheless, however much we might not want to believe it, there is no reason to suppose Ireland is immune. We have a responsibility to do whatever we can to stop it. It is right that our laws should contain a deterrent against such behaviour. The international community also has a role to play in eliminating sex tourism and child pornography. The problem has been recognised internationally.

I welcome the work being done by the ECPA, End Child Prostitution in Asia, which has offices in many countries and works closely with organisations such as UNICEF and INTERPOL as well as tourism agencies. It has been lobbying the Governments of the major sending countries.

Section 3 deals with child trafficking for sexual exploitation which shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of up to £10,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to ten years or both. The section may, however, be too restrictive. In 1997 the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform dealt with 125 cases of child abduction, an increase of 11 on the previous year but, significantly, down on the 1995 figure. A total of 69 cases involved the abduction of children into the State and 56 out of the State. In most cases the children were abducted by a spouse or partner. The figure also includes incidents in which the location of those abducted is not known. This area should be more closely examined. I am not suggesting that such abductions should attract the same sanctions included in section 4 of the Bill, but the Bill is restrictive in not dealing with the movement of children in contexts other than sexual exploitation such as, for example, labour exploitation.

A report in The Irish Times of Monday, 23 January 1998, outlined evidence that Irish paedophiles use the Internet for the exchange of child pornography. Research commissioned for the report and carried out by the child studies unit of University College, Cork sampled activity on the Internet chat network. In one test at 9.20 a.m. researchers found 31 channels with titles available on child sex, with 281 participants. The report stated that more than 40 sites containing child pornography are available on the worldwide web with at least one Irish website having links to paedophile sites. An independent Internet monitoring centre, along the lines of the offices of the censor, is recommended. Its function would include scanning Internet material, reporting and discussing abuses with the Garda and raising public awareness of undesirable activity.

The Irish Times reported that the study reviewed Internet newsgroup activity at 6 o'clock on a particular day. It found 465 files in three newsgroups which appeared to contain child pornography. According to the report in excess of ten newsgroups explicitly provide a form of child sexual exploitation. Most of the commercial pornography comes from Japan and, to a lesser extent, Russia. More than 40 Japanese sites seek payment for access to child pornography. On paying users get password access to the pictures. The report concludes that there is occasional Irish participation in Internet reply channels and occasional newsgroup postings from Irish addresses. This includes e.mail and Internet relayed chat which are also used to exchange information on pornographic material. One mailing list is described as a forum for people to discuss “their feelings towards girls, i.e. girls under the age of 14”. According to the report there appears to be Irish involvement in this list.

The report recognises the moral, ethical and technological difficulties associated with proposals to regulate a development which cherishes freedom of speech above quality of content. However, the report says that Internet service providers should be licensed and that such providers should agree not to include certain material, provide optional access to certain sites with appropriate filtering, inform all subscribers about potentially harmful material and co-operate with monitoring and hotline agencies. The group also recommends the preparation of information leaflets for parents and teachers and the training for gardaí, customs officers, teachers and care workers. It states that "whilst it is likely the extent of the problem within the State is limited in nature, it is equally likely that individuals participating in child pornography exchanges are as yet undetected".

Child pornography is a problem at a variety of levels, but in some respects is also the paedophile's Achilles heel because the possession of material means that police can identify people who have an interest in the area. This is very important, especially in the context of recent photography, as it may have evidential value and contain information about location, offenders and exploited children. It is unique in that it is a picture of the scene of a crime.

Child pornography is unusual in that possession of the offensive material is also evidence of an offence taking place. Therefore it is important that it be seen and not destroyed until it has been properly examined for evidential qualities. Another important issue concerns finding out where pornographic material, found in the possession of somebody, originates. This will lead police to the network of distribution and contact groups. A database with such information would be an important investigative tool in dealing with the problem. Seized material should not be destroyed without first being examined and carefully analysed.

Most pornographic material currently in circulation is between 20 and 40 years old. One of the qualities of child pornography is that the child in the picture does not age and that is why it is of value to those interested in it. Pictures being distributed can date back 40 years or more. I understand there are tens of thousands of pictures on the Internet at present, the bulk of them being 20, 30 or 40 years old. On examining these pictures one detects that the furnishings are different and somewhat dated as much of the material comes from the 1960s, particularly from Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries where, for a period, censorship was withdrawn and there was freedom of publication. An enormous number of magazines, videos and photographs was compiled at that time.

It is important to distinguish between the old and new material. The value of the old material lies in its possession. Possession tells us something about the individual. There is no point in pursuing the children involved because if they survived they would be 50 years old. It is important to seriously examine the newer material as it identifies the children involved. This concerns child protection as well as detecting and punishing criminal activity. It is worth targeting police resources at examining new material, although this tends to be between four and nine years old. It often takes that length of time for material to come into circulation as most of it is made by and for individuals or small groups of people who are in contact with each other. Much of the material is copied and some of the copies can be of very poor quality having gone through so many hands. Police must be able to co-ordinate the collection of copies as the copy seized, which may be of poor quality, may be comparable to other copies seized elsewhere. This would signify and identify links between people involved in the area. European co-ordination is very important in this respect.

The market in child pornographic material is not serviced and updated as are other markets, such as those for film and video. Even though the market is underground it would appear that the material is leaking through from private sources rather than being overtly manufactured. The material is either privately owned or, in some cases, commercially manufactured. Manufacturers are mainly based in Japan. Currently on the Internet there is a vast amount of Japanese material, most of which is not illegal in Japan. At best the laws are confused and any area of illegality is immaterial as there is no enforcement. Much of the material originating in Japan is quite modern.

The interchange of child pornography is a complex and highly organised criminal conspiracy which is not driven by money. It is unique in the respect that even though money changes hands it is primarily driven by sexual interest in children. I wish to make a distinction between child pornography and child erotica. Child pornography is covered by this legislation and relates to sexual pictures involving children engaged in sexual activity. There is an immense array of material which, while not in itself obscene, can be obscene in a particular context. Two years ago in the UK, a person was deported after being discovered on a beach taking photographs of children. The man had a camera which enabled him to take photographs at right angles to the direction in which the camera was pointing. Perverts also take sexual pleasure in photographing children in playgrounds coming down slides and exposing the lower half of their bodies. The difficulty here is that these photographs are sexual in the context of the individual but are not, in themselves, sexual. They are rendered inappropriate because of the context and mindset of the person taking them. It is of course impossible for the State to legislate for this but it is important we know of its existence. Such photographs are available on the Internet, many having been taken by a Japanese person with sophisticated camera equipment with telephoto lenses. Most of the pictures taken are of children in playgrounds.

In this context, an attack is being made on children's innocence. There is no victim because the child is simply not aware of the activity. A child is sexualised by the person lurking in the background taking photos of him or her. While this is uncontrollable, we must be aware that such activity is carried on and that the results are available in child pornographic circles and on the Internet. The sexualisation of children in such a context is very difficult to deal with by law.

Some years ago, a book was published in Dublin by a famous photographer who took photographs of children. The photographs, in themselves, were quite innocent and the children were portrayed very beautifully and innocently. The photographs were published to portray the beautiful innocence of the children. I understand these books were widely collected by paedophiles who created a corruption of the children's innocence by seeing them in a sexualised context.

Certain material is sought by paedophiles for their sexual gratification. The evidence is that most people who extensively collect these kind of photos, which are not, in themselves, obscene, are paedophiles. The portrayal of child pornography material has a very corrosive quality in that it sexualises child innocence. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Coping Project in UCC. Its investigations found no real evidence of Irish involvement in using the Internet for passing on information in regard to photographs or sex tourism. There is evidence of some small involvement in this area in that an Irish address occasionally turns up. However, there is no evidence of any systematic involvement by Irish people in exchanging information or child pornography on the Internet. We must, however, be extremely vigilant.

Child pornography cannot be tolerated in any society. The law must ensure that distributors, retailers and others who allow pornography to become available are severely dealt with under the law. It is difficult to comprehend the effect of child sex abuse on its victims. Child pornography ranges from photographs of naked and semi-naked children to the depiction of various acts of sexual abuse.

Children of all ages are photographed. Child pornography cannot be produced without sexual abuse being visited on a child. This must be at the core of our abhorrence of such pornographic material. While recent legislation has helped to clamp down on the production of material and magazines throughout Europe, the collectors of such material have become new producers in the child porn industry. Individual paedophiles record their abuse of children through photographs and videos which are subsequently sold to, or exchanged with, other abusers.

The result of legislation in many parts of Europe has created a situation where paedophiles deal directly with each other. A paedophile involved with a particular child realises his victim will grow older and that there will be periods when he will not have a victim to molest. Paedophiles, therefore, have a compelling need to record the physical act of molestation. They will use various recording mechanisms to do this such as diaries, computers, photographs, films or video tapes. Photographs and descriptions of child sex abuse are frequently traded by paedophiles on the Internet. The existence of these pornographic images is essentially disturbing and traumatic for the exploited child who lives for many years with the knowledge that a record of his or her humiliation is available and probably in circulation.

The characteristics of people who abuse children vary according to their relationship to the child. Abusers who are strangers to the children involved are generally loners and single men who have no history of marital relationships. They attack children in a violent way in one-off situations. Having sexually assaulted one child, they move on to other victims. They accumulate a vast number of victims and it has been known for some to claim as many as 200 to 300 victims.

Another type of abuser is the parent or blood relative. Such offenders do not have many victims and are not usually violent. They persuade the child to accept the sexual abuse over a long period of time. They convince the child that the abuse is an education or a game and persuade him or her that the abuse will not be harmful. In most situations, this type of abuser lives with the child.

Between the above two extremes lies the abuser who is known to the child but does not live with him or her. Such abusers can have a number of victims at any one time or sequentially. All sex offenders tend to have very low self esteem, a low sense of self worth and very little understanding of their victims' position. They do not understand how the victim feels and often feel they are not doing the victim any harm. In many situations, they can blame the child for the abuse, alleging that he or she is being too friendly or dependent. They do not accept any blame for the abuse and if they do, they usually point to an external source as a cause for their actions, using drunkenness and so on as an excuse. Such offenders are usually socially isolated.

The main difference between physical abuse and sexual abuse is that the latter can never be accidental. Sexual abuse is planned and, if it occurs in the victim's home, it is planned over a long period of time whereas physical abuse can occur on the spur of the moment. Physical abuse is often accompanied by deep regret when a person did not intend to lose his or her temper or harm the child. Child sex abuse is quite different. Most victims of sex abuse suffer from long traumatic stress disorders and an entire range of mental health problems often occur in such children. They often inflict self injury or self mutilation directly or through eating disorders and drug abuse.

Once children have become victims of abuse, they tend to suffer further abuse in later life. Children who are abused in a family are often vulnerable to the advances of paedophiles when they reach school age or adolescence. That is due to low self-esteem and low self-confidence. The paedophile identifies and targets those children by offering them some form of comfort or attention. Then they sexually manipulate and coerce the child into degrading and inhuman sexual acts. Studies in the UK show that children who have been abused and emotionally neglected in a family are more vulnerable to the advances of paedophiles when they reach school age or adolescence. Paedophiles specifically target and exploit such children and go on to sexually manipulate and coerce the child into unwanted sexual activity.

I wish to comment on what is sometimes referred to as kiddie porn, or a less explicit version of child pornography than that stated in the Bill, which is subtly presented in advertising promotional material. As a society we must attempt to draw a line, however difficult that may be, between acceptable portrayal of children in advertising and the unacceptable presentation of them by sexual innuendo. 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 their portrayal as sexual objects in the popular press and in advertising. The sight of young children selling jeans in a seductive manner pleases paedophiles who are attracted to it. It glamorises children as sexual objects by presenting them in inappropriate sexual contexts. Children should be protected, loved and nurtured and not used and abused. They should be treated as children. Consumers when faced with this type of unacceptable advertising should bring it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, refuse to buy products which use children in that way and tell manufacturers why they are not purchasing their products. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Dr. Upton

The Labour Party welcomes the publication of this timely and comprehensive legislative reform. The issues of child pornography and trafficking in children for the purposes of sexual exploitation addressed in the Bill are two of the most obscene acts imaginable.

Over the recent past the frightening level of abuse and exploitation inflicted on children in society has been laid bare. For too many years we sought to ignore this issue and to pretend it did not happen. That attitude effectively facilitated the brutal acts perpetrated by child abusers. Paedophilia and child abuse thrives in an atmosphere of ignorance and denial. The revelations of recent years exposed the dangers of that attitude which ignored the plight of children and offered support to criminals who perpetrated these acts. As a society we now have to fashion legislation and administrative systems that seek to protect, support and listen to children. The protection and welfare of all this nation's children is now a political priority and must remain so into the future. This Bill is part of the process to ensure our children are protected and abusers punished.

The instance of child prostitution and child trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation was the focus of the world congress on the sexual exploitation of children held in Stockholm in 1996. This Bill is a development from that conference at which UNICEF produced shocking figures related to child exploitation. Those figures showed that over one million children are entering the prostitution trade each year. In 1992, figures showed that 92 per cent of all prostitutes in Nicaragua were children. Those figures indicate the degree of orchestration involved in forcing children into prostitution. The horrific details of cases across Europe, including Ireland and Belgium, point out the necessity of not only strong national law to prevent this abuse but also the need for maximum international co-operation.

The legislation addresses the first of those two points and I would be obliged if the Minister, when replying to this debate, would outline the Government's proposals to ensure the EU and the UN take effective action to pool information and resources to combat the international trafficking in children. Child prostitution and pornography is a vice that trades across international borders. While it is right and necessary that each individual jurisdiction should place on its Statute Book strict legislation prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children, it is also essential there should be maximum co-operation between law enforcement agencies to track down and bring to justice the evil people who profit from this trade.

Turning to the specific provisions of the Bill, the Labour Party will seek to table amendments on Committee Stage. Section 3 regarding child trafficking is comprehensive in dealing with all aspects of this nefarious trade. From court reports and research material available we know that child trafficking operations involve complex networks of people engaged in the abduction, detention and trafficking of children. It is important this section provides for long custodial terms for persons convicted of involvement in any of these aspects of child trafficking. However, I would like the Minister to explain why there is a difference in sentencing policy contained in section 3. It is bizarre that the trafficking of children through the State, for the purpose of their sexual exploitation, is quite properly punishable by up to life imprisonment, while the kidnapping of a child within this State for the same purpose carries only a maximum sentence of ten years. Surely both offences should carry the same maximum sentence and I hope the Minister will address this point when he responds to the debate.

The Bill also provides legislative sanction against persons involved in child pornography. The definition of child pornography is vital in legislation such as this and the Bill attempts to address all forms of child pornography through whichever medium they are broadcast or supplied. It also includes in its definition of pornography visual representations of a person depicted as being a child, which is an important inclusion in our definition of child pornography.

However, I will seek to remove the sentencing proposals contained in section 4, 5 and 6, and, in particular, the proposals related to maximum fines that can be imposed on an individual convicted of offences related to child pornography. There should not be limits in the legislation on the size of fines a court can impose on convicted persons. There is no need to specify in advance a limit on the size of a fine. I assume the production and distribution of child pornography is a lucrative trade and vast amounts of money can be made from this pernicious business. I see no valid reason for putting an arbitrary upper limit on the amount of money that can be retrieved from persons convicted of these practices and I hope the Minister will review his approach to this matter.

The Bill also seeks to address the issue of child pornography on the Internet, which is a welcome move. I am aware the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in discussions with Internet service providers in drafting this Bill and the provisions relating to computer generated images, in particular, are especially welcome. Regulation or control of information on the Internet is an extremely complex area. Much of the initial work in this area has been carried out in the United States where the first amendment to its Constitution guaranteeing free speech has complicated the process. I welcome the consultative approach adopted by the Department towards the preparation of this Bill. While the term "Internet" does actually appear in the Bill, I am hopeful progress can be made to restrict the availability of child pornography on the Internet. I understand the Department working group on illegal and harmful uses of the Internet is due to produce an interim report soon and I hope that group will recommend practical proposals which can be implemented by the service providers and Internet users to prevent the transmission of child pornography or communication between paedophile groups on the Internet. While I accept the difficulties involved in trying to do that, the contributions of the Minister and Deputy Neville sounded a note of encouragement in regard to what is possible in this area.

I hope the Minister will clarify one aspect of the Bill which has been brought to my attention. Why is the term "unlawful sexual activity with children" used in section 2(c)? It has been suggested that the term "unlawful" is unnecessary. Can the Minister explain why it is included?

The Bill is welcome and I believe it will be strengthened on Committee Stage. However, it is only part of a process to protect and enhance the lives of children. The recent appearance by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, before the UN committee on the rights of the child and the subsequent report of that committee point to our failings in providing adequate resources for children. The report made a number of points which the Government must address. While the committee welcomed the publication of this Bill, there are other areas where our system of child care were found seriously wanting. They include the lack of co-ordination between agencies whose task is to protect children, the lack of an ombudsman for children's rights and concern for children who are expelled from schools for disruptive behaviour.

My colleague, Deputy O'Shea, has been to the fore in raising the latter with the Minister for Education and Science. He has proposed the establishment of special regional education units which would specifically deal with children who have been expelled from school for disruptive behaviour and work intensively with them to adequately prepare them for a return to the education system. Child centred proposals such as these are required for the delivery of services to children. We have a long way to go to ensure that this happens in a co-ordinated and focused manner.

I commend the Minister and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this Bill. It will send a strong signal that the State will not allow itself to be used as a trafficking point for prostitution or pornography. It will also send a signal to people involved in the sexual exploitation of children that their heinous crimes will not be tolerated.

On the fragmented and increasingly individualistic nature of Irish society, that fragmentation, which is endemic, has greatly facilitated the activities of paedophiles. Our new society has much to recommend it but in the older society in which I was reared there was a powerful social sanction against paedophiles. It was not overt but it existed. I remember being left in no doubt that one would be well advised to avoid contact with a certain type of person.

There was usually an older person in the community who was sharp and vigorous in ensuring a child did not go next or near such people. Only as one grew older and began to understand the import of such directions did one realise that these elders were trying to protect young children and ensure they did not become victims of paedophiles. That type of social sanction does not exist in our new society. In many ways the social sanctions which existed years ago had many deleterious effects but the one to which I have referred was useful and helped to curb the awfulness of some of these people.

However, the evidence that is available now indicates clearly that a disturbing amount of child sexual abuse took place, although the social sanction element succeeded in curbing it to an extent. That social sanction no longer exists which is why this Bill is particularly welcome. It will go a good distance towards compensating for the lack of awareness on the part of most of the public of the awfulness of these activities and the extent to which they happen.

Mr. Dennehy

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on its introduction. There is reluctance to deal with legislation that will require tackling modern technology. The subject of this Bill is one such area and white collar fraud is another. Legislators in general have been reluctant to tackle these problems but the Minister is willing to do so.

I disagree with some of the points made by Deputy Neville and Deputy Upton. It is true that when we were young we were aware of what were called "funny" people in society and we were warned away from them. They were obvious people. Unfortunately, however, as we have learned from the drastic cases which have come before the courts in recent years and for which people have been jailed, the most dangerous people were usually those who appeared to live ordinary lives. They were manipulative and seductive, charming and, in many cases, held positions of power. They used their trusted positions to pursue these activities.

As we have seen from the two most recent cases, such people were willing to wait and work for years to get themselves into positions where they could abuse children. I take the opposite view to Deputy Upton. Children had no problem with the obvious suspects but they did have a problem with discreet paedophiles. That has been evident from the cases that have come before the courts in the past five years. I agree with the Minister that these people were manipulative and willing to work for a long period in order to reach positions of trust. They secured the trust of parents while they abused children. Some of the cases date from 25 years ago. The difficulty has always been that we did not recognise where the problem would occur. We tended to take people at face value and we now know, unfortunately, that society is sicker than we thought.

I also disagree with Deputy Neville's suggestion that the Minister include the abduction of children for purposes other than sexual exploitation. The Bill seeks to tackle a specific difficulty and the inclusion of a new task would complicate its remit. There is a need for further legislation to deal with the issue raised by the Deputy but the Bill before the House should not be complicated by its inclusion. I hope the Minister will agree with my point of view.

One of the most important functions of legislators is to ensure that children are offered the type of protection to which they are entitled and to give them the opportunity to enjoy a carefree and happy childhood. Unfortunately, that has not been done. Many people tended to be of the opinion that child pornography was mainly a matter of dirty pictures. However, according to Detective Chief Inspector James Reynolds of Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, child pornography is the visual depiction of sexual assault.

The development of the Internet poses particular problems in coping with child pornography. The international nature of the Internet and its anonymity demands that we seek innovative means of preventing the widespread distribution of obscene material. The ten year sentence on indictment for the production and distribution of such material and the five year sentence for possession will be a significant deterrent and will send a clear message to those involved in such activities. The message has not been clear previously. In fact, many people have virtually sought sympathy for some perpetrators by using the "God help them" approach.

Being from Cork, I am extremely interested in the work being carried out in this area by University College, Cork. I was particularly concerned by the comments of Dr. Max Taylor of UCC who said that the Internet is the major focal point for the distribution of child pornography and information about paedophile behaviour. The Government should implement in full the recommendations of the report of the child studies unit at UCC, which worked on the report in co-operation with the Garda Síochána and other agencies under the STOP programme. The report called for a proper licensing system for Internet service providers, a monitoring centre and a public hotline to assist in tracing illegal material. The monitoring centre could work in the same way as the censor and could play a role in heightening public awareness of undesirable activity.

That suggestion leads to the argument of what constitutes pornography. Obviously there is a dictionary definition, but many people differ on its interpretation. A recent Irish film that earned international acclaim but which I have not viewed had scenes which, I am told, would be considered at least blasphemous by the majority of the Catholic population and for many people would come within the definition of pornography. The Minister has done a very good job in dealing with this aspect of a much wider and complicated issue. He is to be congratulated on bringing forward the legislation. Under the legislation a child is defined as a person under 17 years. I appreciate that is the age set down in other sexual offences legislation but, given that in the past complications have arisen from different definitions of a child, I would ask the Minister if it is in line with other legislation.

Successive Governments have backed away from tackling outstanding issues because of the difficulties involved. I refer to white collar fraud and so on. In the early 1990s the Law Reform Commission recommended that changes should be made in that area, but to my knowledge nothing was done by the previous Government in that regard. I am glad the Minister is tackling that aspect under the fraud offences Bill. We should not be afraid to draw up much needed legislation because of difficulties with changing technology. People, whether draftspeople or Ministers, seem to back away from that, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is to be congratulated on taking on this matter.

I have criticised in the past the delays between recognising the need for legislation and its implementation. That gap is far too great. Rapid changes in society have left legislation way behind. For example, the term "paedophile" meant nothing to the average citizen ten years ago. We are slow to respond to needs at times and the House should consider these matters. The setting up of committees has speeded the passage of legislation once it comes to the House, but there is a bottleneck in the drafting of Bills. I am delighted with the Minister's enthusiasm in dealing with issues that were previously avoided.

The Bill must be considered in the context of a number of measures to improve child welfare. In the last Dáil Deputy O'Donoghue introduced the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Bill, 1995, which was passed. This Government accepted legislation put forward by Deputy Shatter on the reporting of child abuse. Taken together, those measures will be of assistance, but much more needs to be done. I disagree with Deputy Neville in that this is specific legislation dealing with a complicated issue. People have referred to the abuse of children. There should be a register of paedophiles and abusers of children to reassure and assist parents and local communities. When that is introduced, together with the other measures such as the provision of up to three months leave for parents to care for their children, it will represent a major upgrading of all aspects of children's welfare.

There is international pressure in this area, such as Article 34 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which will force us to do certain things, but as a State we should ensure children are not abused. They should be able to enjoy their lives and feel free to participate in all walks of life without the fear of abuse. We should be capable of legislating speedily and specifically when the need arises. This is one of the most serious issues we will deal with in terms of the welfare of children. The consequences of not dealing with it are drastic. Reports of abuse constitute only a small percentage of the abuse that is taking place — I am talking here in an Irish context. We must send a clear message from this House that abuse of young people will not be tolerated by the State. The punishment must fit the crime. The Minister has struck the right note in this regard, particularly in section 3 which I welcome.

Child trafficking for the purpose of sexual abuse has been ignored over the years. It has been referred to in the context of pseudoreligious groups which have taken families under their wing. This has been a difficult matter to deal with because very often parents are involved. It is a matter of which we must be aware and with which we must deal. I am glad all people, including parents, who permit abuse of children are covered in the legislation. No specific case of child trafficking has been dealt with because much of it has been conducted under a different guise. This is a matter on which we must educate ourselves. There have been rumours of cases and very often the reaction is that there is a personal gripe against a certain group and that people are concerned about the religious education of their children. We now find, however, that there is real substance to many of those complaints. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter and ensure such activities are covered.

This Bill will be widely discussed during its passage. I welcome the Minister's proposals. While this is not a very large Bill, it is a technical measure which is a start in facing up to difficulties in terms of modern technology. The Internet has been referred to, and it can be of great benefit to students, industry and others, but it can also have a very harmful influence on people. I commend the Minister on the steps he is taking in that regard.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): Fine Gael welcomes this Bill which deals with the very serious matter of child pornography. The regulation of pornography generally can be a very controversial issue as it often involves a conflict between the right of citizens to read or view the material of their choice and the right of others, particularly women and children, to be protected from exploitation and from being depicted in a degrading and humiliating manner. Here, however, we are dealing only with child pornography. Therefore, the type of conflict to which I referred does not really come into play.

The essential characteristic of child pornography is that its very production will almost invariably have involved the commission of an offence and often a number of serious offences. In this country, no person under the age of 15 years can consent to sexual intercourse. Homosexual acts are illegal if either party is under the age of 16 years or is mentally impaired. Most other countries have similar laws, although the age limits vary. Be that as it may, it means that any pornographic film which portrays a person under the age of 15 years engaged in a sexual act would automatically be the product of crime if made in Ireland or in any one of several other countries.

Another valid reason to outlaw the production and distribution of child pornography is that there is strong evidence to suggest that the use of this pornography may be a causal factor in the commission of crimes against children. There is some disagreement among experts on this issue but we cannot afford to take any chances in this area. Doubtless the motivation for sexually abusing children may derive from deep rooted psychological factors but the use of pornography may well be the immediate factor which motivates those already disposed towards abusing children to go out and commit specific acts of abuse. This is another good reason to outlaw it.

Another reason is that paedophiles sometimes use child pornography and other forms of pornography as a means to persuade and induce children and adolescents to engage in sexual acts with them. All the evidence, therefore, points to the need for strict controls on child pornography and, indeed, for sustained efforts at both domestic and international level to eliminate it. It is probably too optimistic to expect it to be eliminated in the foreseeable future.

Whatever arguments can be made from the so-called civil libertarian standpoint on the freedom to use adult pornography, there is absolutely no valid argument to be made on child pornography, which is often the product of crime and there is a strong likelihood that it leads to further crime. The catastrophic consequences of that crime for its victims is to be seen on a daily basis in our courts.

It is clear this Bill is intended as a comprehensive effort to criminalise the production, distribution and possession of child pornography as well as trafficking in children for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Two crucially important aspects of the Bill are the definitions given to child pornography and sexual exploitation. The definition of this term is contained in section 1 where it appears to be confined to audio and visual representation, which includes books, periodicals and other documents. I assume the primary definition of child pornography, with its reference to computer graphics and so forth, includes material published on the Internet.

Will the Minister consider the problem of people using the Internet to exchange information on targeting children for sexual exploitation purposes. If, for example, a website was established simply showing photographs, not necessarily obscene photographs, of children with an indication of where they could be found and indicating they were available for sexual purposes, would this practice, although intended to facilitate child abuse and as harmful as pornography in its own way, if not more so, be captured under the present definition of child exploitation?

I draw the Minister's attention to two further aspects of the definition of child pornography. As the Bill now reads, a visual representation is confined to depictions of children engaged in explicit sexual activity and to intimate depictions of children for a sexual purpose. If, for example, a video or photograph depicted a child watching adults engaged in sexual activity, would that come within the present definition? I do not believe it would, because the present definition is confined to representations of children engaged in or depicted as being engaged in sexual activity. In the types of situations I mentioned, the children in question are not really engaged in such an activity, but are more bystanders. However, we know from accounts of child abuse committed here and elsewhere that children have been used by adults for the purposes of sexual gratification in this way.

On Committee Stage I will table an amendment to extend the present definition to include representations of children against whom sexual acts are being directed or whose presence at a scene involving sexual activity by others is depicted as providing sexual gratification for those others. The type of activity in question would not necessarily involve advocating, encouraging or counselling unlawful sexual activity for children. Furthermore, the type of behaviour I described of children witnessing adult sexual acts is unfortunately not always unlawful in this country.

It is not clear, as the Bill is drafted, if child pornography includes printed narratives, such as novels without illustrations. The reason for the ambiguity is that on the one hand visual representation is defined as including documents such as books, periodicals and pamphlets but on the other hand, the primary definition states that it must be a visual representation which shows a child engaged in explicit sexual activity and so on. If it is meant to include printed narratives, surely one would expect to find a word formulation along the lines that a visual representation is one which describes or shows a person? As it is now written, it conveys the impression through the exclusive use of the word "shows" that there must be some graphic or photographic element involved. If it is not intended to include solely printed pornography, this is surely a serious gap in the Bill. Pornography in literary form, if one may call it that, has long been in existence and continues to thrive even in this technological age.

Assuming the Bill is in some way or other intended to cover printed pornography, then I would like to draw attention to another problem which relates to the conception of a visual representation in the Bill. It will be noted that this has two aspects depicting a child engaged in sexual activity and intimate photographs of children for a sexual purpose. There is an important difference in the way these two aspects are defined. In the second, the intimate depiction of the child must be the dominant characteristic of the representation. This will operate to keep medical text books and such things from being treated as pornographic. There is no such requirement of dominant purposes in relation to a visual representation depicting or purporting to depict a child engaged in explicit sexual acts bearing in mind that a visual representation can be a book, a magazine, a film or a video among other things. If there was a serious documentary on child abuse which depicted such an act or if a serious work of literature described such an act, is it, therefore, right that such an act should be treated as child pornography, although its dominant purpose is not even remotely pornographic?

We must also bear in mind that a later provision makes it a serious offence to possess a piece of child pornography as defined here. As I read the definitional elements of child pornography, there is a possibility that many people might unwittingly commit the possession offence by having a book or video in their house perhaps for a long time without realising it contravenes the terms of this legislation simply because the dominant purpose of the book or video in question could not be remotely described as pornographic — I am talking about medical matter and so on. It is a technical point, but it is one at which we should look.

I realise some will argue that artistic merit should not be a deciding factor. A serious work of literature might be used for pornographic purposes by some and not by others. What matters at the end of the day is the protection of children. However, there is a need for balance in view of the many competing issues of stake. This is a matter which I am sure we will debate carefully on Committee Stage. Would it be better to have a dominant purpose requirement for all types of visual representation? Would there be more merit in a provision to the effect that to constitute child pornography, a visual representation is not treated as such unless it is gratuitously included in a work which is otherwise of literary, artistic or of scientific merit? The regulation of any form of speech, including pornography, is a difficult and delicate issue and I hope we will give it serious attention as the Bill moves through Committee and Final Stages in the House.

I draw the Minister's attention to the need to outlaw the systematic exchange of information intended to facilitate child sexual exploitation. It is doubtful if the section, as drafted, would cover this practice. Yet what we know about paedophile rings suggests that their operation relies heavily on this kind of information exchange. Although the information which is traded may not always be pornographic in that it may not include the kind of depiction covered by the Bill, it can have an impact which is just as detrimental as pornography.

On the definition of sexual exploitation in section 3, it is appropriate to draw attention to gaps in the criminal law relating to sexual offences against children. There is a serious lack of legislation to outlaw indecency with children. There is no general offence of child sexual abuse in our law, although the Law Reform Commission recommended the introduction of such an offence as far back as 1989. Most forms of abuse will come within the definition of the standard offences, such as rape, sexual assault, incest, prostitution or gross indecency between males, but there is a need for a general offence to cover behaviour such as allowing children to witness sexual acts. The absence of such an offence weakens the law now being introduced in relation to sexual exploitation which is heavily dependent on current sexual offences against children. I hope the Minister gives this matter urgent attention.

I welcome the provision in section 4 which makes it an offence for a person having custody, charge or care of a child to allow the child to be used for the production of child pornography. I ask the Minister to consider between now and Committee Stage whether it would be wise to extend this definition to include a person in a position of influence over a child. What I have in mind is the possibility that a person, such as a sports coach or voluntary worker with a youth group, might misuse his position to facilitate the exploitation of children for pornographic purposes by allowing photographs to be taken of them. Such a person might not necessarily be deemed to have custody, charge or care of the child at the particular time, yet he can have considerable influence over the children with whom he works whether in a paid or voluntary capacity. There could be no principled objection to broadening the provision to state that any person who facilitates or allows a child to be used for pornographic purposes shall be guilty of an offence. No one has a right to do this. The penalties could be increased in the case of a parent, guardian or carer.

One of the most far reaching provisions is contained in section 6 which makes it a serious criminal offence to possess child pornography. In a liberal democracy such as ours we are usually reluctant to legislate for what people may read or view in the privacy of their homes. The general principle in the words of John Stuart Mill is that behaviour should not be criminalised unless it causes harm to others. This is a fundamental norm most of us would wish to see honoured. Section 6, as drafted, constitutes an exception to that norm. However, I am prepared to tolerate it because of the seriousness of the issue involved. Child pornography results from harm to others, namely the children involved in its production. There is strong evidence to suggest that it leads to further harm when it falls into the hands of the wrong people. In view of the important constitutional principle at stake, I ask the Minister to consider it with the Attorney General. Does he believe this section would survive a constitutional challenge in the event of a person being prosecuted for the possession of, say, a video which might involve an element of child pornography but which in the eyes of some people may, unfortunately, have some documentary or artistic merit?

There are two perfectly reasonable exceptions mentioned in section 6, one of which will protect those who might happen to find themselves in possession of pornography in the exercise of official censorship functions and the other which will protect those engaged in crime prevention, investigation and prosecution. I draw the Minister's attention to a third possibility, namely, the possession of such material for bona fide research purposes. A great deal of the leading scientific research carried out by psychologists, criminologists and scholars in the field of women's studies has involved the examination of various kinds of pornography for specific investigation purposes. This is clearly important work and it should not be prohibited through a legislative oversight. Close attention would have to be paid to the wording of any such provision to ensure it does not provide a loophole. However, I am confident that such a form of wording can be found.

I wish to raise with the Minister a matter which is relevant to the topic being debated. It is said that some imprisoned sex offenders exchange copies of each other's statements as a form of pornography. If this is true, then it makes a complete nonsense of any efforts, such as they are, to reduce the risk of these people reoffending when they are released. This is probably not the appropriate debate in which to deal with the exchange of statements which involve a complex point of criminal procedure and possibly a point of constitutional law, but there is a problem and the Minister should examine it urgently. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Ardagh

It is an indictment of our society that we need a Bill to deal with child pornography. This terrible trade has existed for thousands of years and it is only now that we are really tackling it. I compliment the Minister on bringing forward the Bill which will help address and, I hope, eliminate child trafficking and pornography.

The Bill probably had its genesis in the Bill dealing with child sexual abuse in the Philippines introduced by Deputy Eoin Ryan. At that time Irish priests in the Philippines highlighted nationally and internationally the huge problems of child sex rings and the fact that people travel to the Philippines to engage in this evil practice. We have heard reports of families who are forced for economic reasons to sell their children to this trade. I am sure these families do not realise the purposes for which their children are used. It is cruel that such an economic necessity exists in this day and age. It forces us to consider the extent of our international aid programme, particularly for families who are forced to sell their children for economic reasons.

Under section 3(1) it will be an offence to organise or knowingly facilitate child trafficking. I hope this section will reduce the level of child trafficking. We are all aware of the terrible Dutroux case in Belgium where children were imprisoned and killed. Section 3(2) will make it an offence to detain or restrict the liberty of a child for the purposes of sexual exploitation. A person found guilty of such an offence will be liable on conviction to up to ten years imprisonment. When one considers the Dutroux case one wonders whether ten years is a reasonable period of incarceration for a person who has ruined the life of a child.

It is horrifying to read the explanatory memorandum and the definitions in the Bill. It is repellent that we have to bring in laws to prevent people from showing children engaging in explicit sexual activity, the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction for a sexual purpose of the genital or anal regions of children. Most of us in this House are parents and even the thought that any child, like our own children, could be subjected to such grossly indecent acts is totally abhorrent. The Bill also specifically includes the definition of pictures or audio material of those events or anything which encourages or advocates unlawful sexual activity with children.

The question of the Internet was raised by a number of speakers. I agree that all the Internet service providers should come together to form a grouping. They should make available a freefone number to allow any responsible user of the ISP services throughout Ireland, whether it be Ireland On-Line, Indigo, Internet Ireland or the Higher Education Authority net, who comes across anything associated with child pornography to telephone the number so that access to the site would be immediately denied by all the Internet service providers. That would not be difficult to do.

Internationally the main search engine is Alta Vista which is used by many of the other search engines. Alta Vista is a company which I understand is owned by Digital DEC. International pressure should be put on Alta Vista to ensure any sites which include child pornographic material are eliminated from the search engine.

Some months ago it came to my attention that there was a child sex site on IOL. Without hesitation, IOL immediately removed that site from its service and was anxious to ensure that people who found unsuitable items on the service would inform the company so that they could be deleted immediately. That was a first class response from IOL.

I agree there should be a register of paedophiles in Ireland. No quarter should be shown to people who ruin the lives of children. We have to listen more to our own and other children, take seriously what they tell us and ensure their complaints are fully investigated.

It can be difficult for children in schools who make an accusation against a teacher. The complaint has to be investigated and the teacher's reputation is at stake but we must ensure that if a child makes an accusation against a teacher it is treated in a sensitive manner and that the case is examined in greater detail.

I am sorry the time has arrived where children are denied cuddles. In the past many Members of the House, during meetings in their constituencies or otherwise, would give a child a cuddle and ask them how they were. Circumstances would arise where that would have been appropriate, and it is very unfortunate that children are denied those cuddles except by their parents.

Deputy Higgins referred to artistic merit and child pornography but I hope this jurisdiction will not allow a liberal thinking population, in Europe or elsewhere, to prevent us from ensuring that child trafficking and pornography are eliminated not only in Ireland but internationally.

Mr. Gormley

I welcome the Bill dealing with an increasing problem in our society which involves a corrupt, million dollar business with an international dimension. The Bill is an indication that in one sense we have come full circle. In the United States, the makers of the film "Lolita" cannot find a distributor. We are discovering that the liberal agenda has not been so liberating. In some instances, it has curtailed development, enslaved human beings and deprived children of childhood innocence.

Even in the absence of child pornography, children are being corrupted every day. One simply has to look at MTV to see that sexual images are broadcast early in the evening. These programmes are not catering for adults because these fairly explicit sexual images are broadcast at six o'clock in the evening. Even children who are interested in the Spice Girls — some as young as four years of age — watch these programmes. That must be questioned because children are being sexualised prematurely. They have the minds of children but they are being subjected, at every instance, to sexual imagery. The Australian "soaps" which are broadcast every day depict children who, under the definition of this Act are those under 17 years of age, engaging in sexual relationships. Is this good for society? I do not agree with Margaret Thatcher's dictum that there is no such thing as society, only individuals. We have to think about the good of society and, as we enter the new millennium, we are beginning to rethink the idea behind the liberal agenda.

There is a problem with the Bill in that it deals primarily with visual images, not the written word, and that raises the question of magazines for children. More magazine is aimed at children under the age of 17 yet it deals with fairly explicit subjects. Do we intend to deal with that problem at some future stage? I hope we will because one simply has to listen to the conversations of ten year olds to hear how apparently sophisticated they are. They are only children but they are talking about sex, fancying people, etc. That is something about which we should be concerned because if we are sexualising our children at such an early age, the consequences will be that we will have more unwanted pregnancies, etc. That is something we ought to be worried about.

Section 2 defines what is meant by child pornography. In section 5 the important word is "knowingly". The freephone system is a good one, and it would be wrong if Indigo or Ireland on Line were held accountable because they provide a service on that basis. We have had much comment about the Internet, some of it good and some of it plain ignorant, and I say that with respect. The Internet is wonderful, it contains mountains of knowledge for people who want to access it but it is also difficult to control. We need to be careful, but Internet service providers should not become the fall guys. If police units were properly trained in information technology, the freephone system would make it possible to trace people and crack paedophile rings. We can track down some of the most sophisticated hackers who bounce material around the world. It should be possible to trace paedophiles also. Recently we saw how the famous Gary Glitter was tracked down through his use of computers.

We need to crack down heavily on paedophile rings, and it is important that we are seen to do so. I agree with Deputy Ardagh that terms of imprisonment are far too short. We need to have a harsher regime for people who are ruining children's lives. I commend this Bill to the House.

Ms Hanafin

Most people accept that pornography is probably the dirtiest and seediest form of abuse. It largely affects women and children. Many studies over the years have shown the link between pornography and violence because pornography dehumanises people and shows them as depersonalised sexual beings, not as human beings, multifaceted people with rights. Pornography is used by men to show dominance and power. It has been shown over the years that it has led to women feeling very vulnerable and unsafe. If that is the way adult women feel, how do young children feel who have been the victims of such sordid abuse?

What is frightening about pornography is that it is a multimillion dollar industry. It has been proven to be at least as big as the video and music industries combined throughout the world. It is not just something we in Ireland have come across recently. In Europe and North America it has been found that up to 60 per cent of men are regular users of pornography. It is frightening to think of the large numbers of children who are caught up in the sex industry. For years we have blinded ourselves into believing that this is something that happens in America, Thailand or the Far East. Unfortunately, with the horror of what happened in Belgium in recent years we have found that it happens all too close to home.

The exploitation of children in pornography is closely linked to child sex abuse. It has been found that each reinforces the other. Women and children are depersonalised by it. They are turned into consumer objects. They are objects for the benefit of profit for a multimillion dollar industry.

The Council of Europe has recognised the difficulties and the extent of the problem in a report entitled "Sexual Exploitation: Pornography, Prostitution and Trafficking in Children and Young Adults". The report observes that abuse and exploitation is often associated with early sex abuse within the family or outside it and is underestimated by criminal, justice, welfare and educational organisations. It is not something that falls within the remit of any one Department or Minister. It needs to be addressed by all Ministers working together transnationally across borders.

All the records show that children's involvement in sexual exploitation exacerbates their shame, humiliation and powerlessness. Particularly for children, the knowledge that there is a visual record of their abuse will be with them for the rest of their lives, irrespective of how young they were when abused. That visual record is pornography, it is impossibly painful for children and something with which they can never cope.

Because it is such an international problem and transcends boundaries, this Bill is particularly welcome. Though not mentioning the word "Internet" it covers the Internet, because the Internet transcends technological borders. We need to control what we do in our own countries, but it is very difficult to control what happens in third countries because they themselves have little legislative control. The working party being set up on the illegal and harmful content of the Internet has led, for example, to the STOP programme, but the Commission has said that it is the responsibility of each member state to ensure the application of existing laws. In that context I welcome this legislation, because we need to strengthen our own laws. We can only enforce whatever laws we introduce ourselves. Again, we need a co-ordinated approach. Outside Europe, the G7 plus Russia have a working group on child trafficking and pornography and the abuse of the Internet.

For the first time in this Bill there is a definition of pornography and of the child. I particularly welcome the continued use of the definition of a child as being up to and including 17 years of age because young adults, which they are at the age of 17, feel independent and would never classify themselves as children. They feel they have a certain knowledge and sense of responsibility, and it is only years later that they realise that at 17 one is still a child. It is very important to hold on to that age definition.

The definition of the types of pornography and its types of presentation is particularly welcome. The Irish approach is probably better than the UK Protection of Children Act, 1978, because this refers only to photographs and pseudo photographs. It is better than the American Federal Child Pornography Statute which refers to visual depiction but goes on to define what is meant by visual depiction. The list of sexual acts it gives is itself tantamount to pornography. Therefore, I compliment the Minister on drafting this Bill and the definitions in it.

I welcome all aspects of the Bill which deals with the production, distribution, printing, publication, import, export, selling or facilitating of such activities or facilitating advertising. That also covers the Internet. Equally welcome is the fact that possession is also listed. What is difficult is its policing. The power of the Garda Síochána to have a warrant to enter, search and seize, and that the courts can forfeit and destroy, is a strong one, but enforcement will always be difficult, and it is something we should keep a close eye on.

There have been some successes in other countries, particularly in relation to the Internet in England, for example, in the case of R. v Fellowes, the supplier using a university computer to distribute pornography and in which there was a successful prosecution. The extent of the problem in that case was that the data in question contained 11,650 pictures which were being distributed, 1,875 of which were of minors.

The police were fortunate to have discovered this situation. In other cases this happens by chance, as occurred when Gary Glitter had his personal computer repaired.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

The Deputy should not refer to people who are not Members, particularly those who have not been convicted of any offence.

Ms Hanafin

I was about to say that he has been charged with 50 different prosecutable offences. Policing this is very difficult because one is dealing with people who are in positions of power, strength and influence over innocent children. This morning I brought in a group of sixth class children from Booterstown national school. I spoke to them about the importance of our work and attempted to explain that we were debating a child pornography measure. One asked innocently if children could not be used in advertising any more. She was thinking of the Liga advertisements and had no concept of what I was talking about. This brought home to me the extent of the problem. We are dealing with children who are so innocent that they have no idea of the level of abuse that can take place. Child pornography is a very frightening development in our society, a society which has failed in many ways.

Child trafficking is almost impossible to comprehend. One thinks of milk cartons in America which carry photographs of missing children. Those children's parents must wonder if their children are kidnapped, dead or sold off for sordid activity. I welcome the Bill because it means that we are doing our part to protect the most innocent members of our society. However, enforcement of the Bill must be given full power.

Mr. O'Flynn

Not a day seems to go by without reports of child sexual abuse on the radio or television. Many of the crimes against children are carried out by trusted relations or friends of these children's families. This Bill will go a long way toward strengthening the legislation against child sexual abuse such as the Children Bill, 1996, which updated the law on abuse.

I received a telephone call last Saturday from a young woman in Cork on whose case I am working. Her circumstances are horrific. Her child, who is a year and a half old, is allegedly being molested by his father. It makes me sick to think about it, but listening to that lady tell me the gory details of the abuse focused my mind on what can happen to young children. This case is even more frightening because the Garda cannot prosecute the case successfully because of the age of the child. I was close to tears when speaking to this woman. What manner of person carries out such acts? What drives them to lust after and abuse children of both sexes? I wish there was a cure for this illness, which robs young children of their innocence.

I have yet to see any pornographic images of children on the Internet, but I believe quite a number exist. Those communicating with each other about this see nothing wrong with what they are doing. They see it as the exchange of information and see nothing wrong with trading pornographic photographs and messages. I welcome the Bill's provisions regarding pornography as well as child trafficking.

Hardly a day goes by without one hearing of child pornography rings, the paedophiles who run them and the sexual abuse that results from them. The Examiner devoted a page last Monday to sexual abuse court cases, though not all of them related to children. It is frightening to have people from all parts of society organised into rings devoted to gratification from photographing and abusing young children.

A register of known paedophiles is very important. We need to know the names of those who have been convicted and sentenced for these offences and where they go when their terms of imprisonment end. I am informed by doctors that approximately 90 per cent of paedophiles are repeat offenders. It is vital to have a register of paedophiles to know if they are in contact with children. Because of the nature of their illness, many paedophiles find a way to become involved with children, and the Minister should look into establishing a register.

I support the Bill, as all Members will. I hope it passes and is enacted speedily to bring us into line with other States which have passed similar laws. I have not had time to study all contributions to this debate, but I am sharing my time with Deputy Roche, who is very eloquent.

Mr. Roche

I thank my colleague. At least he did not say I had more experience in this area than he has. I compliment the Minister, because this is a very timely Bill. This subject is becoming very topical. There is an attempt, particularly in the art world, to desensitise people to the revulsion they naturally feel towards the concept of child pornography. For example, I listened to an extraordinary erudite defence of the remaking of the film "Lolita" where a 12 year old, with a body double, is being cast in a pornographic role. It is intriguing that the writer of the original novel, Nabokov, cautioned against using young people in this way.

This debate, and the debate about that film, raises the question of pornography, child pornography, the abuse of children and, as the Minister said, the theft of childhood. It is important that we address this issue. The Bill is timely because it represents a joint European response to the horrors of the Belgian child abuse ring that were unveiled to an incredulous world last year. This is a truly frightening issue. Any civilised adult human being must be appalled at the concept of children being abused in this manner.

Previous speakers referred to the Internet, an extraordinary and remarkable tool in the worldwide explosion of information technology. However, the speed with which it has been abused is regrettable. Users of the net will know that one can innocently be sidelined into websites which peddle pornography. For example, some of the cartoon sites are innocuous and enjoyed by adults and young people. However, if one clicks on a button to get a further example relating to a cartoon, one could be transferred to a site which contains very explicit pornography.

Regulation must be introduced on a pan national basis. There would be no point in us introducing regulations to control the Internet because most of the material that causes offence comes down the line from the United States or elsewhere. We are dealing with a complex use of technology. While there are huge benefits to be gained from its extraordinary volume of material, it is also abused by the purveyors of pornography, the abusers of children and those who destroy youth.

The legislation illustrates the Minister's consciousness of the need to keep abreast of technology, although I acknowledge that work was done prior to the change of Government. The horrific events of the Belgian paedophile became public knowledge during the course of our Presidency of the EU and operated as a catalyst in this regard. The abuse of the net also became evident through a case that was mentioned earlier. I will not mention the person's name because there has not been a finding against him. The abuse became evident when his computer coughed up some of its nasty contents when it was returned for maintenance.

While the legislation is worthwhile, it is difficult to envisage how the Internet can be policed without a huge amount of technological development. There are thousands of hits available under each site and these are displayed at the bottom of each page. However, that is not to say we should not try to police it and the Bill is a first step in that direction. It recognises the net as a channel through which pornography can be purveyed and contains a number of other worthwhile aspects. I am pleased to note that it provides for the criminalisation of the provision of accommodation for children being moved from one State to another and that there will be much clearer provisions relating to the movement of children across borders. The Minister was correct not to try to identify or codify what is meant by obscene or indecent behaviour. He prudently left that decision to the courts. They will have to refer to the specific context within which an image or piece of material is regarded as prurient or art.

There is another aspect of international pornography I find appalling. I have not seen the film "Lolita" and even if it were available here, I would not wish to see it. There is something extraordinarily distasteful about creative people using a 12 year old to create an atmosphere in which child pornography and paedophile actions against a child are glorified as if they were a form of art. Most people, particularly parents, find that difficult to accept. The makers of the film have made the excuse that they are using a body double for the child, but that is avoiding the main point of criticism. There is something offensive about anything that glorifies or commercialises the abuse of children, seeks to portray as normal an abuse of a child or, as in the case of the film, portrays a child as the cause of the offence. It is sad that people with undoubted talent and artistic abilities engage in this type of film making.

This has given rise to a debate about where responsibility for pornography should rest. Anyone who tolerates the abuse of a child in any image is tolerant of pornography. This type of abuse does not happen merely in films. The issue of child models has been discussed recently. I would regard myself as being very liberal, but I find it appalling that major fashion houses use children by dressing them to look like adults. A particular look which also constitutes an abuse of children has recently come under much criticism in the international fashion industry. It is difficult to know where the borderline lies between abuse and art, particularly as some people regard it as liberal to suggest there should be no thresholds beyond which we should not go. The Minister was prudent to leave it up to the courts to decide what is decent in the circumstances before it.

The Bill is a welcome small addition to the armoury because it recognises this is an international problem which must be addressed on a pan-national basis. One of the criticisms of the Amsterdam Treaty was that it would create something approaching a police state. I refute that. One of the most welcome aspects of that Treaty is that it will create mechanisms to address matters such as the movement of children across borders and actions which facilitate the type of pornography with which this Bill is concerned. The Bill also defines a child as someone under 17. That is a logical decision. Although young people develop more rapidly today than they did ten or 20 years ago, they can still be trapped and abused and the consent they are capable of giving is determined by circumstances. The cut off age of 17 is welcome. I welcome the Bill as an additional measure to protect children and I cannot see why anyone would oppose it.

One small issue is policing, particularly of pornography on the Internet. The creation of strictures which would make the Internet and all its benefits inaccessible is undesirable, but at the same time, consideration must be given to it. It strikes me that there ought to be an international conference on it and it is to be hoped we can be to the fore in promoting that. There is a good deal of technologically advanced thinking in this country so we have a part to play. Policing the Internet will be a mammoth task because of the extraordinary amount of information on it. I do not know how that will be achieved technologically. While welcoming the Bill, it should be pointed out that there are still lacunae, including the policing of the Internet, for example, which need to be addressed, and this can only be done by international action.

I compliment the Minister because this Bill is one of a series of actions he has taken not only since coming into office but prior to that. They show he is deeply concerned about this issue. With the good work put in by his predecessors, he is putting in place mechanisms of which we can all be proud.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate. Its quality and tone indicated the seriousness with which we all treat the disturbing subject of child pornography. It is not enough for us to express our contempt for persons who sexually exploit children; we must also act. This Bill is evidence of the Government's determination to ensure legislation will be put in place to deal with any manifestation of the evils of child pornography and the trafficking of children for the purpose of their sexual exploitation.

The necessity for this legislation would not have been clear to many people some years ago. That is because there was less awareness of the existence and effects of child pornography and the level of abuse of children involved in its production. Every form of technology in the communications area, from the telephone to videos, can be abused. New forms of communication, such as the Internet to which many Deputies referred, have their disadvantages as well as their benefits. These can give rise to new patterns of abuse and exploitation. Accordingly, legislation must be kept under continuous review and, from time to time, new legislation may be required to deal with any emerging forms of abuse and exploitation.

However, it is wrong to depend on legislation alone as offering a sufficiently high level of protection to children from being abused in the making of or as a result of child pornography or other forms of exploitation. The legislation will only succeed if it is accompanied by an increased awareness of the problems associated with child pornography and more education, greater co-operation between agencies and new approaches to investigation and problem solving.

As has been correctly pointed out by several Deputies, the Internet poses certain problems and challenges, not just in the area of child pornography. Two major issues which can only be dealt with on an international scale are liability for illegal material on the Internet and jurisdictional matters. I do not wish to say too much about the Internet at this stage in advance of the report of the working group. However, with the increasing popularity and accessibility of the Internet, parents must be aware of its potentially negative aspects. Various tools are being developed to help parents monitor children's activities on the Internet, such as equipment which will block parts of it or will limit searches on it. Parents should try to keep up to date with modern technology in this area and make use of it if they are to match with practical, preventative measures their concern about what their children are accessing.

Deputy Neville thought the child abduction provision of the legislation was too restrictive. This provision must be read in conjunction with the child abduction provision in the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act, 1997, which includes abduction by parents. In a Bill dealing with child trafficking and abduction, it would not be possible to deal with abduction for other specific reasons, such as child labour. However, that is a matter which could be examined by the appropriate Department to see if the law needs to be tightened up. Although the Deputy's point is well made, it is inappropriate to deal with it in this legislation.

Deputies Neville and Upton referred to the need to regulate the Internet, something I have already mentioned. This will be dealt with in the report of the working group on the Internet.

Deputy Neville correctly mentioned that many pornographic pictures are 30 and 40 years old. It illustrates the extent to which paedophiles will go to hold on to their pornography. They hate to part with it and collect it like others would stamps or football cards. As Deputy Neville correctly pointed out, the material they collect has in its making already resulted in children being abused. It may well be used to fuel the fantasies of paedophiles so that other children in future may be abused as well.

Deputy Neville also referred to pictures of children which, while not pornographic, are sexual to the paedophile. This is true and, as the Deputy said, it cannot be criminalised. The problem is in the mind of the paedophile who regards the pictures or photographs as being sexual even though the children may be fully clothed.

Deputy Neville also mentioned the different types of child sexual abuse. He points out that where incest is involved, the offending may stop when the offender is removed from the house. However, fixated abusers who abuse strangers or children to whom they are not related can abuse many children. It is important that children are not afraid to tell someone about the abuse. Deputy Neville also referred to the sexualisation of children in advertisements. It is important that parents, sometimes naively, do not sexualise their children, by dressing them as young adults or otherwise making them look like adults. Advertisers have a duty as to how they depict children in advertisements. Nobody can absolve themselves of responsibility in this area.

Deputy Upton asked why the word "unlawful" is included in paragraph (c) of the definition of "child pornography". It is used where the advocation or encouragement of sexual activity with children is outlawed. If the word "unlawful" was not included, it would be an offence to make a video that advocated that married children should not have a sexual relationship. By children I mean "children" within the meaning of the definition in the legislation. Since the Deputy has brought the matter to my attention I will examine whether there is a need for it. He referred to the penalties for trafficking and abduction of children. Trafficking refers to trafficking across international borders. However, I will look again at the whole question of the penalty for abduction, about which he was not pleased, and we shall discuss the matter further on Committee Stage.

Deputy Higgins referred to the definition of "child pornography" and asked whether it includes the exchange of information. The intention is that that aspect is covered but I will certainly discuss it with the draftsman to see whether an amendment is required. He asked also if films depicting children watching adults in sexual activity would be covered by the definition. That is a good point and may not be covered in the definitions but I undertake to look at it before Committee Stage. Other aspects of the legislation mentioned by Deputy Higgins will be examined and if action is required to deal with any omissions we will attempt to deal with them.

Deputy Higgins was concerned that some medical books and so on might be caught up in the definition. He referred specifically to research material. In this context I draw his attention to the words "for a sexual purpose" which are included in the definition. I do not agree that the material he mentions for research would be excluded. The point raised by Deputy Higgins regarding the definition of "indecency" and the lack of a general definition of sexual abuse is dealt with in the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences.

The point raised by Deputy Higgins in regard to section 4 may not be valid. A definition of the terms "custody charge" and "care" in the Children's Act is wide-ranging. I may consider extending it in this Bill having examined the position further. Deputy Higgins considered that a defence based on bona fide research should be included in section 6. I have raised that matter with the draftsman and it will arise on Committee Stage.

Deputy Dennehy said how ordinary some paedophiles may appear. This is true. In my speech I attempted to explain how devious, manipulative and downright dangerous these people can be. He referred also to the age of a child as defined in the Bill. The definition is in line with that in other legislation dealing with sexual offences. I considered that to be the best age that could be specified.

Deputy Upton referred to the Stockholm World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in August 1996. Deputies will be interested to learn the Council of Europe is organising a follow up European regional conference in Strasbourg on 28 and 29 April. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be represented by officials at this conference which should be a learning experience. Deputy Dennehy referred to the need for a paedophile register. The Government's programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium, contains a commitment to introduce such a register. I am determined that that commitment is honoured. The issues arising from the establishment of the register will be addressed in the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences which I intend to publish shortly.

Deputies Ardagh and Gormley also referred to the Internet and made some interesting and valid comments, many of which will be dealt with in the forthcoming report of the working group on the Internet. Deputies Gormley and O'Flynn referred to the paedophile rings and how difficult it is to break into them. However, good police work, vigilance and some good luck can ensure their break up.

Deputy Hanafin said that up to 60 per cent of men look at pornography. I am in no position to dispute that figure but the proportion of child pornography would be low compared with the broad sweep of pornography which is available.

Deputy O'Flynn argued also for a paedophile register. There will be a sexual offenders or a paedophile register, the details of which are discussed in the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences. Deputy O'Flynn's figure of 90 per cent recidivism among paedophiles is quite often put forward. However, the figure may not be that high. This does not mean we should drop our guard or not be ever vigilant on this matter. Even one paedophile can accumulate hundreds of victims before being apprehended, charged and convicted.

Deputy Roche referred to pornography being transmitted on innocent sounding websites. Unfortunately, he is correct and this illustrates the difficulty of dealing with this problem on the Internet.

It is of considerable importance that we have had a wide-ranging and informed debate. It is of critical importance that this matter is considered maturely. We began well on Second Stage and I look forward to Committee Stage when the detail can be further teased out.

Question put and agreed to.