Vol. 430 No. 7
7 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Justice her views on the Law Reform Commission's recommendation that the same legal regime should obtain for consensual homosexual activity as for heterosexual and that, in particular, no case has been established for providing that the age of consent (17 years) should be any different.
Legislation complying with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Norris case will be introduced shortly in line with the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The Deputy will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter until details of the Government's proposals have been published.
Is the Minister aware that the Law Reform Commission recommended in Report No. 32 of 1990 that a similar age of consent should apply to all sexual offences and that that age should be 17? Is the Minister not in a position to express her own views as to whether the Law Reform Commission got it right or wrong? Why is it that because legislation is promised in the Programme for Government we cannot have an indication of the Minister's objections, if any, to the thinking of the Law Reform Commission?
It would be wrong of the Deputy to take it from my reply that I have any objections to the Law Reform Commission. I am sure the Deputy knows my views well in relation to this matter.
Mr. Michael McDowell rose.
I will call the Deputy again.
Will the legislation the Minister intends introducing deal solely with this matter?
With what matter?
The subject matter of this question.
Yes.
As the Minister indicated agreement, or at least a lack of disagreement, with the report of the Law Reform Commission, will she indicate if the widely reported views that she favours a higher age of consent for homosexual activity than for heterosexual activity are inaccurate? Will she indicate whether she does or does not favour a higher age of consent for homosexual activity than for heterosexual activity?
I circulated a memorandum to Government Departments and Ministers, as is the normal practice before memorandum comes to Government. I regret that one journalist from The Irish Times appears to have got a copy of that memorandum which contained all the options available. It is normal practice when circulating such documents that all the options are put before the Ministers. When it comes to Government I will be making my proposal.
As somebody who has never engaged in a personal conversation with the Minister to find out her views on this issue and as she indicated to Deputy McDowell — who is obviously in a special position — that he knows her views well, perhaps she would give us all that level of insight and indicate her views to the House. Will she indicate to Members whether it is anticipated that the necessary legislation in this area will be published before or after the summer recess and if it is to be published after the summer recess, will it be published in the autumn?
For some time various holders of this office have promised legislation on this matter, but up to now nobody has delivered on it. At the beginning of my term as Minister for Justice, I stated that I would deliver on it and that I would do so before the summer recess and that remains the position.
The Minister did not answer the first part of my question.
In view of the Minister's response to Deputy Mitchell, can I take it that as the legislation will be introduced before the summer recess it will not deal with prostitution?
The legislation will deal with the issues to which the Government have been asked to respond.
The Minister stated earlier that it would merely deal with the subject matter of the question. As I understand it, if the journalist in question got it right, the legislation is supposed to deal with prostitution.
The legislation will deal with homosexual activity.
I am glad to note that the Minister is back into the mono-syllabic phase. I do not know what the Minister meant by stating that I should know her personal views on this matter. She has never expressed a personal view on any matter of which I am aware and I do not have telepathic powers. Will she indicate whether, in this context, it is proposed to make special arrangements in regard to sexual activity between children aged 15 and 17 years and rough contemporaries? Will the Minister answer the question which Deputy Shatter and I put to her? Will she tell the House now whether she favours a single age of consent of 17 years, irrespective of whether the activity is homosexual or heterosexual?
As I stated at the beginning, and as those who served in Government will know, it is not proper in this House to indicate in advance of bringing a memorandum to Government one's own personal views on a matter such as this. I will put my personal views to the Government and the Government will then make a decision.
I was told——
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot debate this matter today.
——by the Minister that I knew her views.
Members are anticipating legislation in this area and we have dealt with this matter adequately today.
The Minister implied to Members of this House that I was personally privy to her personal views on this matter.
The Deputy has commented on that already. I am calling Question No. 8.
