Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1989

Vol. 121 No. 17

Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Manning

May I say at the outset that we in Fine Gael welcome this Bill in principle. We see it as an expression by the Government of their concern in regard to the very serious problem of rape. We do have reservations about a number of aspects of the Bill and we have some proposals for change which we will be putting forward in the course of the debate.

There are few more serious or more horrible crimes than that of rape. The act of rape is a savage violation of one human being by another which, unfortunately, appears to be increasing in both the number and in the variety of permutations. It is primarily an act of violence using sex as a weapon and is without doubt one of the most heinous and repugnant of crimes. We as legislators must do everything possible to ensure that this most primitive and personal violation is not just curbed but as far as possible is eradicated from our society.

Rape is not, as is often misunderstood, a crime of passion. In most cases — in fact in the majority of cases according to the figures — it is a meticulously and carefully planned crime. In cases of rape involving one man, research shows that over half of such cases have been carefully planned and could not, therefore, be regarded as crimes of passion. Where a group of men are involved in the rape, as many as 95 per cent of the cases are carefully planned. Rape, therefore, is a cold, callous crime and one which needs a very strong reaction.

The Bill before us, and indeed any attempt to deal with this crime, must bear in mind that it is not just a question of the size of the penalty, the swiftness of the trial, the admissibility of evidence and so on. Rape or any form of sexual assault is a crime which needs attention at its roots and origin. Legislation concerned with rape and sexual assault should not assume that rape or sexual assault is inevitable. Such legislation must take a compassionate view of the real trauma and the real tragedy which the crime inflicts. We should make a much more determined effort to ensure that such offences do not occur by analysing the reasons for these crimes and concentrating our efforts on trying to prevent them occurring rather than spending our time legislating for what will happen after the assault has taken place.

The number of incidents of rape is clearly on the increase. Yet, we are told that rape is probably the most under-reported of all crimes, especially in a society like ours where there is very often a reluctance even to consider matters such as rape. Indeed, we have moved a very long way in a short time to a situation where a problem like this can be discussed in an open and sensitive way. We have moved away from the prudery which characterised discussion of this topic not so very long ago.

The rate of under-reporting of rape cases appears to be quite significant. For example, between 1 January and 31 October 1987 the Rape Crisis Centre received 1,236 calls relating to sexual abuse of adults and children. Yet, throughout 1987 only 75 cases were reported or known to the Garda and in only 36 of these cases were criminal proceedings commenced. These figures, even though certainly on the conservative side, are significant in themselves. They indicate that rape and sexual assault crimes occur all too regularly in Ireland today and that in many cases the victims are afraid to bring their assailants to court.

It is our job as legislators to try to make court proceedings less intimidating and off-putting to victims of rape and sexual assault. This House must now make a clear declaration to the women of this country. We must assure them that as far as the laws can help, every effort will be made to ensure that the corner is turned and that proper and adequate defence in law will be given to women in these very distressing circumstances.

The Bill here today is a good piece of legislation which has many advantages over the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, and I wish to commend the Minister for the speed with which he introduced this Bill and for the obviously open attitude which he has taken to the discussion so far in this House. Comparing this Bill with the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 this new legislation replaces the offences of indecent assault on a male or female with the offence of aggravated sexual assault with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and sexual assault with a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

Secondly, this new legislation criminalises rape within marriage, that a husband can now be found guilty of raping his wife. This reform is particularly welcome as the Rape Crisis Centre reports that the majority of rapes probably occur within marriage and the fact that the woman is married to her attacker certainly does not make the crime any less abhorrent to her.

Thirdly, the Bill abolishes the rule of law which stated that a male under the age of 14 was physically incapable of committing a sexual offence, so that all males may now be found guilty of rape regardless of their age. This is a welcome reform as in the past few years many cases have received media attention in which one or all of the rapists or sexual abusers were under 14 years of age. Research shows that many of these youths who commit crimes in their early teens have themselves been abused and, therefore, need urgent treatment and help. If sentenced for committing a rape or some other form of sexual assault they, and indeed rapists of all ages, must be given treatment and counselling during their sentence so that when they are released they will be less of a risk and a danger to women.

Fine Gael welcome the fact that the public will now be excluded from hearings of rape and sexual assault cases. In any rape trial all concerned, especially the complainant, desire to be shielded from the public. All other family law cases have been allowed to be held in camera for some time now and I am very pleased that at last rape and sexual assault cases will be treated similarly. We are also pleased that this Bill allows rape and sexual assault cases to be held in the Central Criminal Court as opposed to the Circuit Court where they are held at present.

The Bill before us, however, omits some much needed reforms which I hope can be included in the Bill on Committee Stage. As I see it, the Bill has two main weaknesses. If fails to provide for independent legal representation for the complainant and it fails to broaden the definition of rape. Those involved in treating victims of rape and sexual assault have constantly lobbied for separate free legal representation for the complainant. They believe it is necessary because in many cases the counsel for the prosecution is not sufficiently concerned to protect from cross-examination the woman who has been raped.

Many complainants in rape cases find the proceedings very stressful indeed. They complain that they feel totally alone and unrepresented in the witness box and are subjected to a humiliating and highly personal cross-examination about their sexual behaviour, their history and general character. Separate legal representation for the complainant during rape and sexual assault cases would help to protect the victims and keep them from feeling that it is they who are on trial throughout the proceedings. The Bill, however, fails to provide for such independent legal representation for the complainant. This is a flaw which I hope will be rectified. Certainly, we in this party will attempt to amend the Bill in this regard during Committee Stage. We feel very strongly that in the interests of justice and equality for both the victim and the accused everything possible should be done to help the complainant and to put her as much at her ease as possible during the trial.

I regret also that in this legislation the definition of rape has not been extended to cover the kind of offence now called aggravated sexual assault. A woman knows when she is raped, not because of the technical way in which her body has been attacked but because she feels abused, degraded and humiliated. She herself regards the crime as rape whether it is technically described as such or not. This broadening of the definition of rape was recommended both by the Law Reform Commission and the Joint Committee on Women's Rights and has been argued for for very many years also by the Rape Crisis Centre who are widely regarded as experts in this area.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to these centres throughout the country who have worked for many years with the victims of rape and their families, giving them much needed treatment and counselling. As well as helping rape victims themselves, these centres have raised public awareness of the need to reform the law in relation to rape and such pressure has, in part, resulted in the Bill before us today. It is indicative of the change in public attitudes that a group like the Rape Crisis Centre who in the early stages had to face a great deal of opprobrium, a great deal of questioning of their motives, and ill-founded criticism and abuse, are now regarded as a very important part of the whole social fabric of the city. They are rightly commended for the work they have done, both in helping the victims and in pioneering new approaches to the problem.

It is a great shame that the existence of such a hardworking organisation should, for so long, have been threatened by lack of funding, especially in the light of the amounts of moneys that were disbursed to far less worthy organisations from the proceeds of the national lottery. Surely the rape crisis centres, who provide such a vital and necessary service to victims of rape and sexual assault, are obvious targets for funding from the national lottery? Why did the Government take so long to come to their rescue on this occasion? The Government should have been quicker to respond to the obvious problems which the centres face, to help them to sort out their financial problems and put them on a sound footing. I hope we will not see a recurrence of this problem arising from lack of funding.

The Government have not gone far enough in helping the Rape Crisis Centre. They have allocated some money to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre which should help to relieve its present financial crisis and allow it to continue its invaluable work with victims of rape and sexual assault but the other rape crisis centres have been completely ignored. They have not received a single penny from the Government. Their work in Cork, Clonmel and Galway is every bit as necessary and vital as is the work of the centre in Dublin. I ask the Minister to look carefully and sympathetically at the whole question of the rape crisis centres and see if, in consultation, some better arrangement could be arrived at so that they are able to carry out their work unworried by the constant financial crisis which seems to hang over them. They give very good value for money and they provide an important service and would be the view of all parties in this House that they should be encouraged and helped to continue to do this work.

I am delighted at one level that the Government have shown their appreciation of the work done by the Rape Crisis Centre in Dublin. They have, I hope, solved the problem there for the moment but I urge the Minister to see if funds can be made available and new structures agreed upon to enable the work of the rape crisis centres in other parts of the country to go ahead.

We in Fine Gael warmly welcome this Bill. We see it as an expression by the Government of their concern for tackling the very serious problem of rape. In commending the Bill to the House — and I am sure it will be agreed to by all parties — I would ask the Minister to look again at the funding of the rape crisis centres.

Mr. Mullooly

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. I welcome the introduction of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, 1988. I also welcome the fact that the Minister decided to introduce this Bill in the Seanad. It is a wide-ranging measure which proposes to substantially amend the law on rape in order to give greater protection to those who experience sexual attacks.

It also implements a commitment to reform the law on rape which was given in the 1987 Fianna Fáil Programme for National Recovery. The law on rape was the subject of a report in January 1987 by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights. I had the honour to be a member of that committee at the time and this is one of the factors which prompted me to speak in this debate. I know how carefully that committee, which was chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, examined every aspect of this issue and the very many submissions which we considered in great detail before the final report and recommendations of the committees were issued.

During the course of those deliberations even those of us who previously might not have given any in-depth consideration to this issue became convinced of the urgent need to significantly amend and strengthen the 1981 legislation. I am very pleased that the Minister for Justice has given such a high priority to the preparation of this legislation and that he has succeeded in bringing a Bill for that purpose before the Oireachtas with so little delay.

Shortly after the issue of the report of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights — a report which was widely welcomed and endorsed — the then Attorney General requested the Law Reform Commission to formulate proposals for the reform of the law relating to rape. In December 1987 the commission published a consultation paper on the law on rape in which they invited comments from mebers of the public and in connection with which an all-day seminar was held in January 1988. Having given consideration to the submissions which were received and the views which were expressed at the seminar, the commission presented its final proposals for reform to the present Attorney General in mid-1988. I want to join with all the other speakers who have complimented the Law Reform Commission on their excellent report. They are also deserving of our gratitude and appreciation for having brought their report forward so expeditiously in view of the widespread public concern which exists in relation to this matter.

The Bill before the House deals with all the main areas which were identified by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights and the Law Reform Commission as being in need of reform. However, instead of broadening the definition of rape as suggested by the Joint Committee and supported by the majority recommendation in the commission's report, the Government have instead decided that the definition of rape should remain unchanged, that the Bill should create a new offence to be known as aggravated sexual assault which will cover all the various assaults which it was suggested should be covered by an extended legal definition of rape.

Until I read the minority report of the commission in relation to this matter, I have to admit that I was firmly convinced that the definition of rape should be widened. The case for so doing was made very strongly to the Joint Committee both in oral and written submissions by the Rape Crisis Centre. However, having read the minority report and having considered the arguments advanced therein, particularly in relation to the difficulties which could arise from a broadening of the existing definition of rape, I am now reasonably satisfied that the Government's approach is the correct one.

I welcome the fact that the Bill provides for the replacement of the offence of indecent assault with the offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault and that the offence of aggravated sexual assault will carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Certainly the term "indecent assault" was far too mild a term to adequately describe many of the serious and brutal sexual assaults which appear to have become so common in recent years.

The Bill also proposes to abolish the marital rape exemption. Under the present law a woman may not accuse her husband of rape. The Joint Committee on Women's Rights having considered a number of submissions in this regard, and again particularly the submission from the Rape Crisis Centre, were satisfied that many battered wives suffered the additional humiliation and degradation of being raped by their husbands. In such cases the fact that the criminal is married to the victim does not and should not mitigate the behaviour involved and I am delighted that this will be the situation when this Bill becomes law. In order to prevent the institution of spiteful or mischievious proceedings by a spouse or by some other party as a result of the criminalisation of rape within marriage, the Bill contains the safeguard that a prosecution for marital rape can only be brought with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I welcome this provision.

Under the present law there is also a presumption that a boy under 14 years of age is incapable of sexual intercourse and, therefore, cannot be convicted of rape. This presumption is being abolished in the Bill. I welcome this decision because we are all aware over the past few years of cases reported in the media in which some or all of the rapists or sexual abusers were under 14 years of age. I would like to think that young boys who are found guilty of sexual offences will receive appropriate treatment during their imprisonment or detention. Otherwise it is almost certain that as they grow older they will become involved in further sexual crimes.

Under existing law it is mandatory for a judge in trials for sexual offences to warn the jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. In accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, this Bill proposes that such a warning should no longer be mandatory and that the decision as to whether a warning should be given and the terms of the warning should be left to the discretion of the trial judge.

I want to give a special welcome to section 7 of the Bill which provides for alternative verdicts as between rape, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. This section enables the accused to be convicted of the appropriate alternative offence as warranted by the evidence. I believe that this section will make it more difficult for accused persons to evade conviction as a result of technicalities for crimes in which they were involved.

Another important provision in the Bill is that the anonymity of the complainant is being retained and extended to all sexual offences. That is a good decision. However, I feel that the anonymity provisions relating to an accused should also be extended to cover aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault and that the identity of an accused should only be made public on conviction.

Cases involving sexual assault attract a greater degree of publicity than most other offences and persons accused of such offences attract a greater degree of public odium than most other accused. Consequently, the damage done to the reputation of an innocent person, even though he is acquitted, is much greater than would be the case if he were charged with some other offence. It can also happen that when an accused is acquitted in a sexual assault case, such a decision of the court does not always receive the same prominence in the media as the actual trial itself.

I now come to what is probably the most controversial question as far as this Bill is concerned and that is the question of whether the complainant in a rape or sexual assault case should have separate legal representation. The Rape Crisis Centre, in their submission to the Joint Committee on Women's Rights argued very strongly for separate legal representation for the complainant in rape cases on the basis that most complainants of rape found the experience of a criminal hearing to be horrific, degrading and humiliating and that in no other case would a witness be subject to the type of cross-examination and humiliation prevalent in rape cases. I was quite surprised at first to learn that the Law Reform Commission did not make a recommendation for such separate legal representation but having read their report and having noted their fear that to do so might result in some unjustified acquittals, I am now satisfied that, on balance, such representation should not be provided.

Section 10 of the Bill provides for the exclusion of the public from hearings of rape and aggravated assault cases and it also provides that the jury and the press will be excluded whenever an application is made during a trial to cross-examine a plaintiff about his or her previous sexual history. On reading this section I notice that section 10 (3) provides that, notwithstanding anything else in the section, a parent, relative or friend of the complainant — whatever the complainant's age — or of the accused, if he is not of full age, may remain in court during the hearing. It struck me from the way that subsection is worded that in either case only one parent would be entitled to remain in the court even though the complainant or accused might wish to have both parents present. If my interpretation of the subsection is correct, I ask the Minister to consider amending it so that in all such situations both parents could be present as of right. I know that is a point which, I suppose, could be more properly made on Committee Stage but I am raising it now to give the Minister an opportunity to look into it.

In conclusion, I wish to join in the welcome that has been given to this Bill by all sides of the House and to wish it a speedy passage through the Oireachtas. I cannot let this occasion pass without welcoming the very generous provision in the budget for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and I want to compliment the Government on having responded so positively to the financial needs of this very worthwhile organisation.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I welcome the legislation of this Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, 1988. It represents a timely updating of Irish law and is progressive when we think of the struggles that took place on this very same legislation way back in 1981. I suppose in terms of how quickly change can occur in the area of legislation, this change is fairly rapid. For a party who do not have a surprising or illuminating track record in progressive social legislation, nevertheless, I commend the Government party in relation to this legislation before us today.

Rape is horrific. It is an appalling and an intimate violation of bodily integrity. The victim suffers not only physically but also has to endure emotional and psychological aftershock which can take a very long time to eradicate or ameliorate if, in many instances, it is ever possible to do away with the lasting effects of such a brutal attack or assault.

I am glad that the Government made the decision to introduce this legislation into Seanad Éireann. Contributions in this House, particularly in areas of sensitive legislation, are generally thoughtful and reflective. Indeed, they reflect a certain expertise that some Senators in the House are fortunate enough to possess and their specialist concerns as individuals are very often brought to bear on legislation such as this. Certainly the debate to date has shown that kind of input which I think shows this House at its very best. It is also interesting to note that there are five women Members in this House. I know you, a Chathaoirligh, are precluded because of your position from participating in debate but all of the other women Members have made a particular point of speaking on this legislation which is a good thing. I am also heartened by the number of male Senators from all parties who have to date made very fine contributions and who have extended the debate and discussion on this legislation.

The framing of this legislation has taken place against a background of much research and consultation on the subject. The first Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights brought out a comprehensive report — their fourth — on the subject of sexual violence and of course the Law Reform Commission submitted its report to the Attorney General on 3 May 1988. This report had been requested by the former Attorney General, John Rogers. It is good that the Government have acted so swiftly in bringing forward this legislation. Would that other Law Reform Commission reports could receive the same speedy response because there is a criticism, and a legitimate criticism, that so many of the Law Reform Commission reports — good valuable, important and significant documents — are gathering dust and there has been legislative, and consequently governmental, inactivity on implementing their suggested reforms.

Turning to the specific provisions of the Bill before us, I must voice my disappointment at the failure of Government to accept the need to amend the definition of rape itself. This is a criticism which has been made by my party and we have entered amendments for Committee Stage to that effect. Both the Law Reform Commission report and the Joint Committee on Women's Rights were of the view that there was a clear need to broaden the definition and the Law Reform Commission in particular approached their task of reviewing the matter in an all-embracing, consultative manner. In fact, I think they blazed a trail in this regard and I hope it will be a pattern of the way in which they will approach major pieces of law reform in future.

It is interesting to note what they actually did; they produced a discussion document in the first instance. That was well received and widely debated by interested groups and received excellent press coverage at the time. Then they invited written and oral submissions and then they held a special conference on the subject. At the end of this exhaustive examination, the Law Reform Commission recommended, and I quote:

that the crime of rape should be defined by statute so as to include non-consensual sexual penetration of the vagina, anus and mouth of a person by the penis of another person or of the vagina or anus of a person by an inanimate object held or manipulated by another person and that in this form the crime should be capable of being committed against men and women.

I find it impossible to understand why the Government have chosen to ignore this advice which quite clearly followed upon detailed consultation and consideration, much of it as I have outlined, conducted in public.

In his introductory speech on the Bill here in this House the Minister failed to adequately explain the decision to limit the definition other than to make vague references to the fact that in his view the community regarded rape as distinguishable from other crimes of a sexual nature. As an explanation the Minister's remarks are not adequate and they have been described by my Seanad colleague, Senator Mary Robinson, as unverifiable, unjustifiable and unwarranted. I hope when the Minister is responding to the Second Stage debate he will expand and give justification, verification and reason as to why the Government and he decided to limit the definition and not to go along with the majority Law Reform Commission recommendation in this regard. We feel this a major weakness in an otherwise excellent piece of legislation.

We must remember here that Ireland has an opportunity to come to the forefront in the area of progressive, reforming legislation in this particular context. Like other opportunities which have been missed by this Government, I feel that unless our amendments are accepted this will be another opportunity which will be missed and sadly so. It certainly will not be for the want of telling, reminding, indicating, cajoling, persuading and arguing on this side of the House. In my view this is a most disappointing feature of an otherwise excellent and welcome piece of legislation. We will be putting down amendments in an attempt to improve it and to more accurately reflect the views of the public at large as ascertained by the Law Reform Commission.

Persons who have been violated by instruments, bottles and other objects or who are forced to engage in degrading sexual activities share the same violation, humiliation and trauma as those who have been the victims of enforced penile penetration. Calling such actions as this legislation does "aggravated sexual assault" solves little as, in practice, they will be regarded as less serious than rape itself. In my view, they are every bit as serious as rape itself and certainly in the view of the victims against whom crimes have been perpetrated, they are rape itself. Ms. Anne O'Donnell of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has gone on record as stating that in her view victims of such assaults could not distinguish between the various penetrations. In her view such a woman has been raped — full stop, end of story — not the victim of aggravated sexual assault. I have no doubt this will be the subject of more detailed discussion on Committee Stage.

Mention of Anne O'Donnell of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre give me an opportunity here to pay tribute to this very fine Irishwoman who, against the tide, took a stand and became involved in this whole area of crisis, intervention and counselling. She has announced in recent days that she is resigning from her post as director of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and I would like to place on record my appreciation of all of her involvement in this area over the years. She has always been lucid, reasoned, calm and very purposeful in her attitude towards approaching education and information-giving and in her follow through when approaching Government and Government Departments and indeed Opposition, she has kept up the pressure for change, as have people around her in that particular body. I admire that singleminded pursuit of an objective which has been exhibited and I wish her well in the future.

Indeed, all rape crisis centres throughout the country deserve much commendation, in particular the one in Waterford which is undergoing particular difficulties, Clonmel, Galway, Cork and the one in the Minister's own constituency of Limerick. All of these people are coping with human misery and with crises in peoples lives. Not only do they deal with the immediate victims of rape but it is interesting to note that some 70 per cent of clients in the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre in the first half of 1988 were past victims of child sexual abuse. That is disturbing and worrying but at least there was an organisation there to meet their need and to provide them with consultation because such people now know and must know that society cares about what has happened to them and is willing to give an input into seeing if their sad and residual difficulties can be coped with and ameliorated to some degree.

Much mention has been made of funding for rape crisis centres. I recognise the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, has spoken about some £20,000 and that in recent days further funding has been mentioned by way of a special budgetary allocation. As late as yesterday there had been no official confirmation of it nor had any money actually been received by this body which is currently involved in litigation in the High Court. I would like the Minister to clarify where is the blockage in ensuring that this funding gets speedily to those people for whom it is designated. I hope there is no official stalling in this regard and that the funds are made available because they are quite clearly and quite explicitly needed and needed urgently by this body.

Returning to the Bill, I would like to place on record my support for many of the reforms it contains. I support the abolition of the concept of indecent assault. I support the restriction on the cross-examination of a complainant concerning her previous sexual history and the exclusion of the press from that part of the proceedings. I welcome the inclusion of the concept of marital rape. It is interesting to note that in 1981 such a concept was not even countenanced. Again, I refer to the welcome change in thinking and in action which has occurred in that regard.

I welcome the fact that rape and aggravated sexual assault cases will be heard in the Central Criminal Court and that the general public will be excluded from such hearings. I would like to make a comment in passing on the nature of press reporting of rape cases. Certainly, I have noted very lurid and, to my mind, quite unnecessary detailed reporting of such cases particularly in the provincial press. Some of these accounts of what has taken place have been a voyeur's delight. To my mind they are reprehensible in the extreme and quite unnecessary. They certainly raise the whole issue of the necessity for a press council, which I recognise as a separate issue and a separate discussion. I have in the past publicly remonstrated against such reporting and will continue to do so again, although I hope the need does not arise. Certainly, in a provincial context it is always generally known who is the victim is in this regard and that kind of reporting represents yet a further trial of that victim by the public at large. I think it is extremely damaging and in some way is a reflection of the descent in terms of standards which afflict so much of life today. I invite the Minister to comment specifically on what I say and to ask him if he has noted the nature of such reporting if he finds it acceptable to see such detailed, quite literally blow-for-blow accounts, of such sexual assaults against people detailed in the press.

I welcome the giving of discretion to judges as opposed to a mandatory requirement in the matter of warning the jury about accepting uncorroborated evidence. This is significant and it is to be welcomed. The abolition of the strict rule of law under which a boy of 14 years was regarded as being incapable of sexual intercourse is to be welcomed. That never, ever tallied with reality and certainly today's young people, both in terms of their physical maturation — which I suppose is a consequence of improved diet and a greater awareness of health — and their precocity, have shown speedier development. As well as that, I think there has been a certain sexual precocity abroad which has made that earlier legal provision a nonsense. I am glad to see that that has been addressed in this legislation.

I must express my disappointment that the legislation does not admit the need for separate legal representation of rape victims. This was a recommendation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights and the Rape Crisis Centre. It is something that I am sure will be dealt with in detail on Committee Stage. Certainly, we on this side of the House will return to it with some vigour.

In conclusion, and in view of the fact that Second Stage is merely considering the general principles of the Bill, I would like to express a personal view — would that we did not have to consider such legislation. The increasing incidence of rape and violent sexual assault is profoundly disturbing and particularly worrying is the apparent growth in sexual attacks on elderly women. It must be asked why this is happening. Is it because such women are alone, defenceless, passive and unlikely to put up any resistance? Is robbery and theft the over-riding consideration? In any event, such attacks evoke profound revulsion in the community at large.

Obviously, victims of rape deserve speedy professional support but we must make reference to rapists also. I was interested to hear what Senator Mullooly had to say about this, particularly in relation to young people who become involved in this kind of activity. It is true to say that rapists do not evoke any public sympathy, and indeed very little understanding apart from professionals involved in the field of counselling but they, too, must be cared for by society and proper rehabilitation programmes must be put in place for them. Such men are generally hostile to the whole female sex and research and follow-through is urgently needed in this area, and indeed a greater understanding as to why rape occurs. There are many theories floated in relation to this and I am sure little bits and pieces of all of them make up the whole as to why such attacks are perpetrated.

I hope this legislation will act as a deterrent. Certainly, it gives an enlightened and up-dated official response to what is a growing and horrendous menance in our society.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I shall be very brief. The primary purpose of my contribution is to avail of the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on introducing this legislation in such an expeditious manner. The mechanics of the Bill have already been dealt with in fair detail and I do not propose to go into them again at this early stage. It is important that we record the public's perception of and reaction to the Bill in the light of what has been printed and published in the media already. There is great welcome for the introduction of this additional legislation. It is significant and we should comment on the fact that after seven short years we see a necessity to change in a fairly substantial way the previous Bill. This, of course, is a response to what is a public crisis, not just in Ireland but in the civilised world. The Minister has acted in an extremely expeditious manner in the framing of this Bill.

It should also be noted — Senator Bulbulia touched briefly on this — that there continues to be such an upsurge in the incidence of rape in all its shapes and forms. In the past 16 or 18 months the Minister has sought to close off a number of loopholes that existed in various other areas that in themselves contribute to the crime of rape. I refer in particular to the legislation relating to pornographic videos because there is definite evidence abroad now that quite often the act of rape is a direct consequence of a person, or indeed persons, having viewed some of these video nasties that until quite recently at least were freely available in this country and elsewhere. The direct result of such viewing was that the people in question were involved in the crime of rape soon afterwards and there are a number of examples to prove that.

Another cause which crops up with monotonous regularity in court proceedings, particularly among younger people, is the phenomenon of excessive drinking. Again, the Minister has endeavoured to address this difficult subject by closing off many of the loopholes which existed in the law whereby young people had a greater degree of access to alcoholic drink than they should have had or were intended to have under previous legislation. Slowly but surely, the Minister is closing off various avenues which either contributed to encourage people to become involved in this crime or which when they had been involved provided escape routes when they got to the courts.

I would also like to refer briefly to the fact that the actual mechanics of going to the courts now and getting a conviction are a good deal easier. This is the kind of response the public expect and want. The citizens of this city, and indeed of many of the cities and towns throughout the country, are seriously concerned about the safety of young girls particularly going out at night. In one of the national newspapers yesterday it was alleged that there was a serious crisis on some of our university and third level campuses around the country which has required a response by college authorities by way of providing additional security guards, lights and so on. The need for this is an extraordinary development in what is supposed to be an enlightened society. The problem is getting progressively worse and I am certain that this legislation in a substantial way, if not totally, grasps that nettle.

People were looking for this type of protection and now they have got it. It is extremely comprehensive. It ensures that the public can have confidence in the rule of law and that if such a crime is perpetuated against any citizen the perpetrators will be dealt with in a proper manner. That is to be welcomed.

As I said at the outset, my primary purpose in speaking today was to be associated with the tributes to the Minister in introducing this Bill in such an expeditious manner.

Mr. Fallon

I shall be brief. I would simply like to welcome the Bill and to congratulate the Minister and the Government on bringing forward this very important legislation. I see it as an expression of concern on their part and they should be congratulated for that.

I do not normally get involved in what might be described as women's rights issues but I consider rape is a most horrible form of crime. Mention has been made of the various newspaper reports. Unfortunately, one now reads regularly in our daily newspapers of crimes of rape and sexual assault cases. These crimes are on the increase. While the daily papers will give a factual report in most cases, there is an element of hypocrisy in the reports in some newspapers which go overboard on the matter. They try to be do-gooders and condemn rape and, at the same time, sell their papers because they have pictures of suitable "Page three" people. I find that a little disgusting in many ways and certainly there is an element of hypocrisy in it.

I would like to refer also to what Senator Bulbulia said about the detailed reporting of some of the sex assault cases that I have read. In particular, in rural Ireland they seem to go a little overboard. In rural Ireland it is a delicate, sensitive issue.

Debate adjourned.