In some of this morning's newspapers, the Government has floated the notion of a constitutional referendum on the issue of child rape. Can the Taoiseach confirm that it is the Government's intention to hold such a referendum? Will the proposed amendment differ from the suggestion made after the recent crisis by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, that the Constitution would be amended to reverse the Supreme Court decision? Is the amendment that is now proposed in line with the Minister's suggestion or is it in line with the amendment to protect children's rights that was proposed by the all-party committee? I would like to ask the Taoiseach about this issue, which plunged the country into outrage and the Government into disarray. Why is the Government prepared to do everything other than allow for an independent investigation of what transpired during the recent period of crisis?

The Taoiseach's website makes it clear that he is responsible for liaising with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If one examines the guidelines for the Office of the Attorney General, it is clear that it has a responsibility "to maintain not only a strategic viewpoint but to keep client Departments informed of the possible consequences of the litigation for them and for other Departments of State". The Office of the Attorney General did not live up to its responsibilities in this instance.

The country was outraged during the recent crisis because people in authority, who might have been expected to respond to unfolding events, were in a position of knowledge or were capable of responding, did not seem to know what was happening. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform brought the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 to this House, but it was disowned by his Government within 36 hours. Indeed, it was disowned by himself. He claimed more authorship last night of the Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006, which has been introduced in the Seanad by a Progressive Democrats Senator, than he did of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 when it was introduced in this House.

He praised himself.

It is admitted that the latter legislation is deeply flawed. I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment and about the all-party committee that will examine these matters on the basis of terms of reference which are the subject of a large measure of agreement on all sides of the House. We do not understand how the issues of child rape and the protection of our children can be examined until it has been clearly and independently established what went wrong in the Office of the Attorney General, what went wrong between that office and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and what went wrong between that office and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We do not know what went wrong in those instances. We had to take the unusual step last week of writing to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek to establish how many cases were struck out as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

If we are to deal seriously with these matters, which were of such gravity that they outraged the people and plunged the Government into disarray that it manifestly has not recovered from since, is it not important that there should be an independent investigation of such matters? I congratulate the Taoiseach on putting down the shortest lived rising since "Slattery's Mounted Fut".

They are the back-off benchers.

I will try to be helpful and move this important issue on by repeating that it would not have made any difference if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General or the rest of the Cabinet had known anything about this matter in advance. It would not have influenced the Supreme Court decision in any way and no more preparatory arrangements would have been made. We encountered a difficulty, in a way that can often happen in law, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the CC case that we had to create a defence of honest belief.

I would like to put on the record the Government's proposed terms of reference for the all-party committee, as I have not done so before now. They are:

—To review the substantive criminal law relating to sexual offences against children;

—To review the substantive law in relation to child protection;

—To examine the issues surrounding the age of consent in relation to sexual offences;

—To examine court procedures relating to child sexual abuse cases;

—To consider the implications arising from the Supreme Court decision of 23rd May 2006 in the CC case including the desirability or otherwise of a constitutional amendment in relation to the outcome of that case;

—To examine the issues of the desirability or otherwise of amending the Constitution to include a general right to protection for children; and

—To make recommendations on the issues not later than the autumn.

The proposed terms of reference are matters for discussion. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given the terms of reference to the Opposition leaders. I saw the Opposition statement that was published at the weekend which, by and large, repeats the issues which have been highlighted by the Government. As Deputy Rabbitte has said, there is total agreement, more or less, on these issues.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go back over the issue again. It would not have made a bit of difference if the Attorney General had been following this case from the time that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to put together a legal team to fight the case. The legal team, which thought it had a good case, did its best. It won in the High Court, but lost in the Supreme Court. Several issues remain such as the constitutional one. I already gave an assurance that these issues will be dealt with by the committee. A good number of bodies have lobbied on the issue of children's rights which should be considered by the committee. Other constitutional issues should also be considered by the committee. I will pass the views on to the Deputy if he so wishes but they are best dealt with in the committee. While the full judgment of the Supreme Court has not been released, several difficulties arise out of it that we need to deal with quickly. The Government is prepared for its front people to deal with these issues in the early autumn.

The O'Sullivan examination is concentrating on the 1995 procedures. I have already stated there was a breach of one of those procedures which will be reflected in the report. The official dealing with the case did not follow the procedures. I am sure the official does his or her best at all other times. However, in this case procedure was not followed. There is no more to it than that. However, if the procedures had been followed, it still would not have made any difference. The report would have gone to the Attorney General but he could not have influenced the Supreme Court decision. The official was not going to highlight to the Attorney General the need to draft a new Bill.

It is not a question of difficulties between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions were fighting the case. It was their staff which had co-operated on the case. An investigation into the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which was not involved in the case, and the Attorney General's office, which was working in co-operation with the joint team, will make no difference. It was only the notification of the procedure, coming from the 1995 report, that the Attorney General should have been made aware of. This will come out in the O'Sullivan report. As we get near to the end of the session, this committee needs to be put in place to get on with the work. There are some substantive issues that have been discussed at great length that must be dealt with by the committee.

The Taoiseach claimed he did not want to go back over the events and then he did just that. He knows well the events are not just disputed by me but by persons outside of the House. He also knows the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform had possession of this information going back to 2002. I am not interested in tracing the history of it. What happened, happened and we are looking forward with great interest to reading the full judgment of the Supreme Court. I want answers from the Taoiseach on the question of the all-party committee.

Is the committee to be established on a statutory basis? Will a motion be put to the House before it rises for the summer recess? Why is the Government prepared to agree terms of reference with the Opposition on nearly all matters except an independent inquiry into what went wrong? The administration and oversight of the criminal justice system, especially in so far as it relates to our children, is of such importance that we need to know what happened. Scapegoating an official in the Office of the Attorney General is not adequate given the crisis provoked by the series of events. My first preference would be not to have a commission of investigation style inquiry if it could be done by parliamentary committee.

The Deputy's time——

I know a Cheann Comhairle. You let the Taoiseach go on for about ten minutes. Do you have to interrupt me in mid-sentence?

Deputy Rabbitte, you went on for four minutes. The Taoiseach was given two minutes extra because you took two minutes extra. You cannot go on asking questions for five minutes and then expect the Taoiseach to be cut short.

Will the Ceann Comhairle be quiet? Would he ever sit back and relax?

Who is the boss?

This is an important issue.

This is a matter of parliamentary accountability. Ideally I would like the matter to be examined by parliamentary committee. However, the Government has steadfastly refused to refurbish the law since the Abbeylara judgment, which was a narrow enough area. Inquiry by parliamentary committee has worked effectively in the past but that option is now unavailable until the Government refurbishes the law. The Government seems prepared to agree terms of reference with the Opposition but is not prepared to have independent inquiry into the crisis that transpired. Is the Taoiseach going to put down a motion to cause the committee to be established on a statutory basis? Will it have compellability powers? Is the Taoiseach just head-hunting Members on this side of the House to establish an all-party committee that will struggle with, admittedly, complex issues but will not look back at the crisis provoked some weeks ago?

I do not want to get into a debate. This issue holds the record for the longest Leaders' Question of one hour and 28 minutes several weeks ago. There is not much point in repeating myself. Deputy Rabbitte knows the Supreme Court made a decision striking down an Act in a case which the State lost. As he correctly stated the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions put in place a legal team on the issue in 2002. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions knew about that. A procedure was in place that they should have been kept informed later on but they were not. It would have made no difference to the situation, however. It is no good confusing the issue.

The Government is anxious, as stated four weeks ago, to establish an all-party committee to deal with these issues. The terms of reference for it were released to the Opposition several weeks ago. If the Opposition wishes to engage, through its spokespersons, with the Minister, we would be happy to do so this week to conclude the matter.

What is the basis?

Issues arise under section 1 of the 1935 legislation for those who have been convicted before the courts of statutory rape and those in respect of whom prosecutions are pending. In the CC case the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. In addition, the Supreme Court ensured that Mr. A, who had been convicted of such an offence, remained behind bars. There are 16 persons in custody having been convicted of an offence under section 1 of the 1935 Act. This cohort of persons are those who are likely to be directly affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mr. A case. There are 42 persons on charges before the courts under section 1 of the 1935 Act. In the CC case, it does not prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from preferring charges of sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault and, in appropriate circumstances, a rape charge.

Other issues arise from section 2 of the 1935 Act under which three persons have been convicted of an offence and no other offence. A total of 12 persons have been charged but not yet tried under this section. The position is that the offence of rape depending upon the factual circumstances can be preferred and the Director of Public Prosecutions is not prevented by the CC case from making such a charge.

The committee will have to deal with the defence of honest belief. It is a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in the CC case that we have had to create a defence of honest belief. No Member would have ever created a defence of honest belief. At no stage in the past 16 years has anyone recommended the creation of such a defence. No Government ever entertained such a notion.

What about the Law Reform Commission?

The Taoiseach is giving the same old rubbish.

The reason for this is obvious because it creates a real and extra burden for the victim of unlawful carnal knowledge. It means the victim can be subject to rigorous cross-examination by counsel for an accused who may transpire to be a sexual predator. The idea of an 11 or 12 year old girl being grilled in the witness box as to her make-up, perfume or style of dress or the manner in which she comported herself, will undermine the effectiveness and prosecutions of unlawful carnal knowledge. Parents and citizens will be horrified by such a prospect. In those circumstances, I wonder whether the existence of the prospect of such cross-examination by experienced counsel will have an effect on such prosecutions.

The Government introduced the law that could allow such a scenario.

That was because the Supreme Court made a judgment.

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.

The Government made a hames of the Act.

What is the answer to the question I asked?

The answer is——

What about video evidence?

The answer to the question is that it is therefore important the terms of reference of the Oireachtas committee are urgently agreed. It must address all the issues, including the sensitive issue of young girls, perhaps 11 or 12 years of age, being cross-examined in court rather than talking about who did what in the Attorney General's Office. That is irrelevant and we need to get on with that work and quickly.

What kind of committee will it be?

It is because of a law the Government brought in.

At least we bring in laws.

A Cheann Comhairle——

What kind of all-party committee will it be? The Taoiseach did not answer the question.

There is no provision for a further supplementary question in the Standing Order. We have already gone ten minutes over time on that question. I call Deputy Sargent.

The Taoiseach took up his entire time——

Deputy Rabbitte, I have called Deputy Sargent and I would ask you to——

It makes a farce of Question Time if we do not get answers.

——allow Deputy Sargent to speak without interruption.

What kind of all-party committee will it be? That is disrespectful to the House.

Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat and allow Deputy Sargent to speak.

We are entitled to answers and we did not get them.

The Deputy cannot take Deputy Sargent's time.

I am not taking Deputy Sargent's time. We are entitled to answers.

Deputy Sargent has been called. The Deputy will have to find another way of raising this matter.

Will it be a committee with powers? The public needs to know that.

Deputy Sargent should be allowed to speak without interruption.

It is clearly a whitewash.