I welcome the emergency Bill, which is designed, as the Taoiseach stated, to deal with the loophole identified last week. With regard to the reference to "minor", there were 55 prosecutions and 34 convictions under that section in 2000. I am not sure why there have only been a couple each year since then but that was the situation until 2000.

I have a question for the Taoiseach, which it would be helpful for him to clarify before the debate begins. The controversy, as Deputy Kenny correctly noted, arises from the Supreme Court judgment last year in which the court struck down as unconstitutional an offence under the 1935 legislation prohibiting unlawful carnal knowledge of a child. The offence was struck down because it was one of absolute liability. In other words, the offence did not allow a defendant to plead a defence of honest mistake. On last year's legislation — the escapade to which Deputy Kenny referred — reinstating the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge was enacted so as to comply with constitutional requirements as decreed by the Supreme Court. In other words, it recreates the offence but it allows a defence of honest mistake or reasonable mistake to be pleaded. In the meantime a referendum has been proposed which would, if passed by the people, enable the Oireachtas to include a defence of honest mistake. The Oireachtas could then legislate to create a zone of absolute protection for children. Until the referendum is passed, however, any legislation introduced in this area must satisfy the current rules, particularly if it concerns a serious offence. It is now proposed to make the activity an indictable offence so the defence of reasonable mistake must be provided for. One response, suggested in a letter I sent to the Taoiseach this morning, would be to proceed with that part of the referendum concerning the protection of children.

The other response is the Bill we are being asked to enact in the House this evening. That Bill reinstates the offence of soliciting and importuning a child for sexual purposes but, given that the Supreme Court has held there must be a defence of honest mistake, is the Taoiseach satisfied such a defence is provided for in the Bill? If he is, can he suggest the section which so provides? As far as I can see the Bill does not make such provision and there is no reference to any defence to the offence in question.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I should also have acknowledged his gracious assistance last week.

The Deputy should acknowledge it now because he has already contributed for three minutes.

I acknowledge that. Before we start the debate can the Taoiseach say whether he has received legal advice to confirm that the point I raise is addressed in the Bill as published?

I have not been involved with the Bill in detail so the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will deal with the Deputy's last point during the course of the debate. I assume the matter has been well covered but I will raise it with the Minister with a view to clearing it up before the Bill is taken.

I received the Deputy's letter concerning the referendum today and his point about the defence of honest mistake is correct. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has received letters from other parties and is meeting with them today. Hopefully we can come to an all-party agreement on the matter this week. I will not reveal the contents of the Deputy's letter, as that is for him to do if he so wishes. However, I note his suggestion and we are examining it.

Can the Taoiseach say if the Attorney General will meet with the spokespersons in advance of the debate? The point I raise needs to be clarified before we start. If a person is charged with soliciting or importuning a child to engage in an act which would constitute an offence under last year's legislation he or she would not be guilty in the event of an honest mistake being made as to the child's age at the time of the offence. That person should not be guilty of an offence under this Bill either. l refer the Taoiseach to section 3(5) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 which states: "It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 17 years". This year's Bill is concerned with activities which take place prior to any sexual activity and a defence of honest mistake would have to be concerned with the defendant's state of mind when the offence is committed but that is not clear. I ask the Taoiseach or, if the Taoiseach is unable to deal with it, the Tánaiste, if he is satisfied and has received legal advice that it is not necessary for a subsection allowing a defence to proceedings under this Bill of a genuine belief that the other person was of age at the time of the alleged offence.

Can the Taoiseach tell the House whether there have been consultations with the Ombudsman for Children? Have there been consultations with that extraordinary creation of last summer's tumult, the two special rapporteurs we were told would ride shotgun on the issue? Have they been asked whether any infirmity exists in the Bill to be brought before the House this evening?

The Bill is being taken in the House in one and a half hours' time. The contents of the Bill before the House, including the precise legal points to which the Deputy refers, can be discussed during the debate. Deputy Rabbitte asked for clarification on section 3(5) in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 before the debate and I will ask the Tánaiste to clarify that to the Labour Party spokesperson. We have consulted on the defence of honest mistake with all bodies in the field on the review of the Constitution which we have undertaken since last autumn. There has been wide consultation not only with the Ombudsman for Children but with the rapporteurs and other NGOs in the area. The Tánaiste can deal with the issue of consultation in the last few days. I will ask the Chief Whip to ask the Tánaiste's office or the Attorney General to clarify his points raised.