The appointment of two special, part-time rapporteurs on child protection is a stop-gap response to those administrative and political failures that led to the recasting of the law on statutory rape earlier this month. The legal experts involved are highly competent and well regarded. And they may do an excellent job.
But, unless a Government Minister is made directly accountable for implementing their recommendations, they will have little impact.
The mechanisms under which the two rapporteurs were appointed would suggest an anxiety on behalf of the Government to be seen to be taking control of a crisis. For, while the rapporteurs will examine national and international legal developments and assess their possible impact on child protection, their annual reports will be submitted to the Oireachtas, rather than to a specific Minister. The Dáil has no power to initiate legislation. That is the function of Government. Once again, space is being made for an abdication of responsibility.
The appointment of these experts should not distract from the Government's failure to anticipate and respond in a timely fashion to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the 1935 crime of statutory rape, involving girls under 15 years of age. And while a later court judgment limited the damage caused, the emergency legislation that was rushed through the Dáil by the Government may be fatally flawed. It discriminates against young boys who engage in consensual sex.
The Government has invited the Opposition parties to participate in an all-party committee to consider the protections necessary for young people in today's society. But agreement has not been reached on terms of reference. As the price of their involvement, Fine Gael and the Labour Party are seeking an independent inquiry into what went wrong within the Office of the Attorney General and why the Government was not made aware of the implications of the "Mr A" case. Such politicking should not, however, get in the way of a necessary review.
The emergency legislation passed earlier this month should be revisited as soon as possible. We need to protect young, vulnerable people from their predatory elders. But our laws should also reflect a society that has changed fundamentally since 1935. The Catholic bishops have objected to a lowering of the age of consent on the grounds that it might draw young people into premature sexual experiences. Criminalising sexual experimentation by young people will not however, ensure abstinence. And it is wrong for the legislature to create a criminal offence and then expect the law officers of the State to ignore it.
These are difficult, politically fraught, issues. There is disagreement within the Government and the Opposition parties on the reduction of the age of sexual consent. In such circumstance, a calm and non-partisan approach to devising new and relevant protections for vulnerable young people would be of immense benefit.