Arising out of the Supreme Court decision in the 'CC' case, the committee's first task was to examine the age at which to reintroduce a system of absolute protection for children similar to that which prevailed before the 'CC' case.

After careful consideration and months of analysis, the committee decided to fix the age of Absolute Zone of Protection for children at 16 years of age. This means that any adult engaging in sexual intercourse with a child will not subsequently be able to claim that they did not know the age of the child. This proposal would effectively reverse the Supreme Court decision in the 'CC' case. It would also re-introduce one of the highest standards of child protection in the world. This strong proposal on child protection has been broadly welcomed by groups working in the area of child protection. Furthermore, the committee is quite confident that this proposal meets with the approval of the vast majority of parents of young children in this country.

It is only in this context that the age of consent should be examined.

Unfortunately, either through ignorance or wilful neglect . . . and in an attempt to grab headlines . . . have some commentators ignored this central core recommendation of the Child Protection Committee.

In the Committee's opinion, it is logical and consistent that the age of consent should coincide with this Absolute Zone of Protection. To do otherwise would send a mixed and confusing message. The committee was strongly of the view that the age of 16 represents the appropriate age at which to fix both standards.

By any international comparison, this recommendation, if introduced, would result in a child protection regime of the highest standard and one that we can be proud of.

The committee's sole objective at all times has been to enhance the protection of children. To suggest otherwise would be ill-informed.

The committee was established in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the 'CC' case, which relaxed our child protection laws and gave rise to widespread public concern. Our aim has been, at all times, to give a level of reassurance to parents. The removal of the defence of mistake from accused persons shifts the balance back in favour of child protection.

The committee took account of much wider public policy considerations than those referred to in the 'CC' case. We are confident that our proposals equate with people's high expectations for the protection of their children. By equating the age of consent with the Age of Absolute Protection, we are sending a clear and strong message to those who are intent on having sex with children. The message is: if you are caught there will be no easy defences.

In conclusion, to separate the age of consent from the Age of Absolute Protection shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the complex issues surrounding child protection. I suggest that those who have sought to separate both issues should take the time to read the report in its entirety.