Worse, the committee is to recommend this action to the government, under no particular public pressure to do so, under no domestic or international obligation to do so and for no sound moral or public health reasons.

Essentially there is only one question the committee must answer if members of the committee are to continue to support this recommendation. What benefit can we gain from lowering the age of consent? Let us be clear, by benefit we mean a social good or an improvement in what rights and protections we currently enjoy.

After all improving child protection was the committee's remit. We need to know the answer to this question, particularly on behalf of 16-year-old girls and boys who would be stripped of current state support and protection.

Peter Power, TD and Chairperson, has outlined two principal reasons for the committee's majority decision. That young people didn't know the age of consent anyway and that setting that age of consent at 16 more closely conforms to 'reality' as opposed to the 'ideal' of 17.

Firstly, there is much confusion, particularly amongst young people, about the age of consent. However, it beggars belief that this should be used as a reason to shave a year off protection from teenagers. The state is charged with the protection and promotion of individuals' rights.

Therefore it is quite simple, if people do not know the age of consent, tell them. That is the state's duty after all. There is no rationale in using ignorance, compounded by state and societal negligence, as a reason to lower the age of consent. It is inconceivable that the committee were trying to say that since few knew what the age of consent was, no one would notice or mind if they cut it down.

The government must face up to their commitments in properly addressing the protection and safety of minors from sexual coercion and violence. The committee has mapped out the raft of measures which can achieve this. It remains to be seen, when the dust settles, if the adequate and secure resources will be forthcoming to make the implementation of these recommendations meaningful.

Lowering the age of consent would be additional, inappropriate and counter-productive.

Secondly, the committee feel that 16 is a better reflection of reality. The committee seems to have taken a wholly uncritical, benign and frankly rose-tinted view of underage sexual activity. While we can hope that many sexually active teenagers are in caring, non-coercive, non-abusive relationships, making fully informed and safe choices, there are many young people who experience a very different reality. Their reality includes unmitigating pressure, invasive, confusing and unwelcome attention, ignorance, fear, isolation, bullying, coercion and violence. Is this the reality the committee wish to abandon 16-year-old boys and girls to?

The committee has failed to put forward any sound arguments for the greater good or for the improvement of child protection in lowering the age of consent. We, therefore, call on committee members to rescind their support for this flawed and ill-conceived proposal.