Last week I addressed the matter of the treatment of sex offenders before release from prison, as it is crucial we provide the maximum level of treatment for offenders before they are released. I was particularly concerned by the small number of places available to them and also by the small number of prisoners who attend the dedicated treatment programme currently available in Arbour Hill. Only five of the 80 offenders released last year participated in that dedicated programme and this is of particular concern. The Minister must as soon as possible implement the programme which has been promised for the Curragh, which will provide more places for offenders when in prison.
There is a particular need to investigate seriously why so few sex offenders are found, when in prison, to be suitable for the programme or volunteer for that programme. I do not raise the matter out of academic interest; there is no doubt that it is terrifying for the victim of a sex crime to know that the perpetrator has been released without receiving appropriate treatment and this is even more traumatic for children. I have received representations – as have other Members – from people about perpetrators who have been released from prison and who have been seen in the area where their crimes were committed. This is terrifying for the whole community but for the victim in particular.
The Minister tells us that a perpetrator cannot be forced to participate in the dedicated programme in prison, but according to section 29 the courts can require a person, on post-release supervision, to receive psychological counselling or other appropriate treatment programmes run by the probation and welfare services or other bodies. If the courts can require such treatment in a post-release situation, can they not also require people, while in prison, to attend relevant programmes? If this can be done after release I do not see why it cannot be enforced before a person is sentenced. I look forward to the Minister's response.
We are all obviously trying to minimise the likelihood of people reoffending. We must get across to the public that the best way of doing so is by providing appropriate treatment. That is not being soft on sex offenders but is the best way to protect children, in particular, and other potential victims of sexual abuse and will have to be a major priority. While drafting this legislation did the Minister consult the National Organisation of Treatment of Abusers, which is a network of professionals working with abusers? That body has done a great deal of work in this area and, as professionals, its members would have much information about how we can provide treatment and prevent people from reoffending. As Deputy Neville rightly said, many hard-core paedophiles do not believe they are wrong and are hence the most likely prisoners to refuse treatment and reoffend. It is true that many sex offenders would not particularly want to receive treatment because of their mental attitude. Whatever can be done to persuade or force people to receive treatment has to be done.
We must be realistic about the legislation. It will not be the solution to the problem of sex offenders in our communities. One study estimates that only 10% of offenders are prosecuted, while other studies suggest the figure is lower. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre states that only 36% of people reporting sexual offences to it reported those offences to the Garda, so we are dealing with a very small percentage of those who have committed such crimes. Putting them on a register is not the solution to the fears and concerns surrounding this issue. Other research indicates that 70% of offenders are family members. This measure will not be effective in that regard either. We must be realistic about the extent to which legislation is effective. Nevertheless, the speedy introduction of the legislation is, unfortunately, necessary.
Deputy Neville referred to paedophile rings and the use of the Internet to circulate information and protect people from detection. This also militates against safeguarding the community. We must be constantly vigilant and try to devise new ways in which we can stop this use of the Internet so we can be one step ahead of those who use it for criminal purposes.
I welcome the part of the Bill which deals with offenders applying for jobs which involve unsupervised contact with children. Under this legislation, they must inform their employer or potential employer of their record. This is extremely important. Will this be effectively policed? Will the funding and relevant staff be provided. The worst offenders are most unlikely to comply with this part of the legislation and say they have been convicted of a sex offence when looking for a job involving contact with children. This measure must be properly policed.
A large amount of funding will be necessary to implement this Bill. The probation and welfare services will require significant funding and staff to fulfil their obligations under it. I welcome these obligations, particularly those in section 29 which gives them the power to make offenders take part in programmes. Section 29 also enables the courts to make regulations regarding offenders. When the Minister announced the introduction of this Bill, he indicated that it might oblige sex offenders to stay away from schools and other areas where young people congregate. I cannot find a specific reference to this in the Bill but I think section 29 could be used in this regard. Will the Minister clarify this?
Access to the register is another grey area in the legislation. Will the Minister clarify how this will work? How senior will a Garda have to be to decide who should have access to the register? The term "need to know basis" is used. There is a lack of clarity regarding what this means and to what extent the register will be available and to whom. There is also a question of balance. We are all concerned that the families of sex offenders do not suffer because of the crimes committed by the offending member of the family. The wording of the Bill is ambiguous in this regard and perhaps the Minister will provide some information on that.
Will the Minister clarify the application of the Bill to persons convicted outside the State? How does one ensure a person convicted outside the State complies with the section which obliges him to inform the authorities within a ten day period that he is temporarily or permanently resident in the State? I presume that the authorities would have that information in the case of those convicted within the State. However, regarding someone convicted outside the State, would information that a person had applied for permission to enter the country be directly given by other jurisdictions to the Garda? Given our common travel area with Britain, this will cause problems. However, there is a concern that people have and will enter from outside the State, particularly given the introduction of the British register of offenders. It is important that we know that an offender has entered the State. Is it up to the individual to comply with this part of the Bill? If it is, many people will not comply and it will be more difficult to trace people who have come in from outside the State than those who are already resident here.
I welcome the provision of limited separate legal representation, particularly for rape victims. We, with rape crisis centres have been looking for this for a long time. The provision of separate legal representation is limited and only applies when the sexual history of a victim is raised in the court. In most cases, this information is not allowable in court because it is not relevant to the case. Will the Minister consider the extension of this provision? I know there must be balance and one side cannot be seen to have more representation. However, one of the concerns expressed to us by rape crisis centres and others is that victims should be informed about what is happening, which is often not the case. I read of one case where the victim said, "I met the prosecuting barrister at 9 a.m. on the morning of the trial, which is a ridiculous set up; the woman to try and represent five years of my life and 21 years of living with abuse meets me for half an hour." Frequently, decisions are made about the timing of the case of which the victim is unaware. Victims are reliant on someone on the State's legal team finding the time to inform them.
Someone, preferably a solicitor or barrister, should be assigned to keep the victims informed of what is going on and to answer any questions they have. Frequently the victims feels they are the least important people in the case and they are often left sitting for hours not knowing what is going on. The victim and the alleged perpetrator must often wait in the same lobby outside a court while waiting for the case to be called or during deliberations. This is difficult for the victim of such a crime. I know the Bill is not intended to focus on this issue to a great extent and the only aspect dealt with is separate legal representation where past sexual history is raised in court. Nevertheless I would like the Minister to consider those aspects also.
The Bill will help to some extent to allay people's fears that sexual offenders may be allowed to roam free in the community once they have served their sentences. That these obligations exist in legislation gives some support, comfort and protection to society at large. However, the most effective way to deal with sex offenders and protect the community from sex offenders is to use the methods of prevention and treatment and to provide the necessary treatment before the person is released from prison.
That there is such a small number of places available and such a small number of prisoners participate in the programmes is a serious cause for concern. The professionals in the area state that young offenders respond well to treatment programmes and there is a real possibility of avoiding recidivism among young offenders if they get the appropriate treatment programmes at an early stage. If all possible provision was made with regard to treating all offenders, particularly these young offenders, before they return to the community, it would surely be a great favour to society. If we can do that, we will have addressed a terrible scourge which puts fear into the hearts of parents in particular. When one considers there are sex offenders in society and that it is possible that treatment would make a difference, we must make every effort to ensure that treatment is made available.
I welcome the provision of a register, but for it to be effective, it must be adequately financed. The Probation and Welfare Service must be adequately financed in order that there is effective supervision in the community and that what is designed to happen, according to the Bill, will actually happen because if the Bill does not have the desired effect, there is not much point in putting it on the Statute Book.