Mary Flaherty
Question:8 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Justice whether he intends to reactivate a treatment scheme for sexual offenders within the prison services; and the reason the pilot scheme in Arbour Hill Prison was discontinued.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Treatment of Sexual Offenders.
The first objective of the prison system is to contain, in appropriate security, those who are committed to custody by the courts. There are also a number of other objectives, including making available to those in custody such help, guidance, counselling, education and training as will lead them, as far as practicable, to a constructive life in the community on release. As is acknowledged internationally, this rehabilitative objective is very difficult to realise but it is essential that it should continue to be a recognised objective of the system and that every effort should be made to achieve it as far as possible.
The objective of rehabilitation assumes particular significance where sex offenders are concerned. The nature and seriousness of the offences for which they are in custody are such that great importance attaches to reducing, as far as possible, the risk of re-offending following eventual release. Nobody should be under any illusion that there is a ready made, easily applied and guaranteed means of achieving results in this area. Such measures as may be taken will necessarily be some what tentative in nature and subject to trial and assessment. It must also be borne in mind that not all sex offenders are at risk of re-offending, by no means all offenders would be suitable for treatment and any treatment provided would be voluntary.
In saying that, I am simply trying to strike a note of realism about the nature of the problem and the possibility of easy results but I am in no way seeking to downplay the importance of trying to achieve results. At present sex offenders, in common with other prisoners, have access to a range of medical, psychiatric, psychological and welfare services in the prisons. I am satisfied that much good work is being done in this way for sex offenders.
I am also interested in seeing whether a more specialist treatment programme for such offenders can be devised which would demonstrably and significantly reduce or eliminate the risk of re-offending on release on the part of offenders who agree to undergo and are susceptible to treatment, especially those who are at greatest risk of re-offending. I have, therefore, recently directed, on foot of advice from the director or prison medical services, that an urgent process of study and consultation should be carried out to establish what options might be available in this regard. I am satisfied that if such a more specialist treatment programme is to be introduced it would have to be practicable, capable of being delivered and sustainable and should be properly evaluated at all stages to ensure that it would be effective and cost-efficient. The experience gained in the group therapy programme which was conducted by the probation and welfare service in Arbour Hill on an experimental, pilot basis will be taken into account in the process of consultation and study which I have initiated.
Will the Minister explain when and why this pilot scheme was disbanded, especially in view of the Minister's very lengthy opening remarks which acknowledged the great seriousness of sexual crimes and downplayed the reality of repeat offences among that group of criminals? The Minister has made a public commitment to seek to protect women. This is an area where such tentative steps as have been taken to date should be maintained and developed and not rowed back on, as the reply seems to indicate. How long has the scheme been in abeyance and why was it allowed to lapse? Was the decision based on some dissatisfaction with it?
I was rather hoping that this programme would be very helpful to us in the new study which is being undertaken. Considerable efforts are being made to do something positive in this regard.
Why was it disbanded? It is a simple question.
Allow the Minister to reply.
I am seeking to help the Minister to apply his mind.
Sometimes help of that kind can be to the contrary.
I can guarantee Deputy McCartan that he does not have to help me to apply my mind to anything. The programme was experimental in nature and concluded about 18 months ago. It was developed by probation and welfare officers for a group of ten offenders. Its objectives were to develop interpersonal relationships, to promote victim awareness and to discourage repeat offences. The programme had the full commitment of three welfare officers. The results of the pilot therapeutic programme will have to be taken into account. The programmes we will try to put in place following the study will have to be deliverable and they will have to be evaluated at all stages. It is a very complex matter. The programme was experimental and we have learned much from it. The new study will take that on board, along with other modern techniques and understandings in this area.
Could the Minister explain why that pilot study was effectively stopped 18 months ago? Would he confirm that the welfare officers who developed a degree of expertise in that area were simply transferred from Arbour Hill to other duties? Would the Minister agree that it was a grave error to bring that scheme to an end and explain why an evaluation of that scheme has not yet been completed? Would the Minister agree that it should not have required the Lavinia Kerwick case to draw the attention of the Minister, his Department and the Government to the need to provide treatment for sex offenders to ensure that they do not re-offend?
I do not quite understand the latter part of the question. I had already expressed an interest in this matter before that unfortunate occurrence. I had indicated on assuming this office that I was taking a personal interest in the whole prison system. There are other initiatives I have started in that regard. I hope to be able to report on them in the not too distant future. I have an interest in improving the whole penal system. It is a long time since we had an in-depth look at it. This is just one element. I do not know why the scheme was stopped 18 months ago, but the experience and the wisdom gained from that programme is not lost to us. The new study was initiated purely because I want to see some improvements in this regard. It will include the director of prison medical services, the principal of the Probation and Welfare Service and the head psychologist. These people are directly involved and they have been carrying out some investigations. I expect the study to be comprehensive. It may very well lead to experimental programmes again. The whole idea behind an experimental programme is to gain experience. If it works well, it can be applied; if it does not work, one has to try some other tack. We are making a good start and I would ask Deputies to recognise that there is an interest in this, not because of any case but because there is a need.
Given that the question on the Order Paper asks the reason the pilot scheme in Arbour Hill was discontinued, I find it remarkable that the Minister says he does not know. This House deserves better. A very clear and concise question has been put to the Minister because it is of such importance. The Minister has indicated that he has established a working group to examine the matter. When did he make that decision and when was the working group established? Would he be prepared to give us the terms of reference of the working group? What have they been asked specifically to do? Could he indicate the period of time during which it is expected they will be working and when he expects they will report back to him?
I have not all the answers to those questions. If the Deputy puts down another question I will be glad to send a written reply. The study group will do its job speedily, but I cannot give the exact date on which they will conclude their business.
Was it established a week ago or a month ago?
Was it set up in anticipation of replying to this question?
I am loath to give exact dates for anything because it may be quoted afterwards that one has misled the Dáil, but I will be quite happy to convey the information as I have indicated.
Was it yesterday?
Recently.
Yesterday morning?
Not at all.
Is the Minister seriously telling this House, on an issue of huge concern outside this House and on which he has professed concern, that despite being in his Department for approximately nine months, and being continuously in Government except for a brief two-month sojourn, he has not taken it on himself to inquire as to why the Arbour Hill programme came to an end or to inquire as to the whereabouts of the welfare service officials employed by his Department who developed expertise and whether that expertise could currently be deployed? Is the Minister seriously saying that to the House? Would he inquire as to the reasons this pilot scheme ended and communicate that information to Members of this House?
The Deputy should stop pursuing matters in this fashion. This programme terminated 18 months ago.
Why?
Obviously because those who were in charge of the programme felt it had done what it was set up to do.
The Minister's predecessor——
It had lived its life.
The Minister is washing his hands of a very bad decision.
The lessons learned from that programme have been taken on board. That was the whole idea of the pilot programme. I am satisfied that we have something else yet to do. I have initiated this study by senior people who understand these things and I would think that some of these questions would be much more appropriate when these people make their recommendations and we consider how to put that programme in place. If it requires another temporary pilot programme which finishes in a month or six months, that is all right.
The Minister does not have the evaluation of the pilot programme.
If the Deputy had asked about the evaluation of the programme, I would have been able to say that I can give that information. I told him that there was available a range of medical, psychiatric, psychological and welfare services already in place, some of it because of the good work done in the programme. I think something extra needs to be done. If the Deputy does not believe something else needs to be done and that the programme which finished 18 months ago was the basis for doing the job efficiently and effectively for all time, then I would be happy to hear him say that.
You had the range of services. You are talking about special services and a special programme.
I want to bring in another Deputy.
It seems to me that the Deputy is more preoccupied with going back into history than doing something positive for the future. I would rather go the other way.
You are just washing your hands of bad decisions made by your own colleagues.
(Interruptions.)
Let us proceed in an orderly fashion.
It seems that the Minister has not a great interest in or confidence in the rehabilitation in prison of sex offenders. Does the Minister see any connection between that and the scandalously light sentences or suspended sentences imposed in rape cases? Does it not clearly indicate that the judges have no faith whatsoever in the ability of prisons to reform these people and that they see no purpose in sending them to prison, because there is no reform available?
Obviously the Deputy came in late.
I did not.
I was already trying to give an indication that not all sex offenders are at a high risk of re-offending and that all of this has to be on a voluntary basis.
I do not accept that.
For those reasons I will not be critical of the judges. They are independent and they do the job as they see fit. Very often the reporting of cases and of decisions taken by judges does not indicate clearly what actually took place in the court room. There is often a gap in regard to understanding what has gone on.
We must move to another question.
One final question, a Cheann Comhairle.
I hesitate to deny the Deputy but if she will be very brief I will allow her a question. We have dwelt overlong on this issue.
Does the Minister accept that our concern here is that rehabilitation should become part of the treatment of sex offenders? Does the Minister further accept, because his date seems to be in conflict with the information I have, that one in four children is at risk of being sexually abused here and that the perpetrators are not one in four men but a small number of men who offend against a large number of young people? In view of that does the Minister accept that this programme should be viewed with great urgency? In replying will the Minister let me know in how many centres or prisons sex offenders are housed and whether this programme he is considering will be extended to all these places and not confined, as the pilot scheme was, to Arbour Hill Prison?
The majority of those who offend in this way are in Arbour Hill Prison. There are also some in Wheatfield. I assure the Deputy that lessons learned from any programme undertaken in any one place will be applied across the board. The Deputy is right in that we have to reduce the risk of re-offending. That is what the whole thing is about. It must be remembered that it has to operate professionally and be effective and that it is voluntary. It is not something that can be put in place overnight. That was gleaned from the experimental pilot programme which was effectively done on those ten offenders. The lessons learned have been applied consistently, but I think something else is needed.
Will the Minister let us have a copy of the terms of reference?
Question No. 9, please.