Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 2000

Vol. 519 No. 3

Sex Offenders Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ms Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and pay tribute to Deputy Dan Neville who introduced a Bill along these lines, in opposition, two years ago and who has done a great deal of work in this area. He made a substantial speech here when the Bill was introduced by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue.

This is an important Bill and its provisions will be helpful. I commend the Minister for introducing separate representation for victims of rape in particular circumstances. This is a welcome section which introduces separate legal representation for complainants in rape and other serious sexual assault cases during applications to deduce evidence on cross-examination of the complainant's past sexual experience. This issue has long been debated and the Rape Crisis Centre and many others would like to see this provision extended to include separate representation for all rape victims. There is no doubt that many cases are not yet brought to the courts. One of the reasons is that victims feel intimidated by the procedures and the lack of legal representation. It is welcome to see some bit of an open door in this legislation for those victims. It will give some encouragement to people to bring cases although much more action is needed before victims will have full confidence in going to the courts with these cases. It is a serious matter that victims of rape still have so little confidence in court procedures. The separate legal representation being provided for is important. Some of the research reports published recently recommended it. I welcome the Minister's action in relation to it in the Bill.

The Sex Offenders Bill means there are mechanisms in place with the Garda for the notification of certain issues in relation to sex offenders. For example, it creates a new civil court order against sex offenders whose behaviour in the community gives the Garda Síochána reasonable cause for concern that the order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. It is important that this new civil court order has been created as it will give reassurance to communities. On the other hand we do not want the provisions of this Bill used for any type of vigilante action by communities. That would not be helpful either for communities or the individuals concerned. The Bill also creates a new offence for sex offenders who seek or accept work involving unsupervised contact with children without informing the employer of their conviction. I assume this includes voluntary work and I would appreciate if the Minister would respond in regard to that matter. I assume if they worked in a voluntary capacity they would be covered. It also provides for the post-release supervision of sex offenders by the Probation and Welfare Service. The question that arises here is one of resources. Will the Probation and Welfare Service have the resources to do this job effectively? My colleague, Deputy Higgins, has raised frequently the issue of the serious lack of resources for the Probation and Welfare Service. Additional resources will have to be provided, given that it is being assigned extra tasks under the Bill, if it is to do the job properly.

Overall this is a welcome Bill. The scale of current and past sexual abuse that has unfolded in Ireland is extraordinary. It is one of the sad realities that has to be confronted. Huge demands are being made on the resources of the two specialist units in Dublin, St. Clare's and St. Louise's. This is not a problem that belongs to the past, it is very much a problem that has relevance today. The Sex Offenders Bill is one aspect of dealing with the issue. Let us not think it is a panacea for the problem of child sexual abuse. To deal with offenders is an important aspect of the problem. Other speakers have said it is not about focusing on a cure. That would be naive. One has to look at containment and supervision issues. It is important to get the right balance.

There is a shortage of treatment facilities for adults and children. Any practitioner one cares to speak to in this area will highlight the shortage of treatment facilities. There is a shortage of treatment facilities in our prisons as well as in our communities. Given the huge pressure on community care, treatment issues are down the list of priorities. That is a shame. We have to work towards improving the treatment facilities that are available both in prison and outside. We should take note of the research from other countries. It is clear that some offenders can benefit from treatment. We must be careful not to put everyone into the same category and say these people cannot benefit from treatment. Research carried out by a man called Browne in the UK showed clearly that there can be a good outcome for some offenders if they get treatment at the right stage and in the right way. It is important not to write people off. The best protection for children is to work with these offenders and try to ensure they do not commit offences again. All offenders are not in the same category, they vary tremendously. Treatment should be matched to people who can benefit. While the recidivist rate is high it should not prevent us from trying to develop the range of treatment strategies and facilities available to deal with sex offenders.

Another group on whom we should concentrate resources is young offenders. I spoke with a clinician in this area who said it is important to work with the young teenager who abuses because the cognitive distortions which they have are not so fixed that they cannot be treated. Many positive things can be achieved if they are helped to understand the seriousness of what they have done, if work is done on why it happened and strong behavioural programmes are put in place with good supervision. People are often surprised when they realise it is often older teenagers who abuse younger children. It is a particularly important group at which to target resources to ensure they do not develop a pattern of life long abuse. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. Some programmes have been funded in the Dublin area but, undoubtedly, they need to be funded throughout the country also.

Regarding expertise in the Garda Síochána to deal with this issue, Deputy Neville gave some disturbing examples. Paedophiles obviously operate in a clever way. There are no boundaries and they make use of the Internet. Does the Garda have the necessary resources to deal with the methods developed at an international level by paedophile rings? Are gardaí receiving training? Does the Garda link up with other police forces with experience in this area to enable new issues to be tackled?

There are no boundaries or borders in this area. The register which will be established under the Bill will ensure there is more protection in Ireland and that it is not a refuge for people who have been forced out of other countries such as England or other European nations. The register will ensure they do not feel Ireland is a safe refuge and this is an important protection.

At present only the Garda Síochána will have access to the register. What procedures are in place if it needs to share information on it with others? Deputy Neville also raised this issue. For example, if there is a need to link up with a local group, which unwittingly employs somebody who does not say he has a history, what action can the Garda take? I ask the Minister to address that issue and to reassure the House about the flexibility the Garda has in relation to using the register where necessary. What protections are available for any abuse of the register?

I welcome this important Bill. The various issues I mentioned need to be addressed in addition to the broader ones regarding child sexual abuse. There is a need to consider the treatment facilities and to work in the education area so children feel safe reporting abuse. The Stay Safe programmes should be developed throughout the country. In retrospect, the misjudgment of the people who argued against the stay safe programmes is clear. They are an important part of the armoury involved in helping children to protect themselves. I hope they will be supported in schools and communities.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin)

I want to contribute to the debate because the Bill is important in so far as it relates to children. As my specific responsibilities relate to children, I come in contact with many people and I am aware of the incidence of abuse and the effect it has on children. There is an onus on us all to take all action necessary to ensure children are protected in whatever way possible from people who put them at risk and particularly from paedophiles and sex offenders who steal their innocence and childhoods.

In the preparation of a children's strategy, I have consulted widely with children and young people. I have received letters from children, telling me how they were abused and saying their lives have been destroyed. There is evidence of young people who developed serious behavioural disorders and who cannot settle in home or residential home situations. Much of this can be traced back to their sexual abuse. Statistics show that much of this may have taken place within the family circle or involved people whom they knew. I hope we can work at the level of early intervention and support for people and their families to protect children.

Where we are aware that people have convictions for sex offences and that they may be, on the basis of that type of conviction, a threat to young people, it is important to do everything possible in legislative terms to protect all our citizens but particularly children. Much legislation is needed in this regard. This legislation is the third Bill to be introduced and it will add to the body of Acts already in place.

The Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996, set out to protect children in other jurisdictions but particularly to take action against people who carried out offences against them while on holidays or abroad. Its purpose is to ensure there is no escape for such people in Ireland. The purpose of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, is to ensure children cannot be trafficked for sexual exploitation. It also deals with pornography on the Internet and made the creation, distribution and possession of child pornography an offence. This also applies to the Internet, which is a major challenge because sexual offences and offenders do not recognise international boundaries. As countries, we must work together to provide extra protection for young people.

I attended a meeting of the Council of Europe Social Affairs Committee in Dublin Castle on Monday and it was interesting that one of the questions asked was whether offenders can be prosecuted in Ireland for offences which took place abroad. They were pleased that this is possible. In addition, by virtue of this Bill, if sexual offenders are living in this country, they will be obliged to register and give information. It would be helpful if all other countries introduced similar legislation. This would allow us to work together to protect children from abuse, attack and threat of harm.

The establishment of a sexual offenders register in providing tracking and notification systems will ensure there is up to date information. Computerisation will ensure information is available throughout the world when people are moving. If a person is registered on the system, he or she must notify the Garda if he or she intends to leave the country. This will verify that one is leaving the State and not only going under ground. In addition to all sexual offences committed against children, a wide range of other offences are also covered. The length of time for which people will be on the register reflects, in a fair way, the nature of the crime and the sentence. It does not lump them all into the one group. It recognises that offenders also have rights.

It is crucial that the Garda can use this information properly. It is particularly important that it can be used to ensure that where knowledge exists, a close eye can be kept by the relevant people, the Garda, to ensure no person is put at risk. There is no point in merely having the register. Part 3 refers to the behaviour of these people and provides for special orders so that, if the Garda believes sex offenders on the register place people in danger by hanging around inappropriate places, such as playgrounds, school gates or areas where children might be put at risk, it can intervene and protect the public.

The Bill places an onus on sex offenders to notify potential employers that they have a record and are on the register. That also applies to voluntary organisations. Of all groups, voluntary organisations sought this type of security for the people with whom they deal. Children and young people depend to a great degree on volunteers to provide them with sporting activities, to form clubs and organisations and to organise outings, events and camps and take children away for weekends. Therefore, these people are with children in a close environment. Voluntary groups need to know volunteers are of good character and standing.

The Bill covers any person who works in a voluntary or employment capacity and who has access to children. This is a great safeguard for voluntary organisations to ensure they can continue to work with young children and not feel afraid. Unfortunately, in the past few years an element of fear has crept in among volunteers. They believe everything they do is being watched because of the past incidence of sex offences in different areas of sporting activity. We need to ensure they feel their work is valued while also taking steps to ensure they are protected.

Like Deputy Fitzgerald, I commend the Minister on introducing separate legal representation. During my time on the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, we heard submissions from a number of delegations, especially the Rape Crisis Centre, which requested this measure. It applies under the Bill where a person's past sexual history is being explored in court. Women are entitled to this representation. They have often felt daunted by the procedure and, even though they have been the victims, they have often felt they did not receive the sympathy and support they needed as victims and that, in many cases, they were on trial. By having separate legal representation, their rights as victims will also be recognised.

The legislation, which goes on to give post-release supervision, should be used in conjunction with other measures providing treatment and therapy to offenders to ensure there is not as much incidence of reoffence. The addition of this strong legislation – no person should apologise for it being strong – will support all activities involving children, volunteers and groups and will ensure the protection of children by providing that information relating to sex offenders and people who might offend again is in the hands of the right people, namely, the Garda, to be used as it sees fit.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): Like those who have spoken in this debate, I welcome the legislation. The introduction of a register of sex offenders is inevitable given that such a register was introduced in the United Kingdom and has given rise to the understandable fear that, unless a similar register is introduced here, sex offenders from Britain will flee to this country. However, one must put the role of the register into perspective and see that it is part of a much larger picture.

One of the strange aspects of sex offending has been the marked lack of a coherent approach to the problem. Lenient and inconsistent sentencing in many rape and sexual assault cases has been rightly and severely criticised by the National Network of Rape Crisis Centres. The centres instanced three serious cases all of which were heard within a short time of each other and where inexplicably lenient sentences were handed down. One case involved a serious sexual assault on a 17 year old girl by four youths. The incident was described in court as mere "horse play". This was accepted by the judge and a community service sentence was handed down. The second case involved a sentence of a mere two years given to a priest who sexually abused and destroyed the childhood of at least nine boys. A jail sentence of two years was totally inadequate in the context of the evidence graphically presented to the court. The third case involved a County Cork school principal who admitted 21 sample charges of indecent assault and was sentenced to a three year prison sentence.

While there have been many successful prosecutions which succeeded in drawing down adequate sentences in terms of their severity, especially more recently, cases such as the three I outlined undermine much of what has been achieved in putting sexual assault into the serious criminal category to which it belongs. The handing down of lenient sentences in serious cases has undoubtedly led to many victims being reluctant to go through the trauma of a court case and facing the possibility of being identified, at least within their own community, only to have a derisory sentence imposed by the court. While no two cases are exactly the same, we need a judicial system which guarantees at least a minimum level of sentencing consistency. There is a long overdue need for non-statutory judicial guidelines to assist this process.

Last month there were 354 convicted sex offenders in prison. Only ten of these were receiving the intensive treatment programme at Arbour Hill, which is the only prison where such a programme is available. To have only ten of the 354 convicted sex offenders receiving intensive therapy or treatment is an absolute scandal. It has been categorically proven that treatment and therapy work, yet they are not available in prisons except for a tiny minority. The Curragh has a quota of sex offenders, yet it has only one part-time psychologist and one part-time probation and welfare officer for more than 100 sex offenders convicted by the courts. Castlerea Prison also houses sex offenders and does not have any psychologist. Only 6% of convicted sex offenders released from prison last year took part in a treatment programme while in custody. Some 80 prisoners convicted of sex offences were released, yet only five of them had completed the Arbour Hill intensive treatment programme. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform figures confirm that the proportion of sex offenders treated in prison has fallen. In 1998, for example, 11 of the 103 sex offenders released during the year received treatment.

The number of convicted sex offenders serving prison sentences is now at an all-time high. The Minister defends his performance by saying that many sex offenders are unsuited or unwilling to participate in intensive therapy programmes due to insufficient motivation or emotional immaturity. He has commissioned "a major review of the effectiveness of the Arbour Hill programme". There is no need for a review. The Arbour Hill programme is working and is extremely successful. International experience has shown that therapy can and does work. There should be no question of emotional immaturity or insufficient motivation. There should be no choice or option. Such therapy programmes should be mandatory for all sex offenders without exception.

One must understand that paedophiles, by their nature, do not believe or admit they have done wrong. They are stuck in a psychological mindset and we should try to change that. That is what the therapy programmes are for and that is why they work where they are provided and if they are compulsory. Early intervention is particularly effective, especially where young offenders are concerned. Offenders should be part of such a programme not at the tail end of their sentence as happens at present but from the day they enter prison. Such programmes should be provided at community level as and when the offender moves back into the community but to release 75 sex offender prisoners back into the community in 1996 and 92 such offenders in 1998 without intensive therapy is grossly irresponsible. Yet there is little indication from the Minister that he proposes to improve the position.

In 1998, my colleague, Deputy Neville published the Sexual Offenders Registration Bill, 1998. That Fine Gael Bill covered people who moved to Ireland following release from prison in Britain after conviction for child sex offences if they had been required to register there under British legislation. The Bill gave wide discretionary powers to the Judiciary. The convicting judge would decide whether the offender's name would be entered on the register on release from prison or juvenile detention centres in the case of an offender between 17 and 21 years. The judge would also rule on the length of time the offender's name would remain on the register. The main consideration would be the likelihood of the convicted person re-offending on release.

Those under the age of 17 were not covered by the Bill because young sex offenders may not be fully aware of the implications and consequences of their behaviour and often respond very well to treatment which, unfortunately, is not available in most cases at present. Once entered on the register, the requirements in Deputy Neville's Bill were quite strict. The offender must not only provide the local Garda station with his or her name and address but also a signed photograph and finger prints. Any change must be notified to the Garda within seven days and the offender would also have to notify a local Garda station if he spends a total of 14 days a year at another address.

A registered offender who failed to comply with these conditions would face a summary conviction in the District Court with a fine of up to £1,500 or imprisonment for three months. If the case went to a hearing on indictment in the Circuit Court, the penalty would be a fine of up to £5,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.

It was a good Bill and one intended to fill a major void. It specified, for example, that the identity of the names of the registered persons would not be disclosed to anyone other than a garda, except in exceptional circumstances. A garda not below the rank of inspector could apply to the High Court for disclosure to a third party in the interests of public safety and the hearing would be held in camera. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that the kind of vigilantism referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald and the hysteria that can often occur on the release of such persons is prevented.

The Minister flatly rejected the Bill on the basis that he had commissioned a study by his Department into the area of sexual offences. In May 1998 the departmental group produced an excellent report entitled The Law on Sexual Offences. Yet it took from May 1998 to 12 January 2000 for the Minister and his Department to produce a Bill which is now before us and plodding its way through the House. Had Deputy Neville's Bill been accepted the register could have been in place for the past two years.

One of the disquieting aspects of the report produced by the Department was the suggestion that a register of sex offenders would seem to pose more problems than it would solve. The authors stress that the purpose of any such measure must be the protection of children. However, they point out that not all sex offenders abuse children and among those who do, not all are fixated paedophiles who prey on children outside the family.

There seems to be a reluctance, scepticism or little enthusiasm for the Bill among the professionals who treat sex offenders. According to Mr. Kieran McGrath, editor of the Irish Social Worker, this is not because the professionals oppose the Bill but because they believe that its measures will achieve little or nothing. Mr. McGrath believes that it will create an impression in people's minds that a major step forward has been taken. Terms such as “a tough crack-down on sex offenders” make good soundbite material but fail to address the reality of our sex offender population. From the point of view of perception the new measures strike a very responsive chord with the general public and the electorate but, in essence, according to Mr. McGrath, it amounts to a very limited response.

There are many aspects of sex offending about which we know very little. However, there are other aspects which are quite clear. First, it has been clearly established that most sex offenders are well known to their victims. Some 70% of offenders are family members. The "stranger-danger" scenario that the register is supposed to address is a reality. This accounts for the low prosecution rate, around 5%. In many of the worst cases of incest, for example, no formal complaint is made to the Garda and in the absence of a complaint no prosecution can take place. In many cases, therefore, the Garda never get to interview the alleged perpetrator.

A sex offenders' register, as we have already said, will exclude a huge slice of the population. As we said during the course of the debate on the previous legislation we discussed, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Bill, 1999, the Bill is hugely deficient, not through any fault of its own but by virtue of the fact that it cannot be made retrospective because of the consequences of Article 15.5 of the Constitution. That is a problem. The register will not be able to operate retrospectively because this would be unconstitutional and would be seen as interference with the judicial process because only the courts can inflict punishment. Being placed on a sex offenders' register would inevitably be seen as an additional sentence. Thus, the currently known sex offender population, irrespective of how serious or heinous their crimes or transgressions, will have to be excluded from the register.

There are issues the Minister could have addressed in this Bill but did not do so. For example, it is possible for defendants facing allegations of sexual crimes to conduct their own defence. That is their constitutional right. However, by conducting their own defence they are automatically given the right to interrogate the women or children they are accused of abusing. I appreciate that this option is seldom taken up, although it was availed of in a notorious rape case in England some years ago with obvious consequences from the point of view of the victim. The fact is that it still exists and victims know it exists. It is a very real psychological threat and deterrent.

To return to the attitude of some of the professionals and the general feeling of disquieting scepticism on the part of some professional workers in the field, one is again struck by the comments of the editor of the Irish Social Worker. His summary of the Bill is very interesting. He wrote:

Social policy formulation should be based on what is shown to be effective rather than on what appeals to the more primitive instincts of the electorate. Sex offender registers may help people to sleep easier at night, in the mistaken conviction that someone is "monitoring" the paedophiles but this Bill will not achieve that objective. It may merely prove to be a safety valve for an adult anxiety rather than a safety measure for child protection.

We should be somewhat worried that people with hands-on experience dealing with this problem at the coalface, the professionals, express such scepticism. It is something on which we must reflect.

People across the political divide have supported the thrust of the Bill, as I do. However, I regret its late introduction. Deputy Neville's Bill should have been taken on board and any loopholes or defects rectified. Had that been done such a register could have formed part of the legal regime for the past two years, but the Minister did not see fit to do so. I see it as a public safety measure but in the light of the glaring negligence on the part of the State in failing to make treatment and therapy programmes available it is, as I have said, only one piece of a much larger jigsaw. There seem to be some glaring inconsistencies in that section 29 provides that offenders can be obliged to attend post-release courses. One must immediately ask why they are not obliged to participate in such courses while in prison.

While rape figures, which are extremely high, are now levelling out, is the reported figure only the tip of the iceberg? As the Minister of State said, representatives of the network of Rape Crisis Centres and other interested parties have come to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and the impression one receives from them is that the figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

There is little doubt that, for a variety of reasons, many rapes are not reported. We may welcome the prospect of independent legal representation for rape victims, which will hopefully encourage more people to report the violation of their person, but there is an ongoing major problem in that rape victims are very often not kept informed by the State of what is going on in their cases. A court case is conducted on behalf of someone whose person has been grossly violated and who is in fear of entering court, yet in many cases the DPP's office does not bother to apprise the victim of progress in the case, where the file is or the likely consequences of their appearance in court. In many cases in the past they were left languishing in total ignorance of what faced them in court. That is appalling and unpardonable. All victims should be kept up to date with the progress of their cases if the State is acting on their behalf, but rape victims should be kept completely up to date and briefed regularly in relation to the progress and processing of their case.

Deputies have already referred to the failure to properly resource the probation and welfare service, which will be a key cog in the working of this legislation, yet it is the Cinderella service of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We have drawn the cost comparisons before and looked at the paucity of resources and manpower within the service. This time last year the service was thrust into the unprecedented situation of threatening industrial action. It had to take strong, affirmative industrial relations action and got a mere 40 additional personnel. That is hopelessly inadequate in the context of its current demands, let alone the demands that this Bill will make of it. It is an excellent service which is totally under-resourced and understaffed. We wish the Bill well, but if it is to be successful, it has huge implications in terms of additional resources for the probation and welfare service. The Minister of State should anticipate the additional demand on the service and the additional personnel and resources that will be involved.

The Minister of State referred to the House passing the Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill and Members contributed enthusiastically to that debate, but the situation with regard to pornography is appalling. How successful is that Bill? One need only go into any newsagent to see graphic pornography on every shelf. It is readily available and there is no censorship or curtailment on the part of the shops themselves. One wonders if parents really involve themselves in supervising what their children are reading, as it is absolutely appalling, not to mention the Internet and multi-channel television. What is happening in terms of unsupervised access is appalling and the consequences are obvious both in the immediate and the long-term future.

Mr. Moloney

I welcome the Bill. It is a new phenomenon that people are coming to Deputies' clinics with problems related to sex offences and sex offenders. I am very concerned by this because we do not have the professional expertise to deal with such issues and any legislative move to address them is welcome.

The Bill takes a step in correcting the balance of justice in favour of the victims of sex crimes. For too long the perpetrators of these vile acts have had too much protection from the law, particularly when one considers the harrowing accounts of those who have suffered sexual abuse and other crimes which we have heard recently. A consistent theme is that the victims tend to be left on their own to revisit the horrors they have suffered with no help from the State, but this Bill addresses the needs of victims, their families and their communities.

I particularly welcome the provision requiring sex offenders to notify the Garda, which has been flagged before. Experts in the field recognise that sex offenders are prone to repeating their crimes and this is borne out by research from around the world. There have been many examples of paedophiles being moved from town to town and parish to parish around Ireland, but those moving them on are burying their heads in the sand in believing a change of climate might cure them. I have been asked by families to visit people in prison, particularly in the Curragh and Arbour Hill. While acting as a form of middleman between family and offender I have often been taken aback by the lack of concern on the part of the offenders. The Bill tries to address this and other issues.

I acknowledge Deputy Higgins's point that the Bill may be too late for many victims, but it will protect them from the evil visited upon them. It responds to the needs of victims, who have called for many years for such a system to be introduced. We cannot undo what has gone before, but we can guarantee victims, their families and communities a law that requires sex offenders to notify local gardaí of their new address. This is welcome and although it will not resolve the issue it will give a sense of protection to families.

The Bill also requires that offenders should report to local gardaí within ten days. I know the Minister has looked carefully at this, but I urge him to change this ten day period to immediate notification. I seek this amendment as unspeakable havoc could be wrought on a child or community in those ten days and as a result of speaking to those who have been victims or whose relatives have been victims. The point is that these offenders have gone through the courts system and are recognised as a threat to communities. For those who argue that the proposal is too draconian, those who are obliged to register with local gardaí are obliged to do so by the courts and not at the whim of a local health official or garda. Registration comes at the end of due process, although ten days is far too long a period.

Victims and potential victims require every safeguard the State can offer and the sooner the local gardaí are aware of the presence of sex offenders the sooner children and communities can be protected. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this proposal, as ten days is far too long. Notification should be immediate and the reasons go without saying.

I also recognise an international dimension to the Bill. I welcome the provision that applies the same requirement to those who have committed similar offences abroad. Recently we have become aware of sex offenders who have committed similar crimes in other jurisdictions. A pattern throughout the world, and particularly throughout Europe, in recent years has been that offenders have easily moved from one country to another and it is important that we address this issue. Notification will ensure Ireland does not become a haven for those fleeing similar laws in other countries. Penalties and restrictions are more severe in other countries and we must ensure in this context also that Ireland does not become a safe haven.

For this provision to work effectively it is important that systems and resources are put in place to ensure registers are updated and maintained across borders. There must be real co-operation between police forces, particularly at a time when international travel is a simple matter. The lack of border controls makes it easier for criminals to move across frontiers. It is very important that the Garda has the resources to ensure offenders are effectively monitored. The Minister has put means at its disposal, but it is very important that resources are always available to the Garda. It might be appropriate to ensure future Administrations do not reduce Garda funding to such a level that it would be difficult for it to effectively monitor sex offenders. I ask for this measure lest it be forgotten that the Bill is aimed at ensuring that our children, the most vulnerable in society, are protected from the evil perpetrators of sex crimes. We want to ensure we never again have a situation where the public or victims feel they are not being protected.

I also welcome the fact that the Garda will now have power to seek a civil court order against sex offenders whose behaviour gives gardaí cause for concern. This is a very important provision which will protect the most vulnerable in our communities. It is long overdue for us to redress the balance in favour of the victims of sex offences. The law should provide no hiding place or loophole for sex offenders who perpetrate evil acts. Families and communities throughout the country will welcome this measure. An extension of this provision will also give the Garda power to ban sex offenders from certain areas such as school gates and playgrounds and, importantly, individual houses.

The Bill begins to bring us to a stage where at long last we are about to give the authorities the power necessary to tackle the menace and threat to the stability and safety of communities presented by sex offenders. Communities at long last will be able to look to Government and recognise that while we have often talked about the need to put in place safeguards and measures, this is the first step which shows the Government and the authorities are becoming involved.

I will refer to the release of sex offenders from prison. Up to now sex offenders were released from prison in the same way as other criminals. The Bill will make it mandatory for them to be under the supervision of the probation services, a far reaching proposal and I commend the Minister on ensuring the inclusion of this provision. The provision puts sex offenders on a par with all other serious offenders in terms of post release requirements. Coupled with the notification to the Garda, it will also ensure that communities will be protected. Again, it is very important that the Bill wins public support.

At this stage I introduce a note of caution. While the Bill goes a long way towards providing much needed protection for children, their families and communities, they must be ever vigilant. There are a number of ways in which communities and individuals can be pro-active in this regard, for example through community alert and neighbourhood watch schemes and education and awareness programmes in schools, and not just rely on the legislation or the Garda and the health boards. We must also ensure that those who work with children are rigorously checked and monitored. As a member of a health board I often feel we do not go far enough in this regard. Often health boards appear to be a protector in terms of social issues, particularly child care, but too often they have been embarrassed to realise people who worked for them have been found wanting and have been brought before the courts as a result of their illegal activities. We should also move to raise public awareness.

The law can only go so far and it is fair to suggest that research shows many such crimes are committed by people known to victims. Rural Deputies will be aware of the embarrassment to authorities in rural areas when the offender is well known locally. While we do not want to rely on the rumour machine, often word will filter through in rural communities to beware of a certain individual because of suggestions of interference elsewhere. Too often we have neglected to examine such inferences and I hope the Bill will give support to people with fears about people in their own locality.

The ultimate protector must be the family and the community. I am at pains to point out that in no way do I attribute blame to families. I merely state that as parents we must be forever vigilant and always ensure the State does everything in its power to help parents maintain this vigilance and remove those who are a menace and a threat to the safety of children, as is provided for in the Bill.

Sadly, for many victims this Bill may be too late. However, it is a step in the right direction. It is a very strong Bill which will go a long way towards supporting victims. We accept that the provisions cannot alleviate their unimaginable suffering. We can only hope that with the enactment of the Bill the law and the State will not give any comfort to the perpetrators of sex crimes. The Bill provides communities with a certain level of protection and as legislators we must endeavour to ensure every protection possible is given to the most vulnerable in our communities, namely, the victims and the potential victims of sex crimes.

Many victims may feel that the level of representation being proposed is inadequate. No right thinking person would wish to see victims of rape or other offences having to face the rigours of a criminal trial. Many victims have complained that all too often they feel like the ones on trial when it comes to the court case. Those who work with victims of rape have said that the experience of victims in court prevents many families from going through with a full criminal trial, something which is regrettable. Nevertheless, the Bill seeks to provide victims with a limited legal representation. The Minister pointed out that while he would like to be in a position to provide greater representation he is unable to do so for constitutional reasons. The Law Reform Commission, in its report on rape, expressed doubts as to the constitutional propriety of separate legal representation for victims of rape and other serious sexual assaults in so far as it might alter the balance of the criminal process and deprive the accused of a trial in due course under law. It is important to remember that the Bill, in so far as is allowable, provides representation during a part of the trial which would be very difficult for a victim to go through alone without legal representation.

The Minister has assured us that the Bill is part of a series of measures against sex offenders and that complementary measures have already been put in place. The next phase in the process will be to examine the outstanding issues relevant to the criminal law governing sexual offences. The Minister has assured us that issues arising out of the discussion paper on the law governing sexual offences will be put before Government for approval. In the meantime the Government has committed itself to continue to do all it can to make sure our children and other vulnerable persons are protected as far as possible.

I welcome the Bill. I wish to share time with Deputy Cooper-Flynn.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is regrettable that such legislation is necessary but, as all Members are aware, every town and village has experienced the pain and hurt associated with sex offenders. New measures are needed to address these serious sexual crimes and to protect families and children. For that reason I welcome this Bill as the response of the Minister and the Government in dealing with sexual predators in the community.

The legislation contains five key elements. I welcome the new notification procedure or tracking system for all convicted sex offenders and I am satisfied the notification requirement extends to offenders entering this jurisdiction from abroad because communities are just as much at risk from foreign sex offenders. I also welcome the sex offender orders, the new system of post-release supervision for offenders, the notification requirement for offenders when seeking employment where unsupervised access to children is involved and separate legal representation in rape and other serious sexual assault cases in certain circumstances.

The central purpose of the legislation is to impose a requirement on certain sex offenders to notify the Garda of their names and addresses and of any change in that information in order to ensure that records are up to date so that the Garda can carry out its policing function on behalf of the community. My colleague, Deputy Moloney, referred to section 9, which provides that an offender has ten days to comply with the notification requirements. Why is it necessary to give them ten days to do so? If the Garda is to police this issue on our behalf it is vitally important that the whereabouts of sex offenders are known on a daily basis. This is a concern for many victims and their families.

Notification requirements are used in countries such as the United States and the UK in the form of a tracking system. The purpose of this is that at least if a sex offender knows that his or her every movement is monitored it will, hopefully, prevent him or her from re-offending and will in some way contribute towards his or her rehabilitation. I am aware of instances in my own county where sex offenders have returned to the communities in which they committed their crimes. It has caused a great deal of concern for victims and their families and it must be addressed.

The question of rehabilitation has been discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and there has been much debate in the media about prison rehabilitation programmes for sex offenders. The Bill provides that when an offender has served his or her sentence counselling will be provided on release. It is crucially important that while an offender is serving a sentence, he or she participates in a rehabilitation programme. Statistics prove that such programmes help people not to re-offend. Visiting committees have reported in regard to prisons which house sex offenders, that rather than having sex offenders sitting around comparing notes on how they carried out a crime and got away it or how they might do the same again, they should be compelled to undertake a rehabilitation programme. That is not too much to ask or expect.

Ms Clune

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have contributed to debates on this issue on a number of occasions since I entered the House because of the publicity that surrounded it and also because Deputy Neville introduced a Bill almost two years which proposed to establish a register of sex offenders. I was disappointed that the Minister did not accept that Bill but we were reassured that he was examining the issue and that he would introduce similar legislation. I welcome the fact that he has now done so.

While it does not provide all the answers to the problems relating to sexual abuse and sex offenders, it is an important element in addressing the issue. Studies have been carried out which show that 95% of hardened paedophiles re-offend. Counselling, treatment and therapy does not work on these people and, therefore, it is important that a register of sex offenders is incorporated into law. No attempt to cure or rehabilitate hardened paedophiles, who are repeat offenders, will work. Control, supervision, curfews and constant surveillance are methods used to deal with this issue.

Previous speakers have referred to the public hysteria surrounding media reports of paedophilia and the existence of paedophile rings. Offenders who were obliged to register in Great Britain and, particularly, Northern Ireland have travelled to this jurisdiction. One was quoted as saying that he would go as far as Cork because it was furthest from Derry. That comment was reported in The Sunday Times and it led to much hysteria. I experienced a great deal of reaction on the issue from concerned parents who were worried that such a ring could exist in Cork and also that offenders were entering this jurisdiction. I have no doubt that there were already sex offenders in Ireland before these visitors ever came from Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It is important, therefore, to compile a register of sex offenders so that people can be reassured that those convicted of a crime of a sexual nature are obliged to comply with it. Parents are concerned about allowing their children outside and giving them certain responsibilities as they grow up, such as walking to school on their own, walking to the local shop, changing their books at the library or going to the cinema with their friends. Children need that independence but at the same time parents are concerned about what they are exposing their children to in the community. They must be reassured that legislation such as this is in place.

However, I sound a note of caution. It has been mentioned that up to 70% of sexual offences are committed by a person who is known to the victim, such a family member, relative or close friend. That also raises many concerns. Unfortunately, in our society this legislation is necessary. Given recent revelations it is unfortunate for many of the victims that society is only now waking up to the fact that children are vulnerable and some people who are left in a position of trust with them can abuse it. We have heard about the horrific acts that have been performed on young, innocent children. In many cases adults have been abused and tortured, both mentally and physically.

Some sex offenders cannot be reformed or rehabilitated but others can be helped and treated for the betterment of society and themselves. I have read about courses of treatment that could be availed of by sex offenders and could be provided to many of those convicted and committed to prison for sex offences. Of the 80 sex offenders released last year, only five had completed the recommended rehabilitation programme. Why is this so? The 1988 figures show that only 11 of the 103 sex offenders released were treated. These figures have also been mentioned by other Deputies during the debate. Treatment levels have decreased and while such treatment for sex offenders is not obligatory, something is radically wrong if only five out of 80 opt to avail of it. The Minister should investigate methods of improving the uptake in treatment before he proceeds with a similar treatment programme in the Curragh. It is frightening and alarming for the victims, their families and society in general to realise that very little is being done to ensure that when sex offenders are released from prison they will not re-offend. While they remain in custody every effort should be made to ensure they are rehabilitated. Treatment for sex offenders in the younger, 17 to 20 year, age group is crucially important. Research shows that the latter group responds best to treatment and has the greatest chance of reforming. Society should focus on trying to prevent crime of this nature in future.

Isolating and segregating such prisoners without offering any form of treatment is an irresponsible act towards the rest of society. It represents a pathetic attitude by the State to its responsibility in this matter. When hurled together these criminals will feed on one another's fantasies, thus supporting one another and reinforcing the denial of their crimes. There is evidence that victim blame can become the norm and that these sex offenders will become heroes in their own sad little group.

Sex offenders are not eligible for early release or sentence review, so many of them sit out their sentences untouched by any form of therapy. They are later released into society, in many cases with their initial mindset reinforced because of the company they kept while in prison. This could at best be described as negligence by the State because it fails to protect the community against a real and known risk. Therapy and close supervision is essential to the rehabilitation of such prisoners.

It is incredible that the courses available were not taken up and that there is no obligation or incentive to do so. In other countries, forcing prisoners into treatment programmes has shown to be a positive step. Experience has shown that such treatment can work, even when a prisoner is mandated to undergo it rather than volunteering to do so. In many cases, therapy in prisons is offered in group settings. The goal is to ensure that prisoners will not re-offend when released into society. Participants must gain an insight into the chain of events which trigger their abusive thoughts and behaviour and the coping mechanism in response to these thoughts. Such treatment will help the offender to develop an empathy with his victim. This is a very important part of the treatment because many offenders have no sense of their victims' feelings or predicament.

The offender has a distorted thinking which can provide a behaviour rationale which justifies his offences. Statements such as "the victim was asking for it", or that he or she "was providing much needed sex education to the victim" reveal a thinking that is endemic in the mind of a sex offender. Treatment and therapy will deal with this problem in a valuable way. The offender's response to stimuli is tested by therapists to gauge what progress has been made. In Canada, for example, such programmes are the first step in a pre-release programme. The next step can involve closely monitored periods of temporary release and therapy in the community.

There is no doubt that such treatment programmes will represent a cost to the State and I am concerned about the implication of the costs that will arise from implementation of the Bill when enacted. What are the implications in terms of extra gardaí, probation officers, therapists and psychologists? The Minister should explain the costs involved. It is all very well to have legislation, but what funding will there be to ensure the law is properly enforced? Funding for this legislation should be weighed against the cost of keeping an offender in prison or the cost to society of victim support services. While no price can be put on the long-term effect on victims, we should be examining the prevention of sex offences, which is the essential element of treatment programmes.

When enacted, the Bill will establish a register of those convicted of sex offences against children and other serious sexual assaults. Under the legislation, judges will have discretion as to who goes on the register. The legislation will also apply to those convicted of similar sex offences outside the jurisdiction. Ireland can no longer be seen as a safe haven for sex offenders.

The Bill is a step forward in the fight against sex crimes and protecting vulnerable children. It will act as a deterrent to all would-be offenders. The offender must, either by personally attending a Garda station or by written notice, notify his or her name and address to the Garda Síochána within ten days of becoming subject to the legislation as well as within ten days of changing address or if he or she should leave the State for ten days or more. Access to this information is restricted to the Garda Síochána.

I have some concerns about how exactly community groups, voluntary organisations, sports clubs and schools will be informed if they have a volunteer or an applicant for a job who is on the sex offenders' register. Will they be notified at the discretion of the Garda Síochána? Will the procedure vary from person to person, or will it depend on the area or jurisdiction? The success of the register system will depend on the vigilance of the Garda Síochána.

I understood from the Minister's speech that the onus will be on the convicted offender to notify potential employers, but if we are depending on that to happen we are heading in the wrong direction. Some stronger measure is required to ensure that groups who may avail of the services of such offenders will be notified that they are on the register. Recently, I spoke to a number of people involved in child care in my constituency who are concerned about the situation and would like to have access to such a register of sex offenders. I am not saying they should have direct access but they should have some way of knowing whether the people they are using to mind their children, whether as crèche supervisor or child minder, can be trusted. Individuals may have the necessary credentials for working with children but I am concerned about others who have access to play groups or people's homes. At present there is no way of obtaining information on such people, or access to the person who is in charge. That needs to be examined. There is no register. There is no way of informing oneself of the credentials of the person employed there.

The Fine Gael Bill proposes that there should be certain access to the register and that it shall be confined to the Garda Síochána. Information contained in the register shall not be disclosed to any other person save with the permission of a High Court judge on the application of a member of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. Such an application, which must be heard in camera, shall not be granted unless in the opinion of the judge it is in the interests of public safety to do so. The judge who grants an application shall specify in his or her order the extent to which the disclosure is to be permitted. The access that voluntary organisations or people who are working with children will have to the register is an important issue.

The Bill is not an answer to all our problems on the issue of sexual offences. It is important to educate children, and this has been mentioned already in the debate, to equip themselves to deal with such situations and to recognise when they are in danger. The stay safe and relationships and sexuality programmes in our schools are valuable but I am concerned that they will be undermined locally in the schools. I am aware of one case where the parents were not happy because they did not want their children to be exposed to such a programme. I respect their views and that they are responsible for their children but if even one child can put his or her hand up in school and say that he or she can now say "no" because of this programme, it will have been 100% successful. There has been a lot of opposition in some schools among parents and some teachers are not comfortable with the course. They have sought some changes in the programme. I am aware that in one school the parents decided that they would remove the video section of the course, which totally undermined its value. The use of video is important because visual messages are a necessary way of imparting information to children, yet the programme in that school was interfered with. That should not have happened. I look forward to the introduction of the new RSE course. I attended an introductory meeting on the course and it is valuable in equipping children to deal with daily incidents in which they find themselves. The programme is another important prong in dealing with sexual offences.

I welcome the recommendations in regard to rape victims. They are important and have been sought for a long time by those involved in the area. Victims of rape will now have advice and assistance from a legal expert. Rape victims often find the atmosphere in courtrooms very intimidating and they need this protection. That is the reason many cases of rape have not been reported. In many instances the victim does not get representation or any support in the courtroom. The recommendations in the Bill are an important part of the legislation.

Mr. Briscoe

This is an important Bill which I am sure will be widely welcomed by all decent people. Dealing with the problem of child abusers, otherwise known as paedophiles, has caused a lot of soul-searching for a long time and frustration over the manner in which the State has been unable to deal with these people. When I read in the Bill that these offenders will not be able to work anywhere near children unsupervised I got a little worried. They should not be allowed to work anywhere near children, supervised or unsupervised. A few years ago a constituent of mine discovered, quite by accident, that her seven year old child was being abused by a man working in the school she attended. When the man was arrested and brought before the courts, it was discovered that he had committed a list of offences in Britain. I was appalled at the time that people like that could get jobs in schools. It is vitally important that we monitor these people at all times but I would not let them near schools, supervised or unsupervised. They should be kept away from the areas where children assemble. We hear about rehabilitation programmes for these people but as far as I am aware they do not work, or they work in very few cases – I do not know the percentage but I am told that they do not work in most cases. Many of these paedophiles were abused themselves as youngsters. Their lives are completely destroyed and the cycle continues.

Some years ago, when I was a member of the Eastern Health Board, a psychiatrist told me about a problem he had which involved a patient who had gone to him for advice because he was a paedophile. He told the psychiatrist that he had an irresistible urge to kill, and he was looking for help to do something about that urge. The psychiatrist told me that because of the patient confidentiality rule, he was extremely worried. He happened to meet a friend of his who was a High Court judge and he asked him if there was anything he could do. The High Court judge told him there was nothing he could do other than speak to the local Garda superintendent in the area where the man lived, but the psychiatrist had already spoken to the superintendent who told him that, unfortunately, the law was such that he could not intervene unless the man committed a crime. This man was an unexploded bomb whom the psychiatrist was aware of but he could not commit him as a potential danger because a court would not have allowed it.

I note that the sentences vary for first and second time offenders but where a person offends three times, that person should be put away for life. Young children cannot be allowed to be put at risk from people who cannot be cured of their offending nature.

We often talk about the terrible acts these people commit but we rarely reflect on the terror of their victims. Victims often have a sense of guilt about what happened to them. We know from recent history that when children told their parents of incidences that happened, the parents sometimes slapped them for saying such terrible things about the person about whom they were complaining. They just could not believe it. Parents now know they should listen to their children if they complain of being abused in some way, without going into any detail.

While we are trying to batten down the hatches here on this problem, there has been a relaxing of the censorship laws in the UK relating to pornographic material. I listened to a discussion on this matter on Radio 5 this morning. The availability of extreme pornography does not help us tackle the problem and plays into the hands of these awful people.

I welcome the legislative programme being introduced by the Minister. I hope sentences will be severe enough to deter. A psychiatrist who is satisfied a person will offend again should have powers to detain him. It is important our children are protected from the terror inflicted by these terrible people. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on the legislation he has introduced so far in the 28th Dáil.

Mr. M. Brady

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister and his officials on this groundbreaking legislation which is a testimony to their productivity. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, under the Minister's leadership, has put an unprecedented volume of legislation through the Oireachtas in the life of this Government, which is welcome. The Bill is part of a major package of reforms designed to protect the public from sex offenders. It is a wide-ranging set of measures and the Minister has promised more legislation to make the law in this area as comprehensive as possible in the way it gives protection to children and the weak and vulnerable in our society.

There are five main elements in the Bill. There will be a new notification procedure and tracking system for all convicted offenders. This requirement will also apply to sex offenders who enter the country from abroad. The civil sex offenders order will implement a new system of post-release supervision of sex offenders. There will be new requirements for sex offenders who seek employment where unsupervised access to children is involved, to which Deputy Briscoe referred. Separate legal representation in rape and other serious sexual assault cases will be available in certain circumstances.

I welcome the new notification procedures. We need a system to keep track of convicted sex offenders who are clearly a menace to the young and vulnerable in our society. There have been many recent examples of crimes committed by such people. The apprehension and conviction of sex offenders does not end the problem, even when custodial sentences are imposed and rehabilitative counselling provided. It is clear from research in many countries that there is a very high probability of offenders committing further crimes, as Deputy Briscoe said. The public must be given the best possible guarantees and safeguards against this when offenders are released back into our communities.

Ultimately, security is impossible to guarantee but measures in the Bill which, to all intents and purposes, place legitimate restrictions on the freedom of people who have demonstrated, through their actions and behaviour, that they constitute a continuing threat and menace to society, go a long way towards reassuring parents and vulnerable people that the State will do everything in its power to protect them from offenders whose crimes can have a deep and traumatic psychological effect on their victims' lives.

The requirement for sex offenders to register with the gardaí, either on conviction or release from prison and to notify them of any subsequent change in name or address, will enable the authorities to keep track of these offenders and continually assess their risk to others. Offenders who receive a custodial sentence of two years or more will have a notification requirement. The penalties for non-compliance are stiff – a fine and up to one year imprisonment or both – and are necessary to continue placing unrelenting pressure on these predatory people. There is no doubt they are menace to society. If anyone offended against any member of our families, naturally we would be very upset. If a person offended against one of my family, I would go to the ends of the earth to ensure he got the punishment he deserved. I support the Minister's tough stance in this regard.

I welcome the civil sex offenders order under which the gardaí will be able to apply to the civil courts for a retaining order for persons who, while their behaviour is not criminal, give reasonable grounds to believe they may cause harm to the public. For example, they can be banned from loitering at school playgrounds without a legitimate reason. This is typical behaviour of sex offenders who loiter at playgrounds, swimming pools and places where young people frequent to prey on them. The provisions on post-release supervision will enable the courts to fix a determined sentence, the latter part of which will be served in the community under the close supervision of the probation and welfare service and health boards. The combined custodial and non-custodial elements will not exceed the maximum custodial sentence available in respect of the crime. This provision should be used in such a way that the offender is obliged to make some form of restitution, either directly or indirectly, to the victim or the community.

Sex offenders and employment is a contentious area. I welcome the creation of an offence covering the failure of a convicted sex offender, when looking for or accepting work, to notify the employer of the fact that he or she has a criminal record for sex offences. It is important for an employer to know a person has committed sex offences. This provision is designed to act as a deterrent to unsuitable persons who might use the workplace to gain access to children for their nefarious purposes. Many offenders become involved in childminding, coaching and areas such as this. It is important these people are identified and can be told they are not welcome if they have committed offences elsewhere. Relationships based on trust or fear are commonplace but children are entitled to be protected from those with known perverted tendencies who might prey on them.

I welcome the provision of separate legal representation for complainants in rape and other serious sexual assault cases where applications are made to produce evidence or to cross-examine them about their past sexual experiences. I also welcome the provision which imposes an obligation on those convicted of sex offences to make this known to potential employers.

Court proceedings are difficult and stressful for ordinary citizens but they are doubly so for the victims of sexual crime. Those people need every possible assistance and support from society and this measure goes some way to offering them some comfort. I am glad the Minister is introducing such necessary legislation.

This Bill recognises that those who commit sexual offences, which often have a damaging effect on the lives of their victims, must have their civil rights circumscribed in the interests of the common good. Civil society and social order is based on mutual respect for human rights, duties and obligations. Sexual offences and those who commit them are particularly repellent and reprehensible. Such offences destroy the personal integrity of the victim and his or her feelings of security and well-being. Those who commit such crimes cannot expect the normal freedoms to which every citizen is entitled. The potential for re-offending exists and society demands to be protected from it.

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister and his officials for the work they put into it. It is innovative legislation. In my constituency of Dublin North-East, I recently received representations about ten people who were involved in sex offences, including incest. The victims accuse social workers and others of not following up complaints, but it was very difficult until now to secure proof that offences had taken place. This is the best work the Minister has done and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Dennehy

This Bill deals with an issue – crimes of a sexual nature – that has long existed but is only now, as a result of shocking high profile cases in recent years, being debated more publicly. This Bill is a positive reaction to that debate. I agree with Deputies Brady and Briscoe about the manner in which the Minister has introduced legislation.

The manner in which society deals with sex offenders is complicated. The nature of the crime is such that our response must cover a number of areas and we could spend much time debating each of them – punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence and prevention are all aspects. Papers have been written on each of them but few have managed to deal comprehensively with all these aspects. In this case the Minister is dealing with one aspect of the crime. The Bill is important because it addresses how society deals with sex offenders.

Before going into the detail of the Bill, I pay tribute to the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, for the great progress he has made in introducing legislation. When the Minister entered office, he found a shambles in some areas. I was not in the House while the rainbow Government was in power but I kept an eye on what was going on here. The emphasis then was on PR rather than legislation. The Minister is now doing much more positive work and is producing far more legislation than any of his predecessors. I was amazed the Minister has had 26 Acts passed by the Dáil since entering office and has 15 Bills before the Houses at present, with seven further Bills being drafted, a phenomenal amount of work by any standard. It surpasses the entire output of some previous Administrations.

An important aspect of all this work is that it has been carefully considered and properly drafted. That is essential if we are to avoid constant court challenges. The Minister's approach is in complete contrast to the knee-jerk reaction of the Labour Party and its Bill which is currently being debated in Private Members' time. Such actions may grab the attention of the public and give a few extra feet on the moral high ground, but it usually leads to disaster.

The legislation introduced by the rainbow Administration to control expenditure at elections, an issue not unrelated to today's debate, was rushed through the Oireachtas.

Acting Chairman (Ms McManus)

The Deputy should keep to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Dennehy

I appreciate that the Acting Chairman is a member of the party that introduced the Bill. I want to make the point that this legislation has been prepared and I want to give an example of poor preparation.

Acting Chairman

I do not mind what the Deputy does, but as Chair I advise him that he must stick to the subject being debated.

Mr. Dennehy

The Acting Chairman is very methodical in her approach. I am making the point that unlike this Bill, the Private Members' Bill was rushed. I gave a very clear example, the related effort to control the amount a person could spend at election time. That legislation was back in the House as soon as this Government entered office because every Member realised that it could not be put into operation. I compliment the Minister on his approach. The previous approach, where we had to amend legislation, led to a lack of credibility. If there is a lack of credibility in the Government and the Oireachtas, it affects us all. The Minister is to be complimented on avoiding such knee-jerk reactions. I am not suggesting that any one party has a monopoly on wisdom. There can be glitches in any Bill, but it is far less likely to happen with the Minister's careful and logical approach than with the approach being adopted by the Labour Party with its Private Members' Bill.

This Bill is being discussed in the context of a continuing programme of law reform and the enactment of a wide range of legislation to improve the situation for potential victims of crime, assault and abuse. Initiatives such as the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, and the Children Bill, 1999, are part of that continuing programme. It is not much use introducing this type of legislation if provision for the means to implement it is ignored. I earlier referred to the shambles, which was commented on by both sides of the House, which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, found at the end of the rainbow. It included a shortage of prison spaces, gardaí, modern equipment and technology and almost a total absence of personnel to deal with the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. The Minister has dealt with those deficiencies and still managed to introduce what must be a record raft of legislation.

The Minister has not pretended to enjoy a monopoly on wisdom. He has been willing to listen and to consider arguments for change. In line with previous speakers, I will make some proposals in that regard, which I hope he will accept and I am confident he will do so.

The definition of an offender in the Bill is comprehensive. It covers persons subject to imprisonment or detention and persons subject to orders postponing sentences and non-custodial penalties such as fines, community service orders and persons placed on probation. We could spend an evening debating any one of those issues, as Members would have different views on them. Some would argue for and others against the provisions in regard to those issues.

Those of us who visited prisons saw the conditions that prevail there and that sexual offenders are treated differently from other prisoners, and we are aware of the need for change. Sexual offenders have been treated as a different category. High security prisoners are treated differently from other prisoners. That situation needs to be examined.

The notification requirement in respect of offenders will greatly assist gardaí in monitoring their movement and considerably alleviate the possibility that they will reoffend. That is important. My primary concern in this regard is the protection of victims. There has been an imbalance in the approach of certain people and groups to dealing with this issue.

The subject of persons who have been convicted of serious offences in another jurisdiction and who have come to reside here, possibly to avoid being placed on a sex offenders register in that country, has received considerable media attention. We have been openly criticised in that regard by concerned citizens and groups. I welcome the important provision in the legislation that covers persons convicted of sex offences abroad who become resident here. That is a logical and common-sense step to take. It is a matter of concern that it was not in place prior to this, but given the raft of legislation that has been introduced, everything could not be dealt with together.

I urge continued and, if possible, increased co-operation between the gardaí, Interpol and other police forces internationally to ensure it is not possible for an offender to evade sanction by moving from one jurisdiction to another.

Given that various categories of criminals, including paedophiles and drug dealers, co-operate on an international basis, they must be taken on by the law agencies on that basis. The recent seminar in Dublin was part of an ongoing programme in that regard. It is to be welcomed, but we must also work to ensure gardaí can co-operate at international level and provide for that in terms of staffing requirements, training and other needs.

It is a few years since I attended a meeting of ECAD, Europe Cities Against Drugs, at which international police people gave perspectives and spoke about what was happening in their countries. It is only by having such meetings that Ministers will be aware of the legislation required and police forces will be aware of the improvements being made and the steps that need to be taken.

I am concerned about the rights of a local community in which a sex offender resides. I am sure that issue is of concern to every public representative whether they serve at local or national level. Whether a community should be directly told an offender resides in their midst or the possession of such information by the gardaí is sufficient to protect its members is a complex issue. We want to avoid unnecessary panic by the public and in so far as is possible facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders. I mentioned that the Minister is always willing to take on board concerns and suggestions. I urge him to continue to review the effectiveness of this legislation to ensure a maximum level of protection is given to allay the concerns I mentioned. This is one of the most critical aspects of this Bill and of related legislation.

The cases of high profile offenders have shocked us. We could not have imagined people participating in crime, particularly of a sexual nature, against young people. Where there was talk and comment, it was thought such offences were committed abroad, but not in holy Ireland. The incidence of such offences here is of major concern. The worst possible offence that can be imagined can be committed and for that reason we must be careful to protect the vulnerable in our community.

The provision for the courts to make orders in respect of sex offenders is welcome. It was overdue and it represents a significant strengthening of the law. Where a respondent has acted in such a way as to give the courts grounds for believing an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from an offender, they will be able to impose a sanction restricting the behaviour and movement of the offender. It is imperative the courts should be able to act swiftly to implement such an order. The imposition of such sanctions should be monitored and assessed carefully to ensure we are in control of this area. The gardaí and the courts are given every facility to ensure such offenders are tracked.

In the past many of us would have pleaded ignorance about the incidence of sex offences. Many of us had no idea that some of what was going on could even be thought of, but now we have no excuse. The worst examples of such offences have been highlighted. We have been made aware of what people who were pillars of society were capable of doing. Therefore, we must be wary and ensure we protect the vulnerable.

While I recognise it gives rise to possible constitutional and civil liberty issues, electronic tagging of convicted sex offenders may play a considerable role in our response to dealing with sex offenders in the future. If the offender has a clinical medical condition, appropriate measures will have to be taken to deal with it and the introduction of electrical tagging of offenders will have be carefully examined.

On the general question of civil liberties, I have been concerned for some time that no effort has been made to support the rights of law abiding, vulnerable citizens. There does not seem to be an established group to ensure elderly people can enjoy their liberty and life and are not marooned in their homes because of a fear of thugs who always seem to have some group willing to fight their cause and case for them. People may say that is the job of society at large, but we are all part of society. It seems there is often more concern for the offender than for the offended. Without being specific and accepting there is a great need for rehabilitative work and reforming programmes, I am concerned that at times the balance has been weighed against the victim. All of us are aware of such examples in our communities. The most blatant area of abuse in this situation is that of rape cases. I welcome the fact that at long last the Minister has included measures in this Bill to help redress that imbalance. The situation in this regard that we have tolerated up to now has been a scandal. Unlike earlier cases where people pleaded ignorant of the offences committed by paedophiles, we have no excuse. We have tolerated what I suppose amounted to a legal abuse of victims and we have done very little to put the balance back in their favour or even ensure the situation reflects a balance. I am pleased the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is taking steps in that regard.

The law in respect of sex offenders taking up employment where they had unsupervised access to children or other vulnerable persons was in considerable need of updating. The Bill makes it an offence for an offender to seek employment which would bring them into possible unsupervised contact with children without first informing their prospective employer of their record. I would go further and legislate to exclude the possibility of a person on the offender's register from seeking or obtaining employment in such a capacity. The names of persons will not be put on a sex offender's list unless they have committed a serious offence. Medical practitioners and others say the likelihood of reoffending is extremely high. I ask the Minister to consider defining a number of categories of employment which would be effectively excluded from those on the offender's register.

I concur with my party colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, who suggested that the definition of persons with whom offenders should not have contact through their employment be increased to include the elderly, handicapped and other potentially vulnerable persons.

It would be remiss of me not to consider the question of post-release supervision and rehabilitation of offenders. I welcome the provision for the sanction of post-release supervision of sex offenders by the Probation and Welfare Service.

I would welcome data from the Minister relating to the current provision of both pre and post-release counselling of offenders. I am not a psychiatrist and cannot estimate the effectiveness of such counselling and other measures to discourage reoffending, but I would hazard a guess that money spent in this area is money well spent in protecting the wider community, particularly the young and the elderly.

We all wish we could live in a society free of such awful crimes as are being considered in debating the Bill. However, we must be conscious of the reality. The Bill is a significant updating of the law and provides new and welcome safeguards for the community. I congratulate the Minister on its introduction.

Ms M. McGennis

As stated by the Minister, the Bill is tough and uncompromising, and he makes no apologies for that. I support his position, particularly when the offence is perpetrated against children. I am pleased the notification requirement is necessary in respect of all offences perpetrated against children. Crimes against children are the most reprehensible and the most damaging. Survivors of abuse will relate stories of young lives that have been destroyed. Because of my involvement with a group in my constituency, I have had the experience of listening to those stories. Those people speak of enormous psychological damage and relate harrowing stories of how their young adult lives were destroyed. It is not always the end of a life and it need not be a life sentence. If given proper support and resources, those who have suffered can regain control of their lives and do well.

The Minister said this legislation came about, directly or indirectly, as a result of a discussion paper which he published in May 1999 on the law on sexual offences. I availed of the opportunity to make a submission on that discussion paper specifically in relation to the need for separate legal representation for victims of rape. My position would have been the same as that of previous submissions from the Rape Crisis Centre. That the Bill is introducing, in Part 6, separate legal representation for complainants is welcome. However, I am disappointed it does not extend to full legal representation for victims of rape. Rape is something which is done to a person. The person is not a willing participant. I think more victims will take their case to court because of the availability of separate legal representation. When the victims get to court they feel they are not participants. Legally they are only witnesses in their own cases.

The Law Reform Commission reported it had doubts about the constitutional difficulties in affording separate legal representation. I think it has something to do with double jeopardy. The Acting Chairman and I are members of the Constitution review group. When the Minister has had an opportunity to assess how the legislation is working, it may be worth revisiting this matter in the context of constitutional change. I would welcome the fact that a woman going into court would have full legal representation. That it is being afforded to a person whose past sexual history is being examined is worthwhile but I would have liked full legal representation.

I am aware from my experience with people who have had to go to court on cases such as this that the Garda Síochána has a liaison type arrangement with victims not only in rape cases. Victims have fulsome praise for the Garda. I pay tribute to the Garda Síochána for the way in which this arrangement is working. I do not know if the arrangement has any statutory standing and, if not, perhaps it can be formalised. Where it is in place it is working well.

The notification requirement for registration of sex offenders is welcome. It is worth noting that the civil libertarians have not complained about this. It is vital that the Garda and the community are aware if sex offenders are residing in their communities. The new tracking system for convicted sex offenders will have the effect of reducing the number of crimes of reoffending and thus contribute to rehabilitation.

The requirement to inform a prospective employer of a conviction is welcome. When the Equal Opportunities Bill was going through the Seanad, as a member of that House at the time I expressed concern that those convicted of sexual offences would use it as a means of gaining employment and would not be prevented from working in certain areas. I welcome the fact that the Minister has addressed that issue. Paedophiles will seek out employment in areas where they have unsupervised access to children or any kind of access to young people. They seek out the vulnerable in society. Following the enactment of this Bill it will be an offence not to inform a prospective employer of a conviction. The legislation cannot be implemented retrospectively, but communities had concerns about people hanging around areas whom they suspected might behave in a way that was dangerous to young people. The Garda response, understandably, was that the person concerned had done nothing wrong and, therefore, could not be charged with any offence. The new civil order is extremely innovative and will give powers to the Garda to watch people who are seen loitering in the vicinity of schools and take action against them. I welcome that measure.

Other speakers raised the small number of offenders who seek treatment. I also have concerns about this and it has been suggested that it is due to a lack of places on treatment programmes. I do not know if that is true but if it is the case, there is a need to put additional resources into that area. I welcome the strong provisions in the Bill but there is a need to ensure that programmes are in place which will help people not to reoffend. Serious sanctions and penalties should be imposed on people who offend, but we must also ensure that places are available for people who seek treatment.

A previous speaker mentioned visiting offenders in Arbour Hill Prison. I also had occasion to visit the prison on behalf of a wife whose husband had been accused of rape. The prison officers in Arbour Hill asked to speak to me afterwards. The accused man told me he had not committed the crime, that the sex was consensual and that there was no question of rape. However, the prison officer who spoke to me said that was not unusual. Some 80% or 90% of those who commit sexual offences state categorically and on oath that they did not commit the crime and the sex was consensual. If one considers that figure, it is not surprising that only a small number seek treatment because, in the main, they are in denial. This aspect is addressed in the Bill in that the court, in addition to the supervision requirement, has the right to require an offender to attend psychological counselling and other treatment programmes. This provision should be used as often as possible.

I welcome the Bill and I commend the Minister on introducing it. As he said, it is another part of a raft of legislation he has brought forward in this area. The Bill is long overdue and if it had been in place previously, perhaps there would be one fewer victim. However, I hope its enactment will ensure there will be fewer victims of these heinous crimes in the future.

Mr. McGuinness

I commend the Minister on bringing forward the Bill, which is long overdue. That is easy to say, but it probably took some time to put the legislation together and incorporate all the submissions made to the Department by individuals and various groups and organisations which insisted that some action be taken in this area.

The contributions so far have highlighted the positive point that the Bill addresses the public's demand for such legislation. In terms of the number of sexual abuse cases that have been reported and the number of abusers involved, everybody was taken aback by the scale of the offences which took place over a long period. I welcome various aspects of the Bill, particularly the fact that a register of offenders will be compiled. I appreciate the legislation cannot be implemented retrospectively and that it will only deal with future cases, but there must be some method of ensuring that information available in the UK, Northern Ireland and other European countries where such legislation already exists is made available to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda Síochána through some policing mechanism. This would ensure that background details or a profile can be built up of people who have been involved in sexual abuse in other countries.

I am sure sufficient information is available in the Garda network which would form the basis of a list. This would provide information and details of people who were convicted in the past or who may be under suspicion. This information could form the basis of a list which would be used nationally and internationally. I urge the Minister to ensure in enacting the Bill that this type of information is included. Although the legislation will deal with future cases, the public outcry relates to all sex offences that have taken place in this country to date. We owe it to the many families who have been affected by such offences to provide some reference for the Garda through such lists of offenders.

I am aware of a case where an offender from the UK travelled to Ireland, settled in my constituency and continued to offend there. As a result, great trauma, sadness and disruption was visited on a number of families in my county. The offender moved from there to another location and continued to offend. As we know from various reports, given the nature of these offences and the psychological make-up of the people involved, individuals continue to offend. It is essential, therefore, that there is some reference to the historical events behind this Bill. We owe this to the families of those affected to date. I ask the Minister to consider some mechanism outside the legislation which would include previous offenders.

The establishment of the register and other issues mean some form of financial provision must be made in relation to the operation of the Bill. Much positive legislation in the justice area – I commend the Minister on his activities in that regard – has been passed by the Oireachtas to date. However, there must be a framework for extending and financing the administration of this legislation.

Debate adjourned.