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

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

Mr. McGuinness

Information needs to be gathered from other jurisdictions, as well as our own, concerning the number of sex offenders in the country and their whereabouts. I understand the Bill cannot deal with retrospective issues, but there is a need for those who will end up operating it to have a bank of knowledge on the whereabouts of sex offenders here. In particular, they will require information on the whereabouts of sex offenders who have travelled to this jurisdiction from other areas.

Without mentioning names, some time ago in Kilkenny a case arose concerning a sex offender who was known to the UK authorities and who travelled to Ireland. He committed the same offence in one county before moving to Kilkenny where he reoffended. As soon as he was identified he moved quickly from the Kilkenny area to another part of the country. Such a case demonstrates the essential need for establishing an historic database before we can implement this legislation. Perhaps the Garda Síochána could build up such a list and begin to identify these people's whereabouts. By interacting with agencies in other jurisdictions they could establish if any sex offenders have travelled here and remain here currently.

The Bill refers to the responsibility of health boards and an increasing number of Bills before the House seek to place new responsibilities on health board officials. Perhaps it is now time for the Department of Health and Children to be aware of all these responsibilities and to begin to take stock of the type of qualified people they have to deal with the new issues and responsibilities that are emerging. There is a need to employ the skills of existing officials and provide them with an opportunity to understand the wide-ranging responsibilities they will have when the Bill is enacted. They are being asked to play a significant role in the operation of certain aspects of the legislation, just as much as gardaí are being asked to be aware of the whereabouts of these sex offenders. They will need to know what they are dealing with.

It is a commonly held view that people involved in these type of offences will continue to re-offend. Their mind-set leads them to avoid whatever regulations are established to control the system. It will take some time for health boards and the Garda Síochána to trace sex offenders and insist on their co-operation in this regard. All sorts of rules and regulations will be broken, so more investment is needed for increased staffing levels as well as using the skills of staff who are currently in place.

The previous case in Kilkenny city highlighted the type of support needed by a family when one of their members is abused. That support is not forthcoming from the health boards as readily as it should be. Such families receive some support but they have to fight for it. If they are outside the medical card scheme they may have to raise the matter with their public representatives. Non-medical card holders should not face such barriers. When something like this occurs the entire family unit is affected, and in that case it fell asunder. Support must be forthcoming immediately through an action plan to deal with the issue, but that will take some forward thinking and planning. Where such a case is identified, health boards and other State agencies should move quickly and effectively to deal with it. The family I referred to had to fight for every bit of support it received and as a result lost confidence in the services available.

The family of missing woman, Jo Jo Dullard, did not receive any support or counselling. I am not saying that it is the Minister's responsibility but there would seem to be pressure on the health boards as regards delivering such services.

I am concerned about the provisions of Part IV under which the sex offender must make his offence known when seeking employment which would bring him into contact with children in an unsupervised capacity. That section of the Bill should be re-examined. Psychological reports from professionals in this field clearly state that sex offenders will re-offend. If that is the medical evidence, we should not allow a sex offender to come into contact with children without supervision, thus putting him in a position where he may re-offend. We will have to tease out that part of the legislation on Committee Stage.

We should also look at Section 21 which provides for a maximum penalty of £1,500 and or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction, and for a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The prison terms should be extended along with the financial penalties.

I agree with post-release supervision of sex offenders and that their movements and work patterns should be restricted. On the other hand, we should also examine how we can deliver some sort of service to sex offenders that may help them to understand the nature of their crimes. They should be offered assistance and direction to remove them from that category and ensure they are put on the right road. That all-encompassing work should be done through State agencies.

I welcome the Bill and commend the Minister. It is no harm to note just how many times the Minister has been involved in effectively, constructively and efficiently putting legislation through the House this week. Both the Minister and his officials must be working around the clock. I commend them on the work being done by the Government.

Mr. Crawford

I, too, welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it is a cornerstone of legislation in this area and it is absolutely necessary. He stated that its provisions are tough and uncompromising, and he makes no apology for that. The Minister stated that this House must send out the strongest message possible to those in our community who prey on the vulnerable, those unable to defend themselves, and our children. He went on to state that the message at the heart of the Bill is that the criminal justice system must not tolerate the behaviour of these people, that it will deal with them swiftly and severely and that the public will be protected from their vile activities. I will return to that aspect later.

As a result of raising an issue in this Chamber some time ago, I have had many representations on what the Minister can do to bring these issues to court. That would be in the best interests of not only the victims but of the families concerned. People should not be allowed to use the legal or any other system to prolong a case or to prevent it going to court. If the defendant is guiltless, the court will determine that and the case will be over that much quicker. The point the Minister made about these cases being dealt with swiftly cannot be over-emphasised.

The Minister said he took no pleasure in having to introduce the Bill. None of us takes pleasure in coming in here to discuss it. It is a problem that none of us at this level realised was so severe.

The Minister said the central purpose of the Bill was to impose requirements on certain sex offenders to notify the Garda. That is important. He went into that aspect in detail so there is no need for me to address it further other than to welcome it. The need to provide legal advice for victims or groups of victims is mentioned in the Bill. That is also very important.

For many people the Brendan Smyth case was the one that rocked the system. It brought out into the open not only many of the desperate acts that had occurred over the years but it made us all more aware that changes were needed and that certain matters had to be dealt with. The constituency of Cavan-Monaghan is no different from any other. We have a number of cases and, unfortunately, our State solicitor does not seem to be able to get involved in all cases because of family knowledge or whatever. I understand it is legally possible for such cases to be heard outside the local area. That should be examined more closely. If all victims had proper legal advice, these cases could be heard by juries in Dublin, Dundalk or elsewhere which have no knowledge of the families or the schools involved. That would be much less trying on all the people concerned. In one case, not only was the State solicitor not able to defend the victim, he was also a witness on behalf of the defendant. There are various areas of conflict that need to be examined urgently.

I mentioned previously in the House the fact that cases were adjourned 19 or 20 times in courts. The law in this area must be tightened. If a person seeks an adjournment, he or she must show adequate proof that the adjournment is justified, by producing a health certificate or other wise. Is it not right that the system should be abused in that way.

I spoke to a person today who is involved in a case which began in April 1996 and has not yet been heard. That is not in the best interests of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. The case may be heard later in the year but some other quirk in the system might prevent that happening. Another case I know of started in February 1995 and only recently came before the court. That should not happen in a court of justice. Another person told me she took the witness stand on a Tuesday where she was advised she would not be heard until the Wednesday. She spent three and a half hours in the court on Tuesday, four and a half hours on Wednesday and four hours on Thursday. There was no contact between the victim and either the State solicitor – in that case it was the acting State solicitor – or the barrister. Is that satisfactory in the year 2000?

I want to emphasise that the gardaí, in most cases, are very helpful. Victims have to employ their own solicitors to get information and advice but those solicitors are not allowed into the court. That is very unfair. The Bill will change that to some degree, which is welcome, but we must be certain that victims as well as defendants have access to proper and adequate support.

One group of victims suggested to me that a liaison officer should be appointed to ensure the victims are fully briefed at all times on their rights and the way the case is progressing. That suggestion would be of no use to others who want full legal advice. There is a deep yearning on the part of victims for advice and to know their rights. For instance, a victim has the right to speak in court on the day of sentencing but many are not told that by the State solicitor or by the DPP personnel. They seem to just sit in court as baggage that goes with the system, not as people actively involved. I am not suggesting that all people who claim to be victims are victims but they have rights and they should be looked after. That would be a step forward and the Bill provides for that to some degree, but I would like everybody to benefit.

I was shocked recently to hear that a query was raised about how a certain case would affect the business of the person involved. What is the relevance of that? This was a sex abuse case and it should not matter whether the victim was abused by a person on social welfare or a person at the top echelons of power. The only aspect that should be taken into account is the damage done to the victim, if that has been already proved, and the length of sentence that should be imposed. The business or job of the accused is not relevant and I am shocked that it would even be discussed.

We also cannot forget the area of treatment for sex offenders, which is mentioned in the Bill and in the Minister's speech. They are victims, to some degree, of the system. We should not ignore people who are found guilty and have to go to jail. It is important for their future and that of the community that they get proper counselling and treatment. They are people with a sickness, although it might be different from having a sore leg or back. As the Minister's colleague, Deputy McGuinness, said a few minutes ago, the unfortunate fact is that they often repeat these offences. As far as I know, only ten people are getting treatment at any one time. This must be improved.

Deputy McGuinness also referred to the health boards. It is important the health boards have the necessary personnel and facilities to ensure there is full follow up treatment by health boards, social welfare and whatever else is needed to help these people. It is not sufficient to threaten them with fines if they do not give the information on their past, they must also be helped.

The Minister said that Part 5 of the Bill provides for the first time for post release supervision of convicted offenders by the Probation and Welfare Service. That is welcome. However, it is not enough to just make provision in the Bill. As I have said before, we brought in tremendous legislation in 1989 to deal with the possible causes of BSE. However, while that legislation was put on the Statute Book, no personnel were provided to ensure it was enforced. While we support the Bill in the main and applaud the Minister for going ahead with it, the necessary staff and supports must be put in place so that sex offenders will have personnel to help them deal with life when they are released from jail and the damage to their families will be minimised.

Mr. Callely

I warmly welcome the work of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, on publication of this Bill to try to protect the public from sex offenders, especially the provision for separate legal representation for victims of rape. I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the huge amount of legislation he has brought before this House and the select committee over the past two years, and I understand a large amount of legislation is being prepared to be brought forward. I say to them to keep up the good work.

The Bill is welcome and very important legislation, which is especially designed to try to protect the public from sex offenders. I understand the Minister and his Department were aware of the need to introduce additional measures to support and strengthen the measures already in place so as to give the required added protection to the public from such offenders. It is important we send out a clear message to such perpetrators of sex crimes. The Minister is right to say they will go to jail and that on release from jail they will have to adhere to strict new reporting requirements. If they fail to comply with the law in this respect, they will be liable to further lengthy periods of imprisonment and-or substantial fines.

I welcome the principles contained in the Bill. The new notification procedure, or tracking system as it is known, will allow for close monitoring and constant updating of records. I support this notification procedure and welcome certain aspects of it, such as that this requirement will extend to any sex offender, those convicted here and those entering this jurisdiction from abroad. I also welcome the intention that the relevant State agencies – the Garda, the Probation and Welfare Service and the health boards – will undertake continuous risk assessment of those who are subject to the notification requirement. This is very important. Will the Minister outline the mechanism that will be put in place for such continuous risk assessment to be carried out?

The system of post release supervision being introduced makes enormous common sense, in terms of the Probation and Welfare Service's supervision of convicted sex offenders and their adjustment in the community. The civil sex offender order will enable the Garda to apply to the courts for a sex offender order against any person whose behaviour, while not necessarily criminal, gives cause for concern. This should prove an important safety net or tool if such an order is breached.

I do not believe we go far enough in regard to the employment of sex offenders. I appreciate the new offence, which is designed to prevent unsuitable people gaining access to children through the workplace where relationships are based on trust or fear, is important and warrants address. However, the arena is much bigger than just unsupervised access to children. There are many other areas where vulnerable people can face sexual abuse and where relationships in the workplace or elsewhere can be based on trust or fear, such as in hospitals or institutions. We are all aware of the recent appalling revelations of the horrific abuses that took place in some of our institutions. While a number of such abuses were of children and young people, not all of them were. I understand the Garda is investigating other areas where it is alleged sexual abuse took place, such as homes for the elderly, psychiatric hospitals and other such places. I urge the Minister to consult widely with those in his Department who investigated such alleged abuses and his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, who may also be aware of such allegations of abuse, particularly in homes for the elderly and psychiatric hospitals.

I am concerned about the additional demands being placed on health boards by the new legislation. I have a fair amount of experience in this area from my input and involvement as a member of the former Eastern Health Board and the new Eastern Regional Health Authority, which I chair. I am probably one of the few people in the area who has visited every service provider and institution on a number of occasions. I am aware of the enormous difficulties service providers have in grasping the large number of welcome changes in legislation. However, the learning curve is great and they must tackle the issues arising from the legislation.

As the Minister is aware, a great deal of this work is done in the courts. The presentation of cases takes up the time of people involved for days and weeks. Child protection cases and acquiring court orders require the greatest amount of manpower and skill. There is a huge throughput of those required to give supporting evidence, especially social and community workers and the Probation and Welfare Service. In recent years, there has been a yearly allocation to fund projects. Perhaps the Minister and his colleagues, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance could draw up a long-term strategy on the likely skills and personnel required to respond adequately to enacted and proposed legislation.

Most of the committed and genuine people working in this area who would like to respond to this legislation can only adequately do so if support is available. They are having grave difficulties in this regard which is why I support the previous speakers, Deputies Crawford and McGuinness, who referred to the demands on these services. In light of that and my experience of those demands, I ask the Minister to formulate a long-term strategy and find out from personnel officers, chief executive officers and board members how much staff they require. It is difficult to find qualified staff who are knowledgeable about all areas of child care. Those charged with the responsibility of employing such staff should be informed that appropriate support and funding will be made available to ensure there are adequate numbers to respond to the demand placed on such services. I asked the Minister to outline how the risk assessment procedure will operate. This is an important feature of this Bill and perhaps he will come back to me on that issue.

Deputies referred to support for victims of sex abuse. I was somewhat disturbed recently when an Opposition colleague brought to my attention that a person known to him had been a victim of abuse and wanted to avail of appropriate counselling. This person had been abused, got on with life as best as she could and many years later found it too much of a burden and sought counselling. She was working, had a relatively small wage but did not qualify for a medical card. She could not avail of free counselling and in her own best interest had to pay for private counselling. This was a huge cost from her salary but because she was earning, she was not entitled to any assistance from the community welfare officer which would normally apply.

I agree with Deputy Crawford who referred to the importance of counselling and support for victims and their families. This is a regrettable vacuum. While I welcome this attempt at protection for the public from sex offenders, the remit is wider. I ask the Minister, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance to give special attention to these problems which can be easily resolved if the will is there. A number of Members have first hand experience of the obstacles creating huge problems in communities which warrant pragmatic action. I ask the Mini ster to seriously consider some of the points myself and other Members have raised.

One of the most important provisions in the Bill is separate legal representation for complainants in rape and other serious sexual assault cases. This provision is innovative. I would like to be able to say to someone who wished to pursue a rape charge that he or she would not have to be vigorously questioned on his or her sexual activity, either with the alleged perpetrator or in their past. Those of us who have the opportunity to speak to victims know some of them will walk away from the complaint rather than pursue it because of that issue. I would like to think the innovative approach of the Minister will help complainants to overcome such obstacles and their horrific experiences.

I am also concerned about the increase in the number of sexual assault cases and the tendencies identified with them. I have undertaken some work on the facts and figures which have been brought to my attention in this regard. When I have concluded my work, I hope to bring that information to the Minister for appropriate redress.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have three minutes remaining when the debate resumes at 3.50 p.m.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 1 Jun 2000