Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 2001

Vol. 533 No. 3

Order of Business. - Sex Offenders Bill, 2000: Report Stage.

Ms O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(2) As soon as may be after the end of each year beginning with the year in which this Act is passed, the Minister shall prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report setting out the measures taken to rehabilitate sex offenders, including the rehabilitation of offenders in custody, and shall specify the number of such offenders, the number who applied for or sought to avail of such measures, and the number to whom such measures were provided.".

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that as soon as the Act is passed the Minister lays before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report setting out the measures taken to rehabilitate sex offenders, including measures taken while the offenders are in custody. We want to ensure that we focus not just on the establishment of a register, but also on the broader aspects, such as the treatment of sex offenders while in custody and subsequent to their release. I want to ensure that the public is given information on a regular basis about progress in this regard. At present, there is limited treatment of sex offenders while in custody. The Arbour Hill provision has been there for some time. Perhaps the Minister could outline the progress being made on the proposals for the Curragh prison. The most recent statistics show that only five of the 80 sex offenders released from prison in 1999 had taken part in the appropriate prescribed treatment programme. While I acknowledge there are other forms of treatment, this specific programme is designed for sex offenders. This shows that many people who go to prison for such offences do not undergo any type of treatment.

There is provision in the Bill for a court to order a released prisoner to attend counselling under the probation and welfare service. I do not accept the argument that we cannot compel a person to do something while in custody. We must ensure every effort is made to encourage such offenders to have the appropriate treatment. Most of them are in denial about their behaviour and, therefore, they are not likely to voluntarily look for treatment. There is an obligation on the State and on the courts to ensure that every effort is made to encourage those who have offended the public and individuals to face up to what they have done and to get whatever treatment is available.

I tabled this amendment to ensure this issue is debated in the wider context of provision, both within prison and subsequent to release from prison.

Mr. Neville

I support Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. The lack of treatment facilities for sex abusers puts children at risk. This has been stated by Dr. Margo Anglim, a child psychiatrist who works with adolescent offenders in the Children's Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin. The only facility outside prisons for sex abusers is the Granada Institute, a private fee-paying agency. Treatment is effective in reducing re-offending. Ms Rhonda Turner, a psychologist with the St. Louis unit, Dublin, has said that appropriate treatment facilities for adolescent abusers are urgently needed. She has stated that half of the adult sexual abusers began their abuse during adolescence. Recent research indicated that about 25% of adolescent abusers began abusing at a very young age.

In 1999, there were 88 sex offenders released after completion of their sentences and 117 were released in 2000. Five of those released in 1999 and six of those released in 2000 had completed the specialised sex offenders group treatment programme in Arbour Hill. One hundred years ago it was accepted practice to turn the key and lock away criminals. Nowadays, terms such as treatment and therapy are being embraced by the prison service as the tools with which to achieve prisoner rehabilitation. The ultimate goal is to protect society once these people are released.

When prisoners are in the care of the State, there is a moral and legal obligation to attempt to rehabilitate them. Anything less is a denial of the State's responsibility. This month's official figures indicate that 362 convicted sex offenders are in prison. The Arbour Hill programme admits ten prisoners per year through a strict selection programme. Staff from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform operate the programme. Those who work within the prison system believe sex offenders in prison could be guided on a clear path, but most do not get that chance. The Department uses phrases like "you cannot force prisoners to apply", but they are given no real incentive. It should be tied to the granting of remission and it should be ensured that more prisoners are motivated to apply. Many prison officers feel frustrated that they are not being trained to deliver supervised sex treatment courses. This is a model used in other European countries which would allow a programme to expand. It is unacceptable to lock up sex offenders, fail to provide treatment and then release them into the community.

In Ireland it is estimated that about 5% of boys and 7% of girls are sexually abused before the age of 16 years. The estimate for physical abuse is put at somewhere between 8% and 12% of children. The characteristics of a person who sexually abuses children vary, depending on the relationship. Therefore, the rehabilitative programme and the chances of rehabilitation will vary, depending on the same characteristics. If the abuser is a stranger to the child, he is generally a loner, a single man with no history of being in a marital relationship. These abusers will sexually assault the child once and move on to other victims. They will accumulate a number of victims and have been known to claim as many as 200 to 300. There is one type of programme to deal with them.

Another type of sexual offender is a parent or relative who abuses a child. This type of abuse is more amenable to rehabilitative treatment. Such offenders do not have many victims and are not usually violent. They persuade the child to accept the abuse over a long period. They convince the child that such abuse is a game or is educational. They persuade them it is not harmful. In most cases, they live in the same household as the child. Between these two types, there is the person who is known to the child but does not necessarily live in the same house. These abusers may have a number of victims at any one time, or sequentially. These three groups of offenders show different responses to rehabilitation and programmes should be structured to reflect these differences.

All sex offenders have low self-esteem, low sense of self worth and little understanding of their victims' position. Surely a rehabilitative programme can work on these characteristics. They do not understand the effect the abuse has on a victim. They are of the view that their activities do not do any harm to the child and they will play down the harm they have caused. They often blame the child, saying that the child was too friendly or too dependent. They do not accept any blame for the abuse. If they admit blame, they usually point to an external reason such as drunkenness to excuse their actions. Such offenders are usually socially isolated. The main difference between physical and sexual abuse is that the latter can never be accidental. Sexual abuse is planned and if it takes place in the home, the planning is over a long period, whereas physical abuse can occur on the spur of the moment. I am convinced that rehabilitative programmes have an important role to play and I fully support the amendment to ensure this House is informed over the years of the development of the programmes.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

As indicated during the Committee Stage debate, the type of information this amendment seeks is already reported regularly by the Minister to the Oireachtas, usually by way of reply to parliamentary questions. The most recent occasion I gave such information was 14 February 2001, in response to a parliamentary question.

I have asked the director general of the prison service to ensure the development of rehabilitative programmes for sex offenders is given priority attention. I expect that, in his annual report to the Minister, he will provide this information and I will ensure this report is made available to the Oireachtas. During Committee Stage, Deputy O'Sullivan, while arguing for the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill, made it clear that the important point is that the information is made available. She accepted that the information is made available by the Minister and by his predecessors by way of reply to parliamentary questions. Therefore, we are not discussing a point of principle about what information should or should not be in the public arena. We are debating the most appropriate and efficient way of making the information available to the public. There is nothing secretive about it. I accept without qualification, of course, the right of the public to know the number of sex offenders in our prisons, what treatment is available to them and how many avail of that treatment. Seeing as the information is already available, acceptance of the amendment would place an additional and clearly unnecessary burden on the officials who would have to prepare an additional report suitable for laying before each House of the Oireachtas.

For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment. Acceptance of the amendment would not result in even one extra sex offender being treated in prison. It would not result in any additional information about the treatment of sex offenders in prison being made public. I regard the treatment of sex offenders in prison as being of paramount importance. However, I am cautious about being over-optimistic about the results of the treatment. Expert opinion, in so far as I can gauge it, is still divided on just how useful treatment of sex offenders can be in the long-term. We would be foolish not to provide and not to encourage participation in treatment programmes for convicted sex offenders, but we would be equally foolish to drop our guard in the light of such provision. That is one of the reasons the tracking system for convicted sex offenders, which is being provided for in this Bill, will apply to all convicted sex offenders, regardless of whether they have received treatment in the past or will receive treatment in the future.

The facilities to treat sex offenders in prison are continually improving. There are now two sex offenders treatment programmes available in Arbour Hill and the Curragh. I always said the Curragh Place of Detention would provide an additional sex offenders treatment programme, and this is now up and running. We still have the thinking skills course and a psychology service is currently available in institutions. I approved the establishment of an expert group in December 1998 to review and report on the future role, needs, structure and organisation of the psychological service. Everything possible is being done from that perspective and from the perspective of the psychiatric service to address this matter. That is the situation which currently obtains and I hope this information is of assistance to the House.

Ms O'Sullivan

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am seeking the formalisation of the reporting of this information which I believe should be provided for in the Bill. A specific report containing all this information should be published at a specific time each year. That would be preferable to relying on intermittent and haphazard information from the Department. I accept information is provided when it is sought and that it is the job of Opposition spokespersons to table appropriate questions to elicit such information. However, it would be preferable, in the public interest, if there were a formalised system for reporting this information on an annual basis.

Deputy Neville correctly stated that this is a very complex area in that there are different types of sex offenders for whom there are different types of treatments and whose prognoses differ in terms of their likely response to treatment. This is a further reason we should have a system whereby this information would be provided regularly. There is an onus on all of us to take every possible action to prevent crimes of this nature occurring or to reduce their incidence. A person convicted of a sex offence should be encouraged and prevailed upon to take rehabilitative action while he or she is in custody and following his or her release.

I feel strongly about this amendment as it would be much more preferable to have a formal structure in place to deal with this very serious matter. We must do and be seen to do everything possible to ensure treatment is available and availed of. This issue must be addressed in an overall context. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment as it would not be a particularly onerous duty to provide an annual report.

Mr. Neville

Our objective must be to ensure all of the 360 sex offenders in our prisons who are susceptible to treatment – and I believe most of them are – are encouraged to avail of that treatment. Sex offences seriously affect children's lives not only in terms of the pain and suffering children experience at the time of the abuse, but also in terms of long-term damage into adulthood. We have only recently become aware, through television documentaries on sex abuse in institutions etc., that such abuse affects people throughout their lives. No stone should be left unturned in tackling this issue.

Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment seeks to ensure that sex offenders are rehabilitated and that they have an understanding of their conditions. Some paedophiles, knowing they have a problem, avail of counselling and never commit offences. However, we are speaking about people who do not realise how vile and damaging are their actions and we must do our utmost to make them aware of that.

Mr. O'Donoghue

It is not a question of whether the information should be made available, rather it is a question of whether we should adopt a different method in its provision. Opposition spokespersons, who are quite assiduous in seeking details on this important issue, table questions on a regular basis to which they receive comprehensive replies. I do not see any necessity to formalise the provision of this information by statute as the current system has worked well for several years. Detailed information is provided and there is no question of any information being hidden.

Ms O'Sullivan

I have clearly outlined the reasons for this amendment which I intend to press. We must formalise the provision of this information in order that this extremely serious matter can be addressed on a regular basis. I accept that a number of measures – including this Bill which I support – are being taken in this area but they would be strengthened were the Minister to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Neville

I do not intend to move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as I was satisfied with the Minister's responses on Committee Stage.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 39, to delete "section 12”and substitute “sections 12 and 15(7)”.

This is a technical amendment which the parliamentary counsel considers it advisable to make. Section 7(1) states that a person is subject to the requirements of Part 2 of the Act if convicted of a sexual offence after its commencement. That is without prejudice to subsection (2) under which a person could also be subject to Part 2 in certain circumstances where the offence was committed before the commencement of Part 2. However, under section 15(7), a person on whom a sex offender order is made is subject to the requirements of Part 2 for as long as the order is in force. In light of this, the parliamentary counsel considers that the cross-reference proposed in this amendment is desirable and, accordingly, I recommend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 6, 50, 54 and 62 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Neville

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, to delete lines 7 to 11 and substitute "offence.".

This amendment seeks the deletion of paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection 2(b) which provides that a sentence imposed on a person at any time in respect of an offence covered by this Bill shall be subject to the Bill's provisions. The Minister's proposal limits the Bill's requirements and there is concern that people who come into this country from outside the State pose the danger of sexually abusing children. My amendment will cover all circumstances. It is important that all those who have been convicted of sexual offences are known to the Garda and that the Garda Síochána is aware of their presence in an area. There is great concern since the introduction of the Sex Offenders Act in the United Kingdom that known paedophiles have entered Ireland.

An eminent journalist, Phelim McAleer, said in a report that four paedophiles from Derry had moved to Cork to avoid the sex offenders register which tracks and monitors their movements within the United Kingdom. He stated that the revelation would increase concern that sex abusers are using the Republic as a safe haven to continue their activities. It is important that all paedophiles and those convicted of child sex offences are known to the Garda. Mr. McAleer also reported that, according to legal sources in Derry who deal with ex-prisoners, the four paedophiles who moved to Cork were serving sentences in Magilligan Prison outside the city. Legal sources say that, from the questions the men asked before they left, it was clear they were going to Cork to avoid the register. They asked if they could be tracked there and what their obligations would be. Cork was a logical choice for them. There was no register in the Republic and it was the furthest possible point from Derry.

There is some evidence that groups of paedophiles are arriving in the Republic from Britain. The situation is very dangerous. Being in each other's company provides them with self-justification, each validating the other's illegal behaviour as acceptable. In those circumstances, they pose a high risk to children. Ms Breidge Gadd, head of the Northern Ireland Probation Board, said the failure to set up a register in the Republic means paedophiles will be attracted here, especially persistent offenders who intend to continue to abuse children. Since the introduction of the register in the United Kingdom, there has been a movement of these people to the Republic. They should all be on a register here as well as those convicted in the Republic for child sex abuse.

My amendment will ensure all convicted paedophiles and child sex offenders are covered by the Bill. Some saw it as an inevitability that people involved in paedophile rings would view the South as a safe haven. It is clear that abusers have taken advantage of this loophole. The head of the Northern Ireland Probation Board said a paedophile with evil intent will naturally go to one or other parts of these islands which does not have a register and where their movements are not monitored as closely. She also stated the statutory agencies which work with sex offenders found increasingly that their clients had moved to the Republic. She said that she had heard from other professions that their people had gone to the South and that the word in Northern Ireland was that it was happening. My amendment will ensure that all such convicted sex offenders will be on the register here to ensure full protection for children.

I understand there is not a legal impediment to full retrospection as opposed to partial retrospection as provided for in the Bill. While I appreciate the difficulties this may cause for the authorities, they should endeavour to overcome those difficulties for the sake of protecting children. There must be a mechanism in the Bill to ensure those people released from prison in Britain since the introduction of Sex Offenders Act are obliged to register in Ireland once the Bill is enacted. I do not accept that convicted people on the sex offenders register in the UK who enter this jurisdiction should not be obliged to register just because they were convicted prior to the passing of the legislation. That they are on a foreign register and travel to Ireland poses a threat to children. We must ensure they do not do so. The amendment covers this situation.

The Minister promised on Committee Stage to examine the situation where they have been included on the register. The Minister accepted it as a fair point that there is a degree of certainty about a person being already registered as a sex offender in a foreign jurisdiction. The Minister agreed to examine that and I urge him to take this serious issue on board to ensure children are protected, regardless of when the offences were committed. The Minister was concerned that people who had been convicted years ago would be obliged to register. While they should present themselves for registration, there is a mechanism in the Bill for a person convicted ten, 20 or 30 years ago to go to court to request that they not be obliged to adhere to the conditions of the Bill. It means a person who served a sentence for child sex offences 15, 20 or 30 years ago will not necessarily have to comply with registration requirements. While all such cases should be examined and the Garda and the State should make a value judgment and present a case to court on whether child sex offenders who offended at any time should be required to comply with the legislation, the Bill should ensure they automatically comply with its requirements.

Ms O'Sullivan

I support the intent of Deputy Neville's amendment. There is concern that people who have offended outside our jurisdiction will use Ireland as a safe haven. We want to ensure that does not happen and I commend Deputy Neville on his amendment in that regard. The Minister in his amendments, which are being discussed with amendment No. 6, appears to address the problem identified by Deputy Neville regarding other jurisdictions. Will the Minister, when replying, clarify whether that refers to people included on a register in another country as and from the date the legislation is passed or if it will include people already on registers in their own jurisdictions? If that can be clarified, it will make a difference to my opinion on whether the Minister has met the concerns expressed by Deputy Neville on Committee Stage, concerns which I support. I welcome that the Minister has responded to the issue identified on Committee Stage. Perhaps he will clarify what will be achieved by the amendment he has tabled on Report Stage.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The effect of Deputy Neville's amendment would be to introduce full retrospection into the notification system. In other words, any person ever convicted of a sexual offence in Ireland would be obliged to notify the Garda of his or her name and address no matter what his or her age or circumstances. It became clear on Committee Stage that this is not what the Deputy intended. My amendments give effect to the substance of what his amendment sought to do. There may not be a legal impediment to full retrospection as opposed to partial retrospection as provided for in the Bill, but the practical difficulties are such as to make it unworkable and unfair. I was aware when preparing the Bill that full retrospection would be desirable but would also be impractical. The main argument in favour of it was that it would offer greater protection to vulnerable persons. However, the civil sex offender order does just that, but I will explain why it was decided to favour partial retrospection.

When a convicted person serves his or her sentence or otherwise pays the penalty for his or her offence, he or she is then set free. All contact with the criminal justice system is ended. As the years go by and no further offending takes place, the offenders are increasingly assimilated into society by working and raising families, or they may leave the country. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is up to the offender to notify the Garda of his or her name and address. The Garda will not pursue offenders telling them to register. In the case of persons still in contact with the criminal justice system, the Garda will know immediately whether an offender has notified them.

In the case of old offences the Garda would have little knowledge of who should register and offenders may not be aware of this new obligation. Therefore, the register would be incomplete or even incorrect if wrong information was given. The accuracy of the register would be compromised, resulting in a loss of confidence in it. It is much better to have a register with a starting point we can stand over and which, in coming years, will provide a full picture of all released sex offenders from that point.

Deputy Neville expressed concern on Committee Stage that the provisions in the Bill would not catch sex offenders already in the country. I undertook to examine his proposals to see if anything could be done to meet the point he raised while, at the same time, staying within the retrospection parameters I have outlined. I am happy to propose these amendments which do that.

The purpose of my first amendment is to place a notification obligation on sex offenders convicted abroad who might already be in the country or who might come here in the future to escape a notification obligation in their own country originating before this Bill is enacted. The amendment brings within the scope of Part 2 convicted sex offenders who are required to notify certain information to police in another jurisdiction as a result of their conviction for a sexual offence in that jurisdiction.

In practical terms, this means that, at the commencement of the Bill and thereafter, any sex offender in this country with a notification or similar requirement in another jurisdiction will have to notify their names and addresses here to the Garda. This applies regardless of whether they complied with the requirements in their own country. It will also apply to sex offenders with a prior notification obligation in another country who may come here after the commencement of the Bill.

My second amendment is a standard provision defining the term "police". It is an advisable provision as other countries have regional and local police. We want to ensure that registration with all police forces is covered, even where there is no comparable force in this country. My third amendment is a necessary consequence of the policy provided in the first amendment. The existing wording in section 24 concerning proof of conviction in another country is not adequate to prove that a person has a notification requirement in that country. This amendment will ensure that no loophole will exist where such proof is sought.

I am happy to propose these amendments which extend the scope of the notification obligation without breaching the retrospectivity considerations to which I referred earlier. This is because the new category of persons subject to that obligation is still, through their obligations elsewhere, in contact with the criminal justice system. My amendments also add even more weight to the Government's often stated determination that Ireland will not be used as a sanctuary by foreign sex offenders. I commend my three amendments to the House and I thank Deputy Neville for raising the issue and for being so constructive about it and also Deputy O'Sullivan for her support.

Mr. Neville

I thank the Minister for his consideration and for introducing amendments which strengthen the Bill. They will ensure that people from Britain who have taken advantage of the situation in Ireland since the introduction of the British register will be subject to the Irish register. Britain is particularly important in this regard because of the common language in both countries. There could be language barriers with regard to children in other parts of the continent, but communication with children in Britain is much easier because of the common language. It is important to take account of the register in Northern Ireland and Britain.

I understand the Minister's point with regard to retrospection. The Bill will go to the Seanad after it has been passed by this House and perhaps some element of retrospection could be included there. The case of a person who was convicted of a sexual offence 30 years ago is totally different from the case of a person who was released from prison in the past five or ten years. There should be some element of retrospection in that regard. It is a severe step for the State to place on a register people who completed their sentences and satisfied their debt to society. However, it involves the protection of children and we must ensure that every possible means is used in that regard.

The Minister said my amendment would create an impossible situation because it refers to cases since the foundation of the State. I must be reasonable and accept that the Minister has a point, but perhaps there is a case for some retrospection. People who recently committed offences are more dangerous and more likely to reoffend than people who were convicted up to 30 years ago and have not come to the notice of the police in the past 15 years. We should bear in mind the area with which the Bill deals. I accept my proposal is draconian and I make no excuses in that regard.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I thought my amendments addressed the concerns expressed. I indicated that it would not be practicable and it would probably be unfair to have a full degree of retrospectivity. I outlined the reasons for this and I am convinced my amendments will ensure that Ireland will not ever become a sanctuary for sex offenders from other jurisdictions. This was the objective of the exercise in producing the amendments. There is no point establishing an uncertain and incomplete register. That would be a mistake and the wrong starting point. I want to ensure that Ireland does not become a sanctuary for foreign sex offenders – the Bill achieves this – and that the register in Ireland is complete and accurate.

Mr. Neville

I understand the Minister's view, but there should be some element of protective retrospection. The effect of sexual abuse on children is profound. They suffer long-term traumatic stress disorders and usually have a range of mental health problems. They often inflict harm on themselves either directly through deliberate self injury and self mutilation or indirectly through eating disorders and drug abuse. Once children have become victims of abuse, they tend to suffer further abuse in their later lives at the hands of the same person or another perpetrator. Children who are abused in a family are often more vulnerable to the advances of paedophiles when they reach school age and adolescence.

Special measures must be taken to protect such children who have low self-esteem and low self-confidence as a result of the abuse. Paedophiles identify such children and target them by offering them some form of comfort or attention. One cannot argue about controlling the movement of paedophiles when one examines the effect of their vile activities. Paedophiles who have been convicted and completed their sentences prior to the enactment of the Bill should be included on the register because their victims who suffer sexual abuse are likely to suffer deep and extremely traumatic effects as teenagers and adults. They can suffer from multiple personalities, bouts of alcohol consumption to the point of feeling suicidal, depression and elation and nervous breakdowns. They may be unable to understand the difference between reality and fantasy and they may spend long periods alone in self-imposed isolation from others due to their mistrust and disbelief in humanity. For this reason, among others, some retrospection should be applied.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, form a composite proposal and will be discussed together.

Mr. Neville

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, line 22, to delete "2 years" and substitute "6 months".

These amendments provide for an indefinite duration if the sentence imposed on the person in respect of the offence concerned is one of imprisonment for life or for a term of more than six months and for ten years if the sentence imposed on the person in respect of the offence concerned is six months or less. We cannot highlight adequately the gravity of the extent of the damage done to children who have been sexually abused. In my earlier contribution, I outlined the effects on the child. Many crimes are vicious and unpleasant but the crime of sexual abuse of a young child robbing it of its innocence is so repugnant that we are entitled to consider special ways of dealing with the issue and making it clear society abhors such activities. It is in this context that I table the amendments.

Children's safety should be of paramount priority. We must ensure that we take important steps to rigorously address child abuse and other serious sexual offences against adults. Society must give the rights of children priority over those of their abusers. These amendments are not a panacea for all serious sex offences, whether against children or adults – no amendment can control all paedophiles. However, we must ensure that every step is taken to help the Garda trace those who might offend. The Garda must be in a position to identify suspects following commission of a crime and this would act as a deterrent to some would-be offenders. The amendments proposed would increase the severity of the registration and thereby be a more stringent deterrent than the Bill as presented. Most sex ually abused children suffer long-term traumatic stress disorders and a range of mental health problems.

I ask the Minister to accept the amendments as one cannot argue about controlling the movement of paedophiles when one measures the extreme effects of their vile activities.

Mr. O'Donoghue

These amendments propose to reduce the severity of sentence required before a person becomes liable to the relevant period for notification. For example, under the first amendment, a life time notification requirement would apply following a six month prison sentence, instead of a two year sentence as proposed in the Bill.

These amendments were debated on Committee Stage and Deputy Neville said he would raise them again on Report Stage. Despite speaking strongly against the amendments on Committee Stage, I re-examined them and the issues they raised in anticipation of their being put down again for Report Stage and I have reached the same conclusions, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.

While the provisions in the Bill in this respect are to some extent arbitrary in that deciding on the duration of sentences is not an exact science, two major concerns have directly influenced the proposals in the Bill. First, we looked at the English duration of sentences, took them as a baseline and examined them to see if they were appropriate for Ireland. In other words, could we justify proposing different durations. The only change that could be justified, using that yardstick, was to reduce the two and a half year prison sentence for a life time notification requirement to two years. This was done to bring cases within the jurisdiction of the District Court in certain circumstances. Second, and more importantly, we had to have regard to proportionality, a concept developed in recent years by our courts. The balance between sentence and the notification obligation is about right and to extend that obligation, as proposed in the amendments, would stretch that balance, possibly to breaking point.

Deputy Neville was of the view that we as legislators should decide what the courts should do. He also accepts the principle of proportionality and says that it is inherent in his amendments. It is in one sense in that, for example, the notification requirement where a six months sentence is handed down is greater than where the sentence is for less than six months. However, that is not necessarily what the courts had in mind when they introduced into Irish constitutional law in the case of Cox v.Ireland in 1992 the notion of proportionality between offence and penal consequence. That was extended in the case of Lovett v. the Minister for Education in 1997 which applied the notion of proportionality, by particular relevance to the statutory objectives sought to be achieved, to consequences which would limit an individual's constitutional rights, and were sought to be applied as a secondary consequence of criminal conviction.

What all that means, by reference to the amendments, is that a constitutional issue is involved and I am satisfied that acceptance of the amendments could upset the balance so carefully achieved in the Bill. The Bill already provides a mechanism whereby persons with a lifetime notification requirement, ten years after release from prison, can apply to the court to have the requirement lifted. That indicates how seriously the notion of proportionality must be taken.

I understand Deputy Neville's reasons for retabling the amendments but, for the reasons I have explained, I regret that I cannot accept them.

Mr. Neville

I thank the Minister for his reply. Obviously, I did not have the benefit of advice on the constitutionality of my proposal. For that reason, I accept the Minister's explanation because this is not a Bill about which we should be political. I accept the Minister has received advice on my proposals, therefore, I will withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No. 12, therefore, the amendments will be discussed together.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"9.–The person for the time being in charge of the place where a person subject to the requirements of this Part is ordered to be imprisoned in respect of an offence (whether or not the offence that gave rise to the person's being subject to those requirements) shall notify in writing–

(a)before the date on which the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the person in respect of the first-mentioned offence expires or, as the case may be, the person's remission from the sentence begins (‘the date of release'), the person that he or she is subject to the requirements of this Part, and

(b)at least 10 days before the date of release, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána of the fact that that expiry or remission will occur in relation to the person.”.

At present the prison authorities contact the Garda prior to the release of any individual serving a sentence for a sex offence. I, therefore, accept the principle underlying Deputy Neville's amendment, the result of which would be to place this informal arrangement on a statutory basis. Having consulted about a final wording, the parliamentary counsel and the Department of Health and Children, which has responsibility for the Central Mental Hospital from where persons found guilty but insane are released, it is proposed to accept the point made in Deputy Neville's amendment, with some modifications, as indicated in the amendment. It is also proposed to extend the scope of the Deputy's amendment to ensure that not only is the Garda Commissioner informed, but the offender is also reminded before release from custody of his or her notification obligations.

My amendment places a statutory obligation on the person in charge of a prison or place of detention, who would normally be the governor, or the person in charge of the Central Mental Hospital, who would normally be the director, in which a person subject to the requirements of this Part is being held, to notify the Garda Commissioner, in writing, at least ten days in advance of the release date of a person subject to the requirements of this Part. It is not necessary to refer to other hospitals as prisoners receiving treatment in hospital remain the responsibility of the prison authorities.

In examining Deputy Neville's amendment, it seemed to me that not only should the Garda Commissioner be formally informed about the imminent release from custody of a convicted sex offender, but the sex offender should also be formally reminded of his or her notification obligations following release. The Bill firmly and clearly places on the offender the obligation to notify the gardaí of his or her current name and address. Those convicted of a qualifying offence after the enactment of the Bill will be notified on conviction by the court that they are subject to the notification requirements. However, the offender may have received a long custodial sentence and, in the struggle to come to terms with freedom in the early days following release, could overlook the notification obligation. To ensure this will not happen, the second part of my amendment places an onus on the person in charge to notify the offender, in writing, of his or her notification obligations following release.

I recommend the amendment in my name and I thank Deputy Neville for bringing this issue to our attention in his amendment which I cannot accept, mainly for technical reasons.

Mr. Neville

I thank the Minister for his amendment which fully satisfies my concerns. It will ensure that the most vicious sexual offenders who have no intention of complying with any regulation on release from prison will not be able to go underground, change their names and identities and continue to offend. The tracking system between the prison service, other places of detention and the Garda strengthens the Bill and I sincerely thank the Minister for tabling the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 14, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 34, 41, 44 and 51 form a composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 15, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 33, 35, 43 and 52 form an alternate composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 21, 24, 27, 32, 42 and 45 form a second alternate composite proposal. Is it agreed that we take amendments Nos. 14, 15, 18 to 35, inclusive, 41 to 45, inclusive, 51 and 52 together? Agreed.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 9, line 37, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

I note that Deputy O'Sullivan has six numbers. She might try the lotto at the weekend.

Ms O'Sullivan

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Deputy Neville wishes to reduce the ten day period allowed for compliance with the notification requirements to five days. At the select committee I conceded that the number of days allowable to a sex offender to notify the Garda of his or her current name and address is, to some extent, arbitrary. Any alternative figure would also be arbitrary. Within reason, any number of days proposed may fall within an acceptable limit.

In the United Kingdom the figure chosen was 14 days, although I understand this is under review. In the Irish context, and bearing in mind our additional provisions relating to travel abroad and offences committed while abroad, I considered ten days the optimum figure. It could have been a few days more or a few days less. The important point is that it is within certain acceptable limits which are fair to the offender and do not jeopardise the operation of the new notification system.

My main concern is to provide the optimum notification period having regard to the issues involved. Clearly, the protection of children is the most important consideration and this will be mainly enhanced through a high compliance rate. It seems that the compliance rate would not be affected by changing ten days one way or the other by a few days, but if a substantial reduction was introduced I would not be so sure. I am convinced that such a reduction would introduce difficulties affecting the ability to comply with the obligation to notify of an offender who may require time to find his or her feet following release from what may have been a long prison sentence.

Following consultations with experts, I propose to reduce the compliance period to seven days. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendments propose to raise the number of days for compliance with the notification system to 21 in the case of convicted sex offenders who travel abroad. In examining these amendments we have had regard to the following important considerations. First, some people contend there are objective criteria under which we can defend treating one category of sex offender, that is, those travelling abroad, differently from other sex offenders. Others contend there are not such objective criteria. My advice is that there are not and that acceptance of these amendments would run the risk of being found in breach of European equality laws. The second consideration – these are no in particular order of importance – is whether children would be more or less safe in the context of a significantly longer notification period. Again, it would be easy to exaggerate the possible consequences for children in the absence of hard evidence, but common sense would suggest that 21 days would, if anything, provide a less safe environment for children. Third, is the seven days proposed too short in the context of fair procedures, in particular in the context of a non-punitive scheme? I think not. In coming down in favour of seven days we were conscious of the need to be fair, not only because of the inherent correctness in being fair, but because of the possible effects on the compliance rates if the procedures were interpreted as being unfair or too onerous.

In addition, I have to bear in mind why I have included in the Bill a provision under which convicted sex offenders travelling abroad will be required to notify the Garda. It is not so far a feature of sex offender registers elsewhere, although that may change. When a sex offender disappears from view it is important that the Garda knows whether he or she has gone abroad or whether the offender has gone underground in this country, thus becoming potentially an extremely dangerous person. Three weeks may be too long for the Garda to be unaware of such a person's whereabouts in some cases. In an era of open borders and ease of travel this provision will be of great assistance in enhancing international police co-operation in tracking the movements of paedophiles The legislation will not only ensure that we do not become a sanctuary for other countries' paedophiles but that our legislation, which is more advanced than analogous legislation elsewhere, does not cause a problem for our neighbours.

To sum up on Deputy O'Sullivan's amendments, 21 days is too long. The obligation to notify the Garda only arises where a person is abroad for a continuous period of seven days or more. Unlike persons changing address in the State or coming here from abroad, the seven days is not subject to aggregation. This means a person can go abroad for up to seven days at a time any number of times in a 12 month period. I considered it important in the context of the protection of children in particular and international police co-operation on serious crime that Garda be aware of the movements abroad of convicted sex offenders and, in that spirit, that their police colleagues abroad can be made aware of paedophiles entering their territories. Accordingly, I am happy to recommend my amendments Nos. 14, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, 34, 41, 44 and 51.

Mr. Neville

I recognise that the Minister has moved on the position in the Bill as initiated. While I welcome his response, I am convinced that the reporting time should be as tight as possible and that a person should make himself known to the Garda within five days of entering a community or coming into the State. There is no reason the mandatory reporting period under the notification requirement should not be five days. I accept the Minister's point that it is an arbitrary figure and a judgment must be made on it.

Paedophiles should be frustrated in every way possible to protect children from the terrible experience of sex abuse. The time within which the Garda Síochána should be contacted by a person obliged to register should be reduced from ten days to five days after release from custody or on entering the country when registered outside. One can visualise a person entering the country from the UK and spending seven days without registering. While I accept that the figure is arbitrary, as much pressure as possible should be put on offenders to ensure early registration. Many crimes are vicious and unpleasant and we have to adopt a special approach to this serious crime. In Britain the period within which offenders must register is 14 days. I did not realise the British authorities were examining this issue. It will be interesting to read the outcome of their deliberations.

I believe that we must have 100% compliance and we must insist on that. Nothing else is acceptable. I cannot accept that the compliance rate would be affected by reducing it to a five day notification period. I do not see that a reduction to five days would introduce difficulties affecting the ability to comply with the obligations to notify. I want to be fair to the child as well as to the sex offender. One cannot repair the damage done by the abuser. The Minister is concerned about the offender's release from prison and the difficulties that may apply. This may be a problem as a result of the disgraceful prison regime in this country. Surely those who have served long prison sentences must be prepared by the prison service for life outside prison. Somebody on the child sex register who is being released from prison should go through a detailed programme to prepare them for the release, to inform them of their obligations to register and to ensure they are aware of the seriousness of non-compliance. They must be informed of the procedure and how to comply with it. If there is proper preparation there is no reason they would not be in a position to comply with the requirements of the Bill in registering within five days.

Ms O'Sullivan

There are two separate issues being dealt with in these amendments and I support the proposals in the early ones to reduce the length of time that a person has before they are required to register. I have no argument with the Minister or Deputy Neville on that. I welcome the fact that the Minister has come some distance in meeting the Deputy Neville's proposals. The matters on which I have proposed amendments relate to when a person, who has already been on the register and has been compliant, goes on holiday. I suggest that there should be leeway on that. We want people to be compliant and it is an arbitrary decision as to what figure we settle on. We need to make sure that people get on the register as quickly as possible and they must be given a few days to do that. It is a different matter when we talk about someone who has been compliant and is already on the register. If they have served their sentence, are compliant and on the register and wish to go on holiday, perhaps to a family member, there should be some leniency. They are individuals with rights despite what we are trying to do to protect society. There are balances to be maintained and that is the purpose of my amendments.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I thank the Deputies for their comments. This is not an exact science. We have come down in favour of seven days on the basis that it gives the individual the opportunity of being able to go abroad for a short period of time without having to notify. After a period of seven days the individual would be obliged to notify for all the reasons I have outlined. A person who is on the register and going abroad for a period less than seven days can go abroad any number of times during the same year without having to notify provided that he or she does not exceed the seven day term on any one journey. On the other hand, people coming into this jurisdiction will be subject to aggregation. For example, a paedophile registered in the North who comes to the South for four days one week and three days the following week would be obliged to register on any subsequent visit during that same year. Deputies might wonder why an individual leaving this jurisdiction is not subject to aggregation but I have received advice from the Attorney General to the effect that I could not do that. However, I have ensured that any person coming into this jurisdiction from abroad is subject to aggregation. It is open to other jurisdictions to bring in aggregation in respect of people travelling from this jurisdiction to theirs. That is a matter for them.

Mr. Neville

I accept that the situation is arbitrary as to whether it should be five or seven days. I feel it should be as tight as possible and it is not unreasonable to expect someone who has been released from prison or transferred from another area to register within five days. We know of situations where paedophiles have moved in from abroad for two or three days and committed offences. While I accept there must be some leeway, the more restriction we have in ensuring that the Garda are aware that the offender is in the jurisdiction, the more protection we have for the children in the area. The Minister did accept the proposal to reduce it from ten to seven days but I feel five days would offer more protection. Two days might be very significant in the committing of a crime so I believe that my amendment reducing it to five days should be accepted.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I cannot go any further than I have. It is a very arbitrary matter.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 53 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Neville

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(f2>b)his or her fingerprints,".

I proposed on Committee Stage that the more identification we have of the person on the register, the more chance we have of ensuring that that person is followed up in the event of their absconding or changing identity. In particular a person's fingerprints should be available as part of the registration process. As a result of the Committee Stage debate I would be less worried about the photograph because of other difficulties. It would enhance the register if both a photograph and the fingerprints of the person were part of it. It is known in the UK, and we had an experience here, that some paedophiles have changed addresses, gone underground, changed identity, appearances and so have become a danger to children. Having fingerprints available would enhance the Garda's investigative approach to tracing paedophiles who have left the jurisdiction and have not registered elsewhere in the country. It is for the purpose of protecting children in these situations that I propose the amendments.

Mr. O'Donoghue

These amendments seek to place two additional requirements on convicted sex offenders when they are fulfilling their notification obligation, that is, that they provide photographs and have their fingerprints taken. I am not aware of these being obligations in other jurisdictions.

In preparing the provision relating to the information that a convicted sex offender will have to supply when registering, we were very conscious of the British and Northern Irish requirements in that respect and the high compliance rates of up to 97% in those jurisdictions. There is a direct link between the two. Whatever our own feelings about sex offenders, their devious nature and their heinous crimes, it would be counter productive to persecute or demonise them at a time when they may be making an effort to avoid further offending and the temptations to re-offend.

There is a direct and verifiable link between the amount of information required to be notified and the compliance rate, and, in the final analysis, it is the compliance rate that is important. In the non-punitive context of this provision, it is important to ensure that the notification system is easy to comply with and is one that will not frighten off sex offenders from notifying the Garda. Any fear, however unfounded or irrational, of, say, photographs given at the time of notification being made public would lessen the compliance rate and, therefore, the benefits of the notification system.

With regard to photographs in particular, I am at present preparing legislation under which the Garda will have power to photograph any person who has been arrested. In addition, almost every person on whom a prison sentence is imposed has his or her photograph taken and, in the case of those who serve long sentences, photographs can be retaken close to the release date. These can be made available to the Garda. This is a better way of dealing with the question of photographs than picking out one group of offenders in the way proposed. With regard to offenders from abroad, photographs can be made available through normal police channels.

The argument can be made that persons can change their appearances and that old photographs might bear little resemblance to current appearance. That is true, but as I have outlined, the photographs available to the Garda will be recent photographs. It is also the case that even after registering, persons could significantly change their appearance, whether or not a photograph was supplied.

The amendment also refers to fingerprints. Apart from other considerations, I see no particular benefit in persons being required to give fingerprints when registering.

Whether or not intended, the amendments would require an offender to provide a photograph and have his or her fingerprints taken every time he or she notified the Garda in accordance with the Act.

My reservations on these amendments are based on the firm belief, supported by evidence from other countries, that the less information that has to be notified the more likely will be a person to comply with the notification requirements. It would be far better to have a compliance rate of, say, 95% based on the provisions in the Bill than a significantly lower percentage where photographs were supplied and fingerprints taken. I remind Deputies that as soon as this Bill is enacted the analysis of the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences will gather pace and, if the need for changes to the law are identified, I will seek Government approval to prepare the necessary legislation. By then this Act will have been in operation long enough for any weaknesses that could only be identified from experience gained from its operation to be rectified. For example, if experience showed that the need for photographs to be produced at the time of registration outweighed the desirability for a very high compliance rate, that could be looked at as part of the review.

For the reasons stated, I am unable to accept these amendments.

Mr. Neville

While I see some validity in the Minister's argument with regard to the photograph being supplied at the time of registration I am still convinced there must be some mechanism for tracing a child sex offender on the register who has gone underground and left the area without notifying the Garda as to his whereabouts. These people are very dangerous at this point. Obviously they have reasons for leaving the area and for not registering in the area to which they transferred. These reasons can only be on the basis of opportunity for abusing children. They obviously know the Bill's requirements. Should they move to another Garda area, they know they are required to register. They do not register because they do not want the Garda to know they are present and they do not want Garda surveillance of their activities. One of the strengths of the Bill is the deterrent for sex offenders who are known to the Garda to re-offend.

Obviously a sex offender in an area knows the Garda is aware of his presence, that there is a certain amount of surveillance, that gardaí are watching his movements and if there is anything suspicious the Garda can either advise the person or reveal the person's name, where necessary. Therefore, there is a deterrent. If a paedophile moves elsewhere and does not register it is obvious he is intent on abusing children. There should be some mechanism whereby the Garda has an identity it can follow up. I see some of the reasons in regard to photographs because they are emotive. While I do not agree there should be any acceptance of non-compliance with the Bill at any level, whether 5% or 10%, I would moderate my view with regard to the photograph. However, I am convinced there should be some follow-up where a sex offender leaves the jurisdiction and does not register elsewhere that would enable the Garda to chase that person and ensure children are protected.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There is a difficulty with fingerprints. Deputy Neville is of the view that fingerprints should be taken and agrees that the photograph proposal is in a different category. For the life of me I cannot see how fingerprints could assist. A person who is a sex offender goes to the Garda station and gives his or her name and address and if he or she changes that name and address notifies the Garda also. By leaving it at that, we should have a high compliance rate. We are seeking a compliance rate of 100%. In Britain the compliance rate has been in the region of 97%. Britain did not have any requirement for fingerprints or for photographs. It would be difficult from a legal perspective to look for fingerprints from an individual going into the Garda station to give his name and address.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, line 44, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 10, line 7, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 10, line 11, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 10, line 16, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 10, line 19, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 10, line 20, to delete "10th" and substitute "7th".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 10, line 24, to delete "10" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are related and may be taken together.

Ms O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 10, to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute "state the person's–".

These amendments concern the requirement to give notification when a person is on the register. I am seeking to reduce the bureaucracy. Amendment No. 36 seeks to ensure that the notification process should not be considered invalid because certain aspects of it are invalid. Amendment No. 37 seeks that the requirement for a person to register his or her date of birth each time should only exist if required by a garda.

As I understand it, a person who moves in and out of the jurisdiction may have to come back to the register on a number of occasions. I do not see why such people should have to state their date of birth each time.

Section 9(6) states that a person shall give his or her date of birth, name on the relevant date and, where he or she used one or more other names on that date, each of those names, and the home address on the relevant date. This highlights that a number of different details are required. I am proposing that a notification should not automatically be considered invalid if the individual inadvertently omits a small piece of information. The Garda can make judgments in these matters.

In reply to the previous group of amendments, and speaking on the issue of fingerprints and photographs, the Minister stated that the less that has to be notified, the more likely the person is to comply. We wish people to comply with the register. We should not come down too heavily on a person who is known to the Garda and who inadvertently fails to give his or her date of birth, which the Garda may already know. Such people are being compliant with the register and perhaps there is no intention to behave otherwise. These amendments seek to encourage compliance.

Mr. O'Donoghue

A person notifying the Garda under Part 2 of the Bill has to state his or her name and address and date of birth. This is the minimum and maximum amount of information which should be required. I have explained my general position on this point on an earlier amendment and there is no need to repeat that position.

The Deputy wishes to make information regarding age mandatory only if required by the Garda. However, the Garda will always want that information which will be important for many reasons. Such information would be crucial from the point of view of risk assessment and identification.

The information might also be used for cross-referencing and statistical collation. However, it is important that the offender be in no doubt when registering about exactly what information to give the Garda. If the notification is made in person there would be little practical difficulty with the amendment as the Garda would ask for the date of birth each time.

However, because of the provisions for postal notifications, the offender would not know the requirement of the Garda as to his or her date of birth when notifying by this method. Other means of fulfilling the notification obligation may be prescribed in future regulations as advances in technology make them feasible. For reasons of postal and, possibly, other methods of notification, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Mr. Neville

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 10, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(d) is detained in hospital and is medically certified as being incapable of complying with the notification requirements of this Part.”.

I proposed this amendment on Committee Stage. The amendment concerns a person who may be detained in hospital and is medically certified as being incapable of complying with the notification requirements of the Bill. Such situations will arise.

Section 9(7) deals with determining a period for registration and disregarding any time during which a person is remanded in custody, serving a sentence or on temporary release under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960. The amendment would also include people who are ill in hospital and who are medically certified as being incapable of complying with the notification requirements.

The amendment would deal with a situation where, for example, someone is recuperating from a serious stroke or an accident and is medically certified as being incapable of complying with the Bill. Such a person could be unconscious.

On Committee Stage the Minister stated that this was a sensible amendment and undertook to discuss with the parliamentary counsel how best to resolve the concerns it addressed. How can someone who is in hospital or who is unconscious register? Will someone in such circumstances be charged if he or she does not register?

What of someone on the register who is unconscious in hospital in Limerick and is moved to Dublin for special treatment? Many people from my area come to the national rehabilitation hospital in Dún Laoghaire. If such a person is on the register and is moved to Dún Laoghaire, as I understand it, he or she is obliged to register in the Garda region in which they reside. This amendment would ensure that such people would not be charged with an offence. It would also require such people to register if they are remaining in the area once the medical certification has expired.

Ms O'Sullivan

I support this reasonable amendment. From his comments on Committee Stage, we understood the Minister would consider the points made by Deputy Neville. The register does not intend that people would have to get out of their hospital beds and go back to where they come from to register. Deputy Neville's proposal is reasonable and I support the amendment.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Section 9(2) provides that certain periods can be disregarded when determining the time that a notification requirement starts, namely, the time a person is remanded in custody, the time spent in prison or the time spent on temporary release. In other words, if, for example, a person serves five years in prison the life time notification requirement will commence seven days after his or her release. If a person is sentenced to nine months in prison, the ten year notification requirement commences seven days following his or her release.

This amendment seeks also to stop the clock during the time an offender might be in hospital and is incapable of complying with the notification requirement due to illness, etc. On Committee Stage I offered the opinion that this looked like a sensible amendment and undertook to consult the parliamentary counsel regarding the matter. Following those consultations and further consideration of the amendment, we are of the opinion the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

There are two aspects to the amendment. First, the periods which can be disregarded as set out in section 9(2) are related to the offender's relationship at a given time to aspects of the criminal justice system such as being remanded in custody or serving a prison sentence. These are easily definable and understood as periods during which the clock stands still as far as the notification requirement is concerned.

Being in hospital is less definite and adds a level of subjectivity to the process. In addition, the offender may not wish the doctor to know that he or she has a notification obligation as a sex offender or, because of a severe medical condition, may be incapable of informing the doctor of the obligation.

Debate adjourned.