Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 2022

Vol. 1028 No. 1

Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(a) in the definition of “sexual offence”, by the substitution of “section 3;” for “section 3.”,”.

This is a technical amendment, with a semicolon replacing a full stop after "section 3" in the definition of "sexual offence", as it is no longer the last definition in this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, lines 4 to 6, to delete all words from and including “any” in line 4 down to and including “section” in line 6 and substitute “the nearest public office of the Garda Síochána to where they reside”.

Before the clock starts, I wish to recognise retired Garda Sergeant John Hynes and his wife, Catherine, who are in the Public Gallery. John was probably one of the foremost members of An Garda Síochána in securing prosecutions against sex offenders across the west. In fact, 26 of the 28 cases that he brought to the Central Criminal Court secured convictions. Of those 28 cases, 27 also involved the late Detective Garda Colm Horkan and Garda Maeve Carthy, who is still within the force.

Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 address the issue in the legislation where there is a requirement for a sex offender who has been put on the sex offenders register to notify the divisional headquarters. Divisional headquarters are spread across the country. For example, the divisional headquarters for my area of Longford, Roscommon and Mayo is located in Castlebar, County Mayo. For someone living in Longford, Roscommon or Mayo, the nearest location to register is Castlebar. The Bill states that a sex offender can inform any divisional headquarters in the country. A situation could arise where someone who was convicted of a serious offence, was considered a high-risk sex offender and resided in, for example, Roscommon or Galway notified Wexford town Garda station. The person would have complied with this legislation as drafted by doing so. My amendments state that such persons must present themselves to the nearest public office of An Garda Síochána, preferably the local 24-hour station.

Let us remember that it is the local gardaí who will be responsible for monitoring these sex offenders, yet we are not even asking the sex offenders to comply with the legislation by presenting themselves at the local stations where they will be monitored. This is wrong. It facilitates high-risk sex offenders going undetected by allowing them to contact any divisional headquarters. This comes on the back of a culture in the overall thrust of much of the legislation in this area that puts the rights into the hands of the offender rather than the victim or future potential victims. I want the Bill to reflect a sex offender's responsibility to register at the local Garda station.

As the Minister knows, the register is there in name only. Every year, in excess of 70 breaches of it are recorded. These involve individuals who have come to the attention of the Garda, usually for some other reason. They are then prosecuted for breaching the sex offenders register. We need to put a robust system in place that facilitates the Garda in monitoring these individuals. That can only happen if the Garda is given the tools to do so.

When I raised this issue with the Minister on Committee Stage, she stated that the inclusion of "any" divisional headquarters was to capture a situation where the sex offenders to be monitored were away from their local stations but that the intention of the legislation was to ensure that they would register at their local stations. She stated that she would consider making this clear in the Bill, but that has not happened. We need to see such clarity being provided.

In the Minister's letter to me of 28 September, she pointed out that, where a sex offender did not register at his or her local Garda station and instead registered at another station, something as significant as a change of address would lead to an automatic email emanating to notify all persons who had access to the sex offender's details on the PULSE system. A difficulty with this is that a high-risk sex offender who is released from prison can call into a station in Wexford town and give an address in a rural townland in the west of Ireland. We are supposed to rest assured because an email will be sent to Garda stations across the country saying that this individual has registered in Wexford town, but it is the garda based in Castlebar who has to make contact with this individual, has to try to track him or her down within seven days and have him or her fingerprinted and photographed. The system does not allow that to happen. Even if that member of the force is not on holidays or on leave and gets access to the information, it is likely that he or she will have to sift through hundreds of activity reports on every single sex offender in the country. On a daily basis, a large volume of activity reports come to every garda in the country who is monitoring sex offenders. A garda will have to sift through all of them to identify someone who has recently registered in another divisional headquarters but will now reside in his or her area and will then have to track that person down within seven days. We are asking too much of gardaí and giving too much power to sex offenders who want to remain underground and undetected. The only way to put an effective system in place is to oblige in law convicted sex offenders who require monitoring to present themselves at their local Garda stations rather than at stations at the other end of the country. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments that I have tabled to reflect this fact.

As the Deputy outlined, the Bill provides that a sex offender can notify at any Garda station that has been designated by the Garda Commissioner for that purpose or at any divisional headquarters. In this way, we are not limiting the offender in notifying at his or her local station. By drafting the provision in this way, a sex offender who regularly resides in Cork but who might by chance be in Donegal for three days can and will notify gardaí in Donegal that he or she is in the area.

I reassure the Deputy that the way we have set this out has been undertaken in consultation with the Garda. If, therefore, an offender notifies gardaí at a different station than the one in the area where he or she would normally reside, that information will be reported on the PULSE system. It is not only available to be viewed nationally but, in cases where a core change has been made to an offender's details, such as, for example, a change of address, in cases where a person is not just visiting another area, an automatic email will notify all persons who have access to the sex offender's details on the PULSE system, including the sex offender's management and the intelligence unit.

The Commissioner will designate the various stations throughout the country at which sex offenders can register and notify, and this information will be published on the Garda website. What we have set out in this legislation, therefore, has been done in consultation with the Garda Commissioner. It is not to restrict where sex offenders can register themselves but to try to ensure that if they are moving or are outside the home places where they are designated, they can still register, even if they are moving for only a short time.

Compliance in this area is high. There is nothing in the figures applying to this section to suggest there is significant non-compliance. Compliance is still high, and everything we have set out here has, as I said, been done in consultation with An Garda Síochána. The force feels it will operate and support the work it is doing. Gardaí will have access to changes made and information in this regard via the PULSE system, which I think is the correct way to do this.

Amendment No. 3 allows for a member of An Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector to change the interval between notifications for offenders who do not have a permanent home address. The purpose of this amendment, which I previously flagged on Committee Stage, is to allow a member of An Garda Síochána of any rank to inform an offender that the interval between notifications has been changed. The decision to change a notification will still have to be taken by a member of the force not below the rank of inspector.

I am disappointed with the Minister's response regarding an issue which I believe is fundamental to this Bill. The Minister is looking at this issue from a particular perspective, but if we turn it on its head and look at it from the opposite perspective, rather than looking at this provision and how it facilitates sex offenders, it will be seen it is not limiting them to the local Garda station. What the Minister is saying to a convicted sex offender, who must be monitored and who poses a high risk in the community, is that he or she can go to any Garda station in the country, in Wexford town, for example, present there and tell the gardaí in that station that he or she is going to live in rural west Roscommon. The offender in that case will have complied with the law. The difficulty is that it will be the Garda members in Roscommon who will have seven days from that point to try to track down that individual and have him or her present himself or herself in the Garda station in Castlerea to provide his or her fingerprints and photographs.

This is a mechanism to ensure sex offenders remain underground, those that deliberately want to remain underground. What we need, and what we must have in the legislation, is a legal requirement that a sex offender must attend his or her local Garda station when registering and not some far-flung location somewhere else around the country, because it is the local Garda members who will be responsible for monitoring this individual. I refer to the Minister saying everything will be okay if a sex offender were to go to Wexford town to register because an activity report on the PULSE system will be circulated to every garda in the country who is monitoring sex offenders. These gardaí get hundreds of notifications. The Minister is asking them to sift through these hundreds of notifications and to identify a new individual who has moved into their area and who is trying to remain underground and trying to conceal his identity so it will not be monitored.

We are not doing this to facilitate sex offenders. We are doing this to ensure we have a system that works and whereby they can continue to be monitored. This has been carefully drafted and thought through. I committed on Committee Stage to look at this and to respond to the Deputy regarding this matter. Having again engaged with the Garda on this aspect now, I believe the force is happy and clear that this is the appropriate way to approach this specific part of the Bill. It is important we take on board the Garda's requests and requirements in this context. I refer to how this legislation will work best for the people who, as the Deputy just outlined, will have to monitor and engage with sex offenders and make this work.

Compliance in this regard now is high. It can always be better. Any non-compliance is not a situation we want to find ourselves in when we are talking about sex offenders. This, however, is about ensuring we have a system that works. It is important it works for the Garda in particular because it will be its members who will be monitoring sex offenders. I committed to looking at this aspect of the legislation. We engaged again with the Garda in this regard, and it is happy with how this provision is being set out. For me, this is the appropriate route to take in this regard and this is why I cannot accept this amendment.

I will give this commitment, however. If it turns out this approach does not work and, as the Deputy is suggesting, it allows people to go underground and not be monitored, then I commit to reviewing this measure, as we need to do with any legislation if it is not working. I must go now, though, on what I am being told will work for the people who will be monitoring these sex offenders and this is why we have not changed this provision. This is why it has remained as it was set out on Committee Stage and this is, unfortunately, why I am not going to accept this amendment. I accept, however, that if issues arise, if there are significant concerns and if the Garda tells me the force is having problems in respect of being unable to access information and this means people are going underground, or however it might be phrased, then we will obviously have to respond and to act. We must, though, give this legislation a chance to come into force first.

The Minister's Department highlighted problems with this legislation 13 years ago. It has taken us this long to get this far. Is the Minister honestly telling me we are going to see amending legislation when there is a problem with what we are enacting now? We will not. The Minister is telling us the Garda is saying it is happy with what is in this Bill. I have been at this for 13 years and I can tell the Minister that gardaí throughout the country enforcing these measures now are saying that a coach-and-four is being driven through this scheme by having this flexibility built into it. They are saying this because it will be used and it will be exploited.

Compliance is not high in this regard. The Garda identifies 70 breaches of this legislation annually where sex offenders are not found at the addresses they have specified and listed. I reiterate there are 70 breaches annually, on average. This has been happening for the past two decades in this regard because the system, as it is structured, puts all the cards in the hands of the sex offenders. This has left gardaí in a situation where their hands have been tied behind their backs. We are now asking gardaí in different parts of the country to try to track down these individuals and ensure they comply with what is very worthily set out in this legislation, without the members of the force even knowing what these offenders look like. I say this because, as the legislation is written, to comply with the law a sex offender can present himself or herself at a Garda station in Wexford and then reside in the most isolated parts of Roscommon or Galway in the west. It will then be the responsibility of the local gardaí in the west to try to figure out exactly where this person lives and ensure he or she complies with the law without even knowing what this person looks like.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 118; Staon, 0.

  • Berry, Cathal.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Murphy, Verona.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Shanahan, Matt.

Níl

  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Brady, John.
  • Brophy, Colm.
  • Browne, James.
  • Browne, Martin.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Buckley, Pat.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Cairns, Holly.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
  • Carthy, Matt.
  • Chambers, Jack.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conway-Walsh, Rose.
  • Costello, Patrick.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Cronin, Réada.
  • Crowe, Cathal.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Pa.
  • Devlin, Cormac.
  • Dillon, Alan.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Paul.
  • Donnelly, Stephen.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Duffy, Francis Noel.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Farrell, Mairéad.
  • Feighan, Frankie.
  • Flaherty, Joe.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Foley, Norma.
  • Gannon, Gary.
  • Gould, Thomas.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Guirke, Johnny.
  • Harkin, Marian.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Higgins, Emer.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kerrane, Claire.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • Leddin, Brian.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Matthews, Steven.
  • McAuliffe, Paul.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
  • Nash, Ged.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Noonan, Malcolm.
  • O'Brien, Darragh.
  • O'Brien, Joe.
  • O'Callaghan, Cian.
  • O'Callaghan, Jim.
  • O'Connor, James.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donoghue, Richard.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Gorman, Roderic.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • O'Rourke, Darren.
  • O'Sullivan, Christopher.
  • O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinlivan, Maurice.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Richmond, Neale.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Patricia.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Smyth, Ossian.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tully, Pauline.
  • Ward, Mark.
  • Wynne, Violet-Anne.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Denis Naughten and Matt Shanahan; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, to delete lines 7 to 13 and substitute the following:

"(7B) A member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector may, in respect of a person to whom subsection (7A) applies, specify such period of more or less than 3 days for the purposes of paragraph (b) of that subsection as he or she is satisfied is appropriate, having regard to—

(a) the interests of public safety, or

(b) the safety of a particular member of the public,

and where such a period is so specified, the member of the Garda Síochána informing a person under that subsection shall so inform the person.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 10, lines 16 and 17, to delete "any Garda Síochána station which is a divisional headquarters" and substitute "the nearest public office of the Garda Síochána to where they reside".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 10, lines 26 and 27, to delete "any Garda Síochána station which is a divisional headquarters" and substitute "the nearest public office of the Garda Síochána to where they reside".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, line 32, to delete "to" and substitute "and in the presence of".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 11, lines 14 and 15, to delete "3 days" and substitute "7 days".

Amendment No. 7, which is grouped with amendments Nos. 8 and 9, was originally tabled by Deputy Naughten on Committee Stage. I thank him for raising this issue and for his contribution more generally to the legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to increase from three days to seven days the time available to An Garda Síochána to take fingerprints, palm prints and photographs from a relevant offender. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related to amendment No. 7 as they seek to amend to seven days references to three days that appear later in the same section. This is to ensure we have consistency.

I acknowledge retired Sergeant John Hynes, who is in the Gallery. I thank him sincerely for his work and his contribution over the years, not only specific to this issue but as a member of An Garda Síochána. I acknowledge him and thank him for his support.

Amendment No. 7 is very welcome. It is something we have taken on board since Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are simply to ensure we have consistency throughout the legislation.

I thank the Minister for taking on board amendment No. 7. This is very welcome legislation.

It will ensure for the first time ever we will have an effective sex offenders register in this country. To have an effective sex offenders register, the member of the force who will be monitoring a sex offender needs to be able to make contact with and interview him or her, take his or her fingerprints and photograph, and so forth. We will come to the photograph issue later and why it is so important to be able to take his or her photograph. The difficulty with the legislation as it was written and the argument I made on Committee Stage was that three days was not enough. This was even more so with the bizarre vote by Opposition Members on an earlier amendment, which concerned the issue of a high-risk sex offender who is released from prison and is residing in some rural part of the west being able to go to Wexford, Waterford or Cork, present there and he or she will have complied with the legislation. Having only three days for a member of An Garda Síochána in the west to go through the volume of notifications, identify that someone has moved to their area, and track him or her down and give that person notice to be fingerprinted and photographed was too tight a window. Seven days is a more responsible approach.

I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment, which will strengthen the overall thrust of the legislation and assist gardaí in managing high-risk offenders. While I know they make up a small proportion of the overall number of sex offenders, they pose a significant risk in the community and we need to give gardaí the tools to enforce the provisions.

I welcome this amendment and, as the Deputy said, it will be a practical support for gardaí in their work.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, line 18, to delete “3 days” and substitute “7 days”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 11, line 24, to delete “3 days” and substitute “7 days”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 13, to delete lines 23 to 28 and substitute the following:

“(iv) the address of each other place (if any), whether in or outside the State, at which, on the date on which the notification is given, he or she resides or regularly stays, and

(v) the address of each other place (if any), whether in or outside the State, at which the person has resided or regularly stayed since the date on which he or she was convicted of the offence concerned.’.”.”.

This amendment ensures offenders who were convicted outside the State are subject to the same notification requirements on entering the State as offenders who were convicted here. This subsection aligns the obligations of those convicted outside the State to notify An Garda Síochána of their name, address, and date of entry to the State within three days with those of offenders convicted within the State. The purpose of the amendment is to oblige offenders coming into the State to notify An Garda Síochána of all their previous addresses since their conviction of the relevant offence. An Garda Síochána would have this information for those convicted within the State as these individuals would have been notifying gardaí of this information since their conviction. This amendment is at the request of An Garda Síochána to make sure offenders coming into the State who were convicted outside the State, are subject to the same requirements.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 11 to 33, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 32 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 31.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, line 16, to delete “or 14E”.

Amendment No. 12 is the substantive amendment in this grouping. It deletes the original provision under section 14D that concerns the disclosure of information relating to a relevant offender to police services or other law enforcement agencies outside the State. This was to allow An Garda Síochána to enter into agreements with other police forces to share information on sex offenders. However, on the basis of further consultation with An Garda Síochána, we now know this section is not required as there is legislation in place on the sharing of information with other police forces that is robust. Agreements already in place should not be jeopardised.

Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 15 to 19, inclusive, 21 to 31, inclusive, and 33 are all technical changes that arise from amendment No. 12. These deal with numerical and grammatical changes brought about by the deletion of section 14D. For example, the original section 14E will be named "14D", 14F will be named "14E", and so forth. These are very technical changes.

Amendment No. 14 will allow An Garda Síochána separately to provide a photo as part of any necessary disclosure where there is a risk of harm to the public or a member of the public by an offender. This amendment will contribute to the further protection of our communities in respect of disclosures and will be in addition to information about a registered sex offender already provided by An Garda Síochána to a member of the public where deemed appropriate to do so. Again, this is an amendment that came on foot of a discussion with Deputy Naughten on Committee Stage to make it explicit that a photograph could be provided as part of the information that is disclosed. The Bill had provided generally for any other information deemed necessary by the Garda, but specifying that a photo can be provided is an important measure. I again thank Deputy Naughten for his proposal and his continued support of the Bill.

The first main amendment is so that we do not replicate or in any way jeopardise a legal system or structure that already exists within An Garda Síochána. The second main amendment, separate to the technical amendments, is to make sure the Garda, where it deems it necessary, can provide a photograph if someone is in danger or there is an immediate threat. I thank Deputy Naughten for putting that suggestion forward.

Will the Minister clarify that she is satisfied the other provisions already in legislation will ensure that reciprocal arrangement will be in place within the common travel area and outside that more generally?

I welcome the provision in amendment No. 14 to allow a photograph of a convicted sex offender to be provided to a third party where it is necessary to identify that offender to protect either a vulnerable adult or child. I will not dwell on this, but I again highlight amendment No. 20, which is in my name. I do not think the convicted sex offender should be given notification in this regard. The most likely scenario is that of a high-risk sex offender who has exploited young children in the past being in a relationship in which there are young children. To contact that sex offender to tell them you will inform the person they are in a relationship with that they have such a conviction and that there is a risk to those children will only drive that individual underground. The sex offender should not be given that forewarning and I will, therefore, be pressing amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 32, which I tabled, relates to section 13, which provides that the Commissioner shall publish or cause to be published information he or she considers appropriate in setting out the manner in which sections 14D and 14E operate, which relates to the disclosure of information. All the information available and collated under sections 14A to 14E, inclusive, should be made available. This would be important in the monitoring of the effectiveness of this legislation, ensuring it is kept current and up to date, and ensuring any weaknesses in the implementation of the legislation could be identified through making those statistics available. The legislation in relation to what data the Commissioner must publish should be broader, and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

On my own amendments and the changes, there were concerns what we were proposing would in some way jeopardise the system that is already in place. As it currently stands, the sharing of information regarding sex offenders travelling into and out of the State is carried out by way of police-to-police information, that is, intelligence information exchange via Interpol. This allows the relevant police forces to manage the risk posed by such individuals while they are resident either temporarily or, indeed, permanently in a different jurisdiction.

A memorandum of understanding was signed in 2006 between the Irish and UK Governments to ensure the sharing of information between different organisations with regard to sex offenders. In 2008, an agreement relating to the sharing of personal data regarding the investigation of sexual offences and the monitoring of sex offenders was signed by the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. This agreement provides for the sharing of personal information through a single point of contact in both police services.

Since Brexit we have made sure that all of the memorandums of understanding or co-operation agreements continue and there is no lapse so that there is no challenge to the work of An Garda Síochána and the PSNI or on the UK side. I am confident, based on this and discussions with the Garda, that it is happy with how information is currently exchanged. We would not want to in any way jeopardise the work that is ongoing.

Regarding amendment No. 20, it is something we considered carefully. We sought advice from the Attorney General on fair procedure. Each individual, irrespective of who he or she is and what he or she has done, is entitled to fair procedure. This is an opportunity for a person to correct the record if information is incorrect. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying about giving someone a heads up that this is going to happen. The most important thing is that if information needs to be shared with the person that it is shared with that person. If a woman or man is a difficult situation and something comes to light, the most important thing is that the Garda shares that information with the person. The requirement to inform the person that the information is being shared is clear from a constitutional perspective, and has been outlined clearly to me from a constitutional perspective as something we need to do.

If there is an immediate danger or threat, the Garda can bypass that. If it feels that by telling the person it will make this information available to somebody else and that that would pose a risk to somebody in a similar household, be it a child or anybody else, the Garda can bypass this. There is a provision to make sure there are safeguards to protect people. If it is the case that people do not live together and are not in the same town or engaged with each other and there is no immediate threat by the Garda notifying the person, that is the route it has to go. There is a clear provision in the Bill that if a woman, man or child is at immediate risk the Garda can tell the person directly without having to raise it with the other person first. It is an important provision.

The Deputy's second point is more technical. It relates to amendment No. 32, which seeks to expand the information the Commissioner can publish. Section 14A relates to interpretation. Section 14C provides for the Minister to make regulations, and I do not think it would be practical for the Commissioner to publish this information. Section 14B concerns the composition of the SORAM teams, which is already available on the Garda website. It is already public information. The Bill allows for the Commissioner to publish information on how disclosures to the public will operate and this still stands in what was section 14E. That is why I am not accepting the amendment. Some of the specific parts the Deputy referenced relate to the Minister, therefore it would be not be appropriate for the Commissioner to deal with that. Some of it is already available and one part of it is more about interpretation. What information the Commissioner needs to provide is set out and there is enough in the Bill to make sure that the Commissioner can provide as much information as possible where there is a risk, harm or threat to somebody.

I want to come back on amendment No. 20. The Minister said it is important that the information is shared. I acknowledge the Bill provides a legal mechanism for the Garda to share information for the first time, something which was not available up to now, and expose members of the force that provided very relevant and valid information.

My problem is that the Minister believes it is important that the information is shared. I agree with her. The difficulty is that in the circumstances I have spoken about, if an individual is given three days' notice in respect of information, he or she will disappear. The immediate threat will be gone. The information would not be shared with the individual. What happens if, down the road, the individual then gets back into a relationship and on that occasion is very conscious of the need to make sure that what has happened goes under the radar with the Garda? The Garda would then not be aware of what had happened. My understanding of the Bill, as drafted, is that where an individual hightails it, disappears and goes underground, the Garda cannot disclose that information to a partner. As a result, a person will not be given what I believe to be important information.

That is not my interpretation. If the risk is identified, whether the person decides to leave a house, disappear or move away, the risk is still there. There is still an opportunity for the Garda to make the person aware of what it was going to make him or her aware of in the first instance. It is meant to be set out in the legislation. If a risk is identified, that information will be provided to the person where the Garda feel there is a risk or threat.

It goes back to the original amendment. If somebody goes to ground or does not register, he or she is in breach of the law and is facing a potential jail term. There is quite a severe penalty. It is not as though there is no penalty. If a person breaches the order, does not register, disappears and does not comply with the legislation, there is obviously a severe penalty.

Will the Minister double-check, before the Bill goes to the Seanad, that that is the case, as she has set out?

Yes, that is my understanding.

My interpretation is different. I accept the Minister's bona fides.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, to delete lines 30 to 43, and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 6.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 17, line 9, to delete “14E.” and substitute “14D.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 17, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(b) a photograph of the relevant offender;”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 17, line 16, to delete “(b) the address” and substitute “(c) the address”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 17, line 17, to delete “(c) the nature” and substitute “(d) the nature”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 17, line 19, to delete “(d) the level” and substitute “(e) the level”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 17, line 21, to delete “(e) such other” and substitute “(f) such other”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 18, line 3, to delete “section 14F(3)” and substitute “section 14E(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 18, to delete lines 9 to 36.

On foot of the Minister's assurance, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 18, line 10, to delete “14F.” and substitute “14E.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 18, line 11, to delete “or 14E”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 18, line 34, to delete “or 14E”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 18, line 38, to delete “14G.” and substitute “14F.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 19, line 21, to delete “14H.” and substitute “14G.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 19, line 22, to delete “or 14E”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 19, line 23, to delete “section 14G” and substitute “section 14F”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 19, line 27, to delete “or 14E”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 19, line 30, to delete “section 14G” and substitute “section 14F”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 20, line 2, to delete “14I.” and substitute “14H.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 20, line 8, to delete “sections 14D and 14E operate” and substitute “section 14D operates”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 20, line 9, to delete “those sections” and substitute “that section”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 20, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(c) in subsection (4), after “respondent” where it secondly occurs, to insert the following:

“or protecting the victim of previous crimes from harassment”,”.

We discussed this in detail privately. The amendment relates to protecting the victims of previous crimes from harassment from a convicted sex offender following the release of the offender from prison. Sadly, this intimidation is all too common. Covert intimidation takes place. It is nearly impossible for the Garda to be in a position to secure a conviction due to the current law, which refers to harassment more broadly. I can understand that. There is history here. This intimidation undermines the ability of the victim to get on with his or her life. The Minister said on Committee Stage said that she would not deal with this in this Bill and further legislation would come forward in which she would address it. She might provide clarity regarding her intentions and timelines for that legislation.

I completely agree with the Deputy. Be it stalking, harassment or whatever we call it, it absolutely ruins people's lives and can have a devastating impact. There is a certain situation of which we are both aware where a horrendous crime has been committed and a person has served time and is now potentially continuing that level of harassment. I gave a commitment that this would be dealt with in a separate Bill.

The Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 was obviously dealt with but more recently, last week, we had Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022, which introduced stalking as a stand-alone offence for the first time. The Bill expanded the harassment offence but it also introduced a new system of civil orders around stalking-type behaviour.

One big challenge here is for somebody to have to go back to court and go through a criminal case again with a person with whom he or she has gone through it before. It can be quite daunting and difficult and the threshold to have that succeed may be much higher. What we are saying with the civil order is that it does not require criminal prosecution. It would require a lower threshold whereby one can make it clear that a person's behaviour might likely impact on a person's well-being, mental health or state of being and it would be much easier, either for an individual or a member of An Garda Síochána, to get a protection order against another person in the civil courts without having to go through a criminal trial.

I appreciate it means that a person has to go through another process through which he or she might have already gone but we have to accept that if a person is convicted of a crime and has served time, obviously, there is no way to go back on that unless a particular order has been put in place by the judge at the time to the effect that the person must comply with certain conditions on release. It is still the case that this can be said by a judge or that certain conditions can be put in place but if that does not happen, what I have set out here is a much easier and more simplified process that would allow somebody to impose a restraining order on someone whose actions and behaviours might not meet the threshold for stalking or harassment but whose actions, certainly to a reasonable person, could inflict considerable harm on an individual.

That Bill passed Second Stage just last week. With the support of the Committee on Justice and others in the House, I hope that legislation will be enacted by the end of the year. It would very much be in line with the timing of this legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 25, line 28, to delete “for a specified term”.

We have discussed this matter previously. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a prohibition on working with children or vulnerable people can be imposed on life-sentence prisoners. By deleting the text "for a specified term", any ambiguity is removed as to whether this can be applied to life-sentence prisoners. As Members are aware, the most serious crimes against children carry a life sentence and I wish to be absolutely certain that a court can impose a prohibition on these offenders.

We had a discussion on Committee Stage when colleagues raised interesting and valid points around the application of prohibition orders and working with children and vulnerable people. Legal advice was sought by my Department from the Office of the Attorney General, which confirmed that a prohibition on work is a penalty, not a civil order and therefore, when added to the prison sentence, cannot constitutionally exceed the maximum penalty for the offence in question.

I reassure Deputies that there is a suite of legislative measures to prevent convicted sex offenders from working with children. These measures include the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 the core obligation of which is in section 12. The section provides that a relevant organisation shall not employ, enter into a contract with, or permit any person to undertake relevant work or activities without vetting done by the Garda National Vetting Bureau and failure to comply with this is a criminal offence. This amendment really just makes sure that by deleting "for a specified term", we ensure that the life-sentence term actually comes in under this and that it can apply to someone who receives a life sentence for this type of crime.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 30, after line 35, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022

30. (1) Section 7 of the Act of 2022 is repealed.

(2) The Act of 2022 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 25:

“Transitional provisions relating to amendment of section 92 of Criminal Justice Act 2006 by section 8

25. Any legal proceedings (civil or criminal) in respect of a right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under, or an offence against or contravention of section 92 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 before the date of the coming into operation of this section may, on or after that date, be instituted, continued or enforced, and any penalty, forfeiture or punishment in respect of such offence or contravention may be imposed and carried out, as if the said section 92 had not been amended by section 8.”.

(3) In this section, “Act of 2022” means the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022.”.

This amendment arises from the transitional provisions and saving arrangements provided for in the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022, as the Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill 2021 will be commenced first. We have thought that the other Bill would be commenced before this, thus making these arrangements redundant.

Amendment No. 37 repeals section 7 of the Garda Síochána (Functions and Operational Areas) Act 2022. Section 7 amended section 10 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. It made provisions for a sex offender to notify at any divisional headquarters or any station nominated for this purpose by the commissioner. As this Bill will be commenced first, this section will no longer be required. Transitional provisions for the Sex Offenders Act 2001 were also inserted into the Act of 2022 and will, likewise, no longer be required and therefore, will be deleted. It is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 30, after line 35, to insert the following:

“30. The Minister shall, within 90 days of the passing of this Act, make regulations under section 60 of the Act of 2018 making it an offence to erase information regarding convictions for sexual offences as set out in section 3 of the Principal Act.”.

We are moving on to the two final amendments with regard to issues that we have discussed on Committee Stage. I have highlighted the first key weakness in my amendments earlier. The second key weakness is the failure to close off the loopholes that allow sex offenders to have their offences effectively forgotten through the change in the offender's name by deed poll or by using the Google right to be forgotten.

For the sake of victims who have to live with the consequences of these perpetrators and any potential future victims, those convicted of sexual offences should lose the right to be forgotten permanently. As I have said to the Minister, the only test that Google seems to apply to a request to be forgotten online and have the court reports erased is the length of time since the material went online. That is not in the public interest. Google does not consider what is in the public interest when it removes access to information about a court conviction permanently.

Regardless of any court conviction there should not be the possibility of having that information erased because, as the Minister knows, court hearings are to be held in public except in exceptional circumstances. The decisions are to be given in public. In general the names of those convicted are published and all of that information is now available through the electronic format. It is the main primary record of courts and public proceedings in this country. There is no legitimate reason the likes of Google should be allowed to remove those listings because it is an exploitation of EU privacy laws.

There is provision with the general data protection regulation, GDPR, privacy laws to ensure that the public interest is protected. GDPR, in circumstances where a convicted sex offender looks to have the record of his or her conviction erased, allows for a situation to arise where Google and other organisations can refuse to erase that information but that does not apply here. Google, to date, has defended its handling of requests to delist articles relating to such criminal convictions on the basis of the amount of time since the conviction took place. That is the only consideration it is giving to this. That is not satisfactory or good enough.

I ask that the Minister take a proactive approach to this by bringing Google and other relevant organisations into the Department and making it crystal clear to them that we will not tolerate their allowing happen a situation in which the records of sex offenders are delisted from Google searches or any other similar organisation. This is a further abuse of the victims of these crimes in that the stories have been erased.

Unfortunately, a huge degree of pressure is put on victims, albeit inadvertently, to waive anonymity in many cases so it can be ensured the sex offender is named. It is wrong, after the victim has gone through that trauma and released their name into the public domain so the names of the perpetrators could be exposed and published, for them to find out down the road the likes of Google has delisted that. That is a far greater abuse again. We, as a country, and the Minister, in her role, need to ensure this practice is stopped immediately and that those records remain permanently available.

The GDPR is determined and interpreted by the European Court of Justice and I think the court has been clear in saying that where there is a serious offence, including rape, sexual assault and abuse, there is absolutely no right to be forgotten. There is a right where it is a minor offence. We talk here about trying to work with people who want to change their lives and turn their lives around following minor offences. There can be an impact on their applying for jobs or on their personal life. Where it is a minor offence I think we can agree it is something that is not at the same level as a serious offence. I stress a sexual offence of any nature is never going to be allowed to be forgotten. I am not aware that there have been cases won by any of the companies because time has elapsed. If there are cases they can be presented to me but this is absolutely clear. I share the Deputy's concerns that if these types of cases were being removed it would be a very serious offence but at the moment the court is clear on how this is interpreted and any type of sexual offence cannot be removed. There is no right to remove it. It is in the public interest and it is vital victims know that and that they are reassured by that.

I engage with different companies. I recently met Meta, or Facebook, on the issue of working with it to ensure every protection and measure is put in place to protect and support victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence and assault. There was discussion of ensuring technology is used for the better to support people because as we know, as technology evolves there are those who wish to use it for their own reasons and that can obviously have significant negative impacts on people, whether it is for abuse or other reasons as well. There is an obligation on the companies themselves to protect the people who use their platforms.

The law is very clear here, namely, there is no right to be forgotten in any type of a sexual offence. If that were to change, or if there were to be court rulings to that effect, it is something I would raise at European level.

I only have a short period of time but, for example, on 13 November Shane Phelan published an article entitled "Pimps and sex offenders among those using 'right to be forgotten'". In the article he pointed out that "press coverage of the activities of a criminal who was behind a multi-million-euro vice ring has been 'forgotten' by Google following requests under EU privacy law...". He went on to give examples of where this has been used to delist very serious criminal offences, stating "The Irish Independent is also aware of the delisting of at least three articles relating to the conviction of men for possession of child sex abuse material.". The article is only from last year so that is in the public domain. It talks about other cases relating to the same issue. This is going on; it is happening. Google is facilitating this as we speak. It is regulated from this country. There is a responsibility on us to protect women and children throughout the EU by ensuring what is the law, and has been set out in the European Court of Justice, is actually applied in Ireland. Those are just a couple of brief examples within the time I have. I ask the Minister to engage with these organisations on the basis of ensuring categorically these cases are not delisted, especially for the people who waived their right to anonymity only to end up in a situation where Google decides this will be concealed again.

I suggest the Deputy and I meet following this to look at the cases he has referenced. I commit to raising them directly with Google-----

-----and seeking a meeting with it. I am appalled at the idea somebody who has been convicted of possessing child abuse material would be in this category. As I said I was not aware of the cases the Deputy has mentioned but I am happy to meet him to go through it and to raise it directly with the company.

I withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 30, after line 35, to insert the following:

“30. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on how registered sex offenders are able to change their name or other aspects of their identity without the knowledge of the Garda Síochána with the intention of subverting the purpose of this Act.”.

This is a related issue. I thank my colleague Sarah Champion MP from the UK and her advisor Lucy Cserna for their assistance on this issue, which is one that affects both Ireland and the United Kingdom. A sex offender may change their name by deed poll in order to circumvent the monitoring under the sex offenders register. There have been published examples of this happening in the UK. I have previously given the example in the House of a Terry Price who committed a string of sexual offences over three decades and changed his name on five occasions. Having spoken to gardaí involved in the monitoring of sex offenders, it is nearly standard procedure now that convicted sex offenders are changing their names by deed poll to ensure they can avoid monitoring and that they do not come to the attention of people.

I have not been able to draft an amendment to the legislation here. My colleague in the UK has not been able to do it either. This is a problem across both jurisdictions with the use of deed polls to change names to restrict the ability of the authorities to monitor these offenders and we need to address it. The Minister is going to come back in and tell me that if a sex offender changes their name under this legislation they have a responsibility to inform the Garda of that. I ask that the Courts Service, when someone changes their name, make the information available to the Garda so gardaí do not have to wait for a sex offender to come and declare themselves. It will be done through a third party, namely the Courts Service, and the Garda will be advised of that fact as it happens rather than at some stage down the road.

The difficulty is we have a very high rate of breaches of the existing sex offenders register. This legislation will give the Garda tools to effectively monitor sex offenders but leaving loopholes in the legislation that can be exploited by convicted sex offenders makes it more difficult. This is one loophole that is being exploited both in this jurisdiction and in the UK. The mechanism to change one's name by deed poll is being used to try to avoid monitoring and detection and this is an issue that must be addressed. It is one the gardaí who are monitoring sex offenders around the country have brought to my attention and told me is a specific problem they are dealing with and they have told me they need the tools to do so.

I accept that it is a complex area. The easiest mechanism to use involves having a clear provision or direction to the Courts Service to make gardaí aware of changes that would happen. That would get around this issue and ensure far more effective monitoring of those high-risk sex offenders who have a determination to exploit again. We need to ensure that every possible avenue is closed off where that is feasible. I accept that there will always be risks. We can never be entirely certain. Let us ensure that we close as many of these loopholes as possible. I ask the Minister to consider my proposal.

There is no legislative basis to change one's name by deed poll, so we cannot stop an offender from changing his or her name. As the Deputy alluded to, it is clear that if a person were to change his or her name after the enactment of this legislation, he or she would have three days to notify. There are strict monitoring requirements, so if a person were to change his or her name and not engage and not notify that this had happened, he or she would face prosecution and be liable for fine of €10,000 or a prison term from 12 months up to five years. There are significant fines and penalties in this regard. Based on our conversations at the committee, we have engaged with gardaí to be clear that they are happy with what we are proposing and that there is nothing further that we can do. They are clear that they do not believe any further legislative requirements or changes are needed here, because they have to notify quickly due to the requirements they already have. I am happy to look at this further.

I will not accept the amendment because it would create a clear commitment that a report would be before the Houses in six months. However, I am happy to follow this up further to see if anything can be done, whether through the courts or otherwise, to provide further monitoring. I spoke to gardaí. I appreciate that they are one part of this. They said they do not need further legislation related to this. I am happy to explore this further to see if any other measures or involvement from other State bodies could support this.

The people who the Minister has been talking to in the Garda and those to whom I have been talking are very different. I have been talking to people who are enforcing this at the coalface. There is a requirement, within three days of people changing their name by deed poll, to notify a divisional Garda headquarters somewhere in the country. This comes back to the argument we had at the start of this debate. Someone who is residing in County Roscommon might change his or her name by deed poll and then inform the gardaí in Wexford of the name change. That person has then complied with the legislation. Along with the hundreds of other emails and activity report updates that gardaí in Roscommon get, buried in the middle, will be one about this individual who has changed his or her name. Gardaí are supposed to be able to pick that out and ensure that the person in question is being appropriately monitored.

The difficulty is that we are creating additional barriers for gardaí to effectively monitor sex offenders who want to go under the radar. I cannot understand why, in those circumstances, contacting Wexford Garda station about someone residing in Roscommon, Galway or Mayo is appropriate or acceptable. I do not believe it is. I would like to see the Courts Service inform the Garda authorities and for them to then inform the member of the force who is monitoring that sex offender in County Roscommon, County Galway or wherever of the change in name. This would ensure that we have an effective and robust register. Do not let this legislation go through with the anomalies, which I accept that the House voted for earlier, including this particular anomaly.

We have engaged with the Garda on this. I have to engage with the Garda Commissioner and his team, who represent those who are working on the ground. I have engaged with gardaí locally in respect of certain elements of this legislation. It is never easy to monitor sex offenders. With this legislation, we are trying to improve the laws that we currently have and the way in which gardaí can monitor and how they can do their jobs. We are trying to support them as much as we can in monitoring, which will always be difficult and complex. Notification cannot be done by email. People have to go into a Garda station. They have to be there in person. They have to present themselves. If they do not, it is a crime that involves a serious penalty.

I appreciate that there will be people who will not want to comply and who will try to evade this. These are not people in prison; they are in the community. As a result, the nature of monitoring is that it is a challenging environment. That is why we have tried to introduce amendments that would restrict their ability to evade monitoring and which would support gardaí in the best way possible. I am not saying that I will not work with the Deputy to see if there is more that we can do. The amendment is very specific about laying a report before the Houses in the next six months. I will commit to looking at this to see if there are other ways in which we can support the Garda.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this. The legislation has been in the offing for the past 13 years. I thank the Minister's predecessors, Alan Shatter, Frances Fitzgerald and Deputy Flanagan, for the work that they did to progress this legislation. I thank the officials and their predecessors who I dealt with over the years with regard to this. It has caused plenty of grey hairs over the last 13 years. While I am not happy with the final Bill and think it could be better, it is a significant improvement on where we are. It will mean that we have a sex offenders register in this country that can actually be enforced by the Garda. I thank the Minister for taking on board many of the suggestions that I have made about this. I ask the Minister to review some of the comments that I have made and see if we can provide further clarity during the Bill's passage through Seanad Éireann. Ultimately, it is in all our interests to ensure that we have as robust a Bill as we can. To everyone involved, I say go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir for the work that everyone has done in bringing this legislation to this point.

I thank all my colleagues for their support in passing this important Bill. The objective behind the Bill is to support, enhance and improve the management and monitoring of sex offenders in our country and communities. I am sorry to hear that the Deputy is not happy with the final Bill, but I think the measures we have brought in make this good legislation. It has come about following significant co-operation across all sides of the Houses, working with An Garda Síochána and the Probation Service. It feeds into broader work that is being done by my Department to tackle domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. It is welcome, important legislation. I hope it will provide much more protection to people across our communities. I thank colleagues and my officials, who have worked on this legislation for a long time.

Question put and agreed to.

Cuirfear an Bille chun an tSeanaid anois. The Bill will be sent to the Seanad.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 8.50 p.m. go dtí 9 a.m., Déardaoin, an 20 Deireadh Fómhair 2022.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 20 October 2022.
Top
Share