Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 May 2001

Vol. 166 No. 19

Sex Offenders Bill, 2000: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 10.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 11, subsection (7), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(f2>d)is detained in hospital and is medically certified as being incapable of complying with the notification requirements of this Part.".

This is a reasonable amendment. We are discussing section 10(7) which reads:

For the purpose of determining any period for the purposes of subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), there shall be disregarded any time when the person concerned is:

(f2>a)remanded in custody,

(f2>b)serving a sentence in prison, or

(f2>c)temporarily released under section 2 or 3 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960.

The amendment concerns persons detained in hospital and medically certified as being incapable of complying with notification requirements. This could easily happen and it is unfair that a person would be discriminated against in this way if they were ill and unable to comply with notification requirements. We must be reasonable when we talk of compliance. We have spoken about photographs. The Minister was concerned about compliance and about frightening people off, but we must also be as open as possible to ensure that people can comply with the provisions of the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ms Hanafin)

Section 10(7) of the Bill provides that when determining the time that the notification requirement starts, certain periods can be disregarded. These are the time a person is remanded in custody, the time spent in prison or the time spent on temporary release. If a person serves five years in prison, the lifetime notification will commence seven days after his or her release. If the person is sentenced to nine months in prison, the ten-year notification requirement commences seven days following release.

This amendment seeks to stop the clock during the time an offender might be in hospital and is incapable of complying with a notification requirement due to illness etc. The periods that can be disregarded, as set out in section 10(7), are all related to the offender's relationship at a given time to aspects of the criminal justice system. These include being remanded in custody or serving a prison sentence. They are easily definable and understood 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 into the process. Also, 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, he or she may be incapable of informing the doctor of the obligation.

There are other practical difficulties with the amendment such as when the doctor would have to certify the offender as being unfit to comply, and at what point that certification would be lifted. It would be normal practice to excuse an offender who did not comply with reporting to the Garda while on temporary release from prison – for example, where evidence of detention was produced. I have no reason to believe that gardaí will not exercise similarly appropriate discretion in the case of offenders, subject to the notification requirements. To do otherwise would risk wasting court time with unnecessary prosecutions for non-compliance.

The amendment is not the type of provision normally found in legislation. We have been informed by the parliamentary counsel that acceptance of the amendment could have implications as to how other legislation is interpreted. Following detailed consideration of what acceptance of the amendment might entail, I regret I am unable to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Sections 13 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 25.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 16 is consequential on amendment No. 15 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.

Dr. Henry

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 19, subsection (1), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following definition:

"‘mentally impaired' has the meaning assigned to it by section 5 of the Act of 1993;"

The area covering the provision of information for employment purposes is one of the most useful parts of the Bill. During the Second Stage debate, I pointed out that for many years schools in England had a register for sexual offenders. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children has rightly stated that this register was voluntary and not statutory. However, it has been very useful in England and this part of the current Bill is also useful. Those with children in their care should have a choice about whether to employ those who have committed previous offences in this area.

This section is in the Bill because we consider some people to be vulnerable. We must agree that mentally impaired persons can be vulnerable also. The mentally impaired have been included in most other sections of legislation that deal with sexual offences. The section in which a definition was given in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993 was particularly good and I ask that this section be taken as the definition in this case. Section 5 of that Act reads:

In this section "mentally impaired" means suffering from a disorder of the mind, whether through mental handicap or illness, which is of such a nature or degree as to render a person incapable of living an independent life, or of guarding against serious exploitation.

The phrase, "guarding against serious exploitation," is most important for the present debate. The mentally impaired can be seriously exploited. If the offender has exploited children or mentally impaired people in the past, we would be wise to include them in this section of the Bill. If offenders were to take up employment where mentally impaired people were involved, the prospective employer should be informed.

Mr. J. Cregan

I welcome the comments of Senator Henry and I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment. Senator Henry raised this point at Second Stage and I felt obliged to support her view. We are all conscious that when people are considered for employment with children, notification is necessary to protect those children. We must also remember that many mentally impaired people have innocent minds as children do, and we should recognise that in the legislation. I have no hesitation in asking the Minister to accept the amendment because we must be conscious at all times of the need for safety for the mentally impaired. It is up to us to look after them.

Ms Keogh

I support the amendment. Members are aware that while the mentally impaired may be physically normal and indistinguishable from anyone else, such people will be preyed upon as they are so vulnerable. It is important that they are protected as children are. In places where mentally impaired people are cared for, staff should be subject to the same type of scrutiny as those looking after children. The point here is the protection of vulnerable people in the most stringent way possible.

Mr. Costello

I support the amendment. The definition outlined by Senator Henry seems very appropriate. Mentally impaired people who are suffering from a disorder and from difficulty in terms of employment have to be guarded against serious exploitation. I understand there is a Garda database that checks the criminal records of anyone employed in the area of child care, irrespective of the nature of the crime. Is there a notification process already in place for child care? A number of issues on that have come to my attention and it seems that the opposite is the case. People whose offences are not of a sexual nature will be disbarred from employment in child care. I am not sure to what extent it operates in terms of mental impairment. There seems to be a blanket ban on employment for anyone with a criminal record.

Ms Hanafin

Senator Henry did raise this issue at Second Stage and indicated that she would be raising the question of the protection of the mentally impaired in the context of employment, and their protection from persons who have been convicted of sex offences. Part 4 of the Bill already provides such protection for children. Senator Henry was able to give prior notice of these amendments and has received support from the Senators present. The Government accepts the amendments.

In being able to accept them it is important to have a good definition of mentally impaired. The definition proposed by Senator Henry – taken from section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993, which protects mentally impaired persons from sexual abuse generally – is the best definition available on a matter that is difficult to define. I thank Senator Henry for submitting the amendments which will greatly enhance the protection available to mentally impaired persons against sex abuse.

There is a Garda clearance section which deals with persons who are working with children or in the child care area. It is an area in which significant recruitment is about to be initiated. Getting Garda clearance for people working in the area is a big issue. That so many people from abroad are being recruited raises a particular challenge. They do provide a clearance service but that is somewhat different from notification.

Dr. Henry

I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment and the other Senators for their support. What the Minister has said about people coming to work here from abroad is very important. The Medical Council has good regulations for assessing people who come here to work from abroad. Unfortunately this is not as good in all areas. This is something which will have to be addressed with the greater movement of labour which we experience nowadays.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Dr. Henry

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 34, after "children" to insert "or a mentally impaired person or persons".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 27 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 224, before section 34, but in Part 6, to insert the following new section:

"34.–(1)Access to the Register shall be confined to the Garda Síochána. Information contained in the Register shall not be disclosed to any other person save with the permisssion of a designated High Court Judge, on the application of a member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of Inspector. Such an application, which must be heard in camera, shall not be granted unless, in the opinion of the Judge, it is in the interest of public safety to do so.".

Amendment No. 17 refers to access to the register. A short time ago we had some discussion on information about offenders. We talked about ready identification and about frightening offenders off. It is very important that there be confidentiality around the register. We do not want to see scaremongering about people. As the Minister has already pointed out, these will be people who have already served their sentence. If people have complied with the provisions of the register we want to ensure their rights are vindicated. We ask that access to the register be confined to the Garda Síochána and that the information in it not be disclosed to any other person, save with the permission of a designated High Court judge on the application of a member of the Garda not below the rank of inspector. Such an application must be heard in camera and it shall not be granted unless, in the opinion of a High Court judge, it is in the interest of public safety to do so. That must be the criterion. We have to be assured that any information released about people on the register should only be available if it is in the public interest.

Ms Hanafin

This amendment is concerned with providing a basis through the courts for deciding who will have access to the register. There are some technical elements which I am not happy with. For example, the word "register" does not appear in the text of the Bill. However, that is not the reason for opposing it. The Government opposes this because it runs counter to the philosophy and policy underpinning Part 2 of the Bill. Access to the register is not covered by the Bill. We consider that access could not properly or adequately be dealt with in legislation; it can more appropriately be dealt with administratively.

The intention is that the information in the register will be used by the Garda, in conjunction with the Probation and Welfare Service, to assess risk. The existence of the notification system will be the basis for continual risk assessment of convicted sex offenders by the Garda Síochána and the Probation and Welfare Service. No one else will, as of right, have access to that information.

Any leak of information could only be deplored and we are hopeful and confident that no leaks will occur. Apart from any other consideration there could be no point in leaking that information. Should the worst happen it would be irrelevant as to how it could be properly disclosed, whether on the instructions of a judge or as a result of a decision taken at an inter-agency level by the Garda and probation service.

It is open to the Garda to draw up a protocol, with the probation service, as to what circumstances should give rise to disclosure in any particular case. The intention, as in Northern Ireland, is that it will only be disclosed when there is a serious and immediate danger to a per son or persons and even then only to the minimum number of persons who have an absolute need to know. The last thing we need is disorder, personal injury or witch-hunts arising from disclosure. Where the Garda come to the conclusion that another person or persons should be informed of an offender's name it will be because they are sure there is an immediate and serious risk. It is the risk element and its immediacy which is important. These will be determined by using normal crime prevention techniques and the risk assessment arising from a person being obliged to register.

The problem with this amendment is that it transfers the decision from those who have been watching, assessing and possibly treating the offender on a continuing basis, to the court. The court would be asked to make an immediate decision. Applications to the court take time, reports have to be prepared and so forth. The court might request reports from experts, which as we know can often conflict. It is not a system designed for immediate action. "Immediate" does not mean tomorrow or next week. It is not the function of the court to be a rubber-stamp, which it would have to be if it was to act as the Garda could where an immediate risk to a child became apparent.

Giving information from the register to the public carries huge risks and responsibilities, as we have recently seen across the water. I am not aware of any evidence that details of any of the persons whose names were published came from an official source. The Government envisages the power to disclose will be used very sparingly. The Garda will develop their own means of risk assessment and when, where and to whom any public access should be made. I imagine a first move would be, for example, to warn the offender about his or her behaviour and suggest they move to another place where children do not congregate, or else seek a sex offenders order. Some of them want to make it clear that there will be no public access to the register. Information may be disclosed in the exceptional circumstance to which I have referred, and then only on a strictly need-to-know basis. Good policing practices rather than court intervention offer the most appropriate and efficient way to decide when and to whom that information will be made available. I am, therefore, not in a position to accept this amendment.

Ms Keogh

I have a slight difficulty with the way the Minister of State explained that access to the register will be the responsibility of the Garda Síochána, which will be responsible for drawing up protocols. What protocol, if any, has been drawn up at this stage? It may not have happened – I hope it would not happen – but if matters are not placed on a formal basis, informal access can prove extremely dangerous. Notwithstanding the Minister of State's indication that a protocol will be drawn up, I believe greater safeguards are offered by the courts. I do not know whether her comments were slightly contradictory because she indicated that if a child was at risk, this could obviously happen quite quickly but she also said that this could perhaps be too slow. She appeared to be saying that if access is determined by the Garda Síochána and if a child is at risk, action can be quickly taken but she also said that a lengthy process could be undergone and that it would not be apt in that regard. I am confused in terms of the actual point the Minister of State was attempting to make.

In terms of access to the register, I submit that offenders would feel safer, as it were, from public vilification, from having their names leaked etc., if a more formal structure involving the courts was put in place.

Ms Hanafin

Senator Keogh misunderstood what I said. The lengthy procedures, reports etc. to which I referred would come into play if matters went before the courts. I also indicated that leaving matters in the hands of the Garda, probation officers and people who deal with offenders would allow them to make the decision. I will offer a simple example. If, at 3 p.m. on a Friday, the Garda became aware that there was a real and substantial risk to children at a particular school and felt there was a need for notification or disclosure, a decision could be taken to notify one person, perhaps the principal, without having to take recourse to the High Court which could delay the process. It is on that basis we believe that the more efficient and correct manner in which to proceed is to leave matters in the hands of the Garda. I have no doubt that a protocol will be developed before the Bill is enacted.

Ms Keogh

I appreciate the Minister of State's comments about the protocol being available and I accept her assurances in that regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 34 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 19 is consequential on amendment No. 18 and both may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 18:

In page 26, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:

"37.–(1)Section 2 of the Act of 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

‘(2)(a)A person guilty of sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment–

(i)in case the person on whom the assault was committed was a child, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years,

and

(ii)in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(b)In this subsection “child” means a person under 17 years of age.'.

(2)The amendment effected bysubsection (1) shall apply to sexual assaults committed after the commencement of this section.”.

Ms Hanafin

Some time ago the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, announced that he intended to raise significantly the penalties for sexual assault. Originally it had been intended to do so in any further sex offences Bill that may arise from an analysis of the views received on the discussion paper on the law on sex offences. However, it seemed to the Minister that this was a matter of sufficient importance to warrant including it in this Bill.

To place the amendments in context, I will briefly outline the recent history of the offence of sexual assault and the penalty attaching to it. Prior to 1990, there were two main offences dealing with sexual assaults, that is, apart from specific statutory offences such as unlawful carnal knowledge and incest, the offences of rape and indecent assault. The penalty for indecent assault of a male or female in the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, was set at a maximum of ten years imprisonment. Prior to that, the penalty for indecent assault on a female was two years for a first offence and five years for a subsequent offence.

The Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, totally reformed the penalty structure for sexual offences. Under section 4, a new offence of rape was created with a penalty of up to life imprisonment. This offence was a sexual assault that included penetration. The other new offence in the 1990 Act was aggravated sexual assault. This offence is a sexual assault which involves serious violence or the threat thereof or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted. The third offence to emerge from the old offence of indecent assault – and, essentially, its continuation – was sexual assault of a male or female, with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

As very serious sexual assault offences could be prosecuted under the provisions relating to rape in section 4 or those relating to aggravated sexual assault, the five years maximum for sexual offences probably seems reasonable, particularly as it would include some relatively minor manifestations of the offence such as unwanted touching of a sexual nature. In retrospect, the gap between sexual assault and the more serious offences is probably too wide and does not allow, in particular, for situations where the assaults continued over an extended period. At the upper level, the assaults could be relatively serious and could have lasting repercussions for the victims, particularly children. Accordingly, the Minister is proposing to raise the maximum penalty for sexual assault of an adult from five years to ten years and for sexual assault of a child from five years to 14 years. These, we suggest, are more reasonable penalties for the type of behaviour that may be involved.

It will still be possible for a case of sexual assault to be dealt with summarily where the assault is at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Under section 12 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, the offence of indecent assault could be tried summarily. That provision transferred to the offence of sexual assault in 1990 and will also apply to that offence with the higher penalties now proposed. Before the offence can be tried summarily, three conditions must be met, first, the District Court judge must be of the opinion that the facts proved or alleged against a defendant constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily; second, the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent; and, third, the defendant does not object to being tried summarily. There is a constitutional right to trial by jury.

Subsection (1)(b) defines child for the purposes of the section as a person under 17 years of age. That is the age generally under Irish law for giving consent to sex. In the circumstances, it is the most appropriate age to distinguish children from adults for the purpose of the penalty. Subsection (2) rules out retrospectivity in relation to the penalty. This is because a person cannot face a higher penalty than that provided for in law at the time an offence was committed.

The second amendment is a technical addition to the Long Title which is necessary if the Bill is to accommodate the increase in the penalties for sexual assault. It provides for the minimum necessary, that is, a reference to section 2 in the Long Title of the Bill.

I commend the amendments to the Seanad.

Mr. J. Cregan

I welcome these important amendments which will strengthen our legislation in this area. There have been cases where young victims have been brave enough to allow their names to be mentioned publicly in court so that embarrassment of the most severe kind was visited upon the perpetrators of the heinous acts against them. I do not wish to lay blame upon members of the Judiciary whose hands were tied by the provisions relating to the maximum five year term, but that maximum term did not apply in all instances. There were cases involving sexual assault where sentences of two or three years imprisonment were handed down. The Minister was conscious of that fact and listened carefully to the testimonies of victims who were brave enough to come forward to ensure that the crimes against them would not be perpetrated against others.

The Minister of State is correct that the term of imprisonment for both offences should be increased. In the case of offences against children – in this instance, those under 17 years of age – the sentence has been increased from five years to 14 years. We are all aware that children are much more vulnerable. An adult who is sexually assaulted may be able to defend themselves to some extent. However when it happens to a child, the child's vulnerability must be taken into account. In many cases the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are in a position of trust in society which is all the more reason decent maximum prison sentences must be provided for. I welcome both amendments and hope they will be welcomed by all sides of the House.

Dr. Henry

I am a great believer in avoiding prison as an option and using restorative justice instead. However there is a principle of just desserts and trying to rehabilitate prisoners. The amendments must be supported because the amount of damage done to victims in these cases is very severe, not just in the short term but also in the long term. Frequently little progress can be made with the offender given some of the sentences handed down. This can be forgotten. There is a tremendous sense of denial of the harm done by many of them. This was one of the main problems with early release. Offenders did not engage sufficiently in programmes to try to bring about some form of rehabilitation in their behaviour before they were released early. I support the amendments, although they involve longer terms of imprisonment, something about which I have always been gravely concerned.

We are aware of the long-term effect of these assaults from the work done, for example, in St. Patrick's on the evidence of depression in women who have been sexually assaulted, especially if there has been penetration or attempted penetration. In case Senator Norris thinks I take no notice of men, I am sure if a similar study was conducted of men similar problems with depression would also be found. The short-term effects are terrible from the point of view of the risk to a woman of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, AIDS and so forth. These are incredibly serious offences and deserve these sentences. I did not realise that some were as short as two years which shows a very casual attitude to sexual assault. The amendments should be supported.

Mr. Costello

It is unusual that the amendments have been made to this Bill which relates to notification of information to the Garda after release because the amendments deal with conviction and change substantially the sentences involved. It is appropriate that anyone guilty of assault of a child would receive a stiffer sentence than they would were the assault on an adult. Fourteen and ten years reflect the enormity of the offence.

Now that the Minister of State has moved into this arena she must also examine what happens while people are incarcerated. The longest sen tences imposed are in the area of sex offences, although the law might have been more lenient than it could have been in that area. However judges now view the offences much more seriously than they did. As a result the prison population is increasingly composed of sex offenders, of whom three prisons are almost full. We must examine what happens to these people inside prison. I agree fully with Senator Henry that the question of rehabilitation in prison is a major issue.

Very few programmes are in place. There is the issue of denial and people convicted of sexual assault not accepting the enormity of their actions and not even accepting that anything wrong has been done. At the same time the State has not made any effort to deal with the matter and greater numbers are being imprisoned for longer periods in inappropriate situations. The Minister of State spoke of a post-release supervision and probation service but we have no such service. The service inside prisons is under-resourced, underfunded and understaffed and there is no contact with an offender after his release.

Now that we have moved into the area of creating new terms of imprisonment for serious assault what happens in terms of rehabilitation must be examined. Are there any proposals to deal with the probation service, the Cinderella of the prison system? Are there any proposals to examine seriously a range of programmes in which prisoners would have the option of engaging while in prison and also after they are released?

Ms Keogh

I support the amendments, not that I believe in locking people up and throwing away the key. Unfortunately and as has already been noted, the sentences available to judges for sex offences were too lenient. Paedophiles in particular do not believe what they do is wrong, believing that it is the rest of us who are wrong whereas they are right. Obviously we must indicate through the legal system how serious we believe these crimes to be.

I also agree that if people are to be locked up they cannot be left to rot until released to reoffend because they did not receive any treatment. I am aware there is a difficulty with the take-up by paedophiles of treatment available to them. If people are convicted and serve lengthy sentences some rehabilitation must be provided for within the system. Senator Costello is correct when he says the probation and welfare service is almost non-existent because insufficient funding is provided for it. This means the follow-up for people when released from prison is minimal. Considering the seriousness of the type of activity involved it is incumbent upon the State to ensure every effort is made to deal with offenders. I do not know the success rate of programmes, something which should be monitored carefully. We often put programmes into practice more in hope than expectation of their success.

An enormous amount of work remains to be done in this regard and I hope in accepting the amendments from the Minister of State we can be reassured that the type of rehabilitation necessary will be available, that it will not be a case of showing offenders that their crimes are heinous by giving them draconian sentences and that instead we will indicate to them that these activities are unacceptable within society by removing them from it while also ensuring society is a safer place by giving them the necessary treatment.

Ms Hanafin

I thank Senators for their support for the amendments because the Minister was anxious not to wait for further legislation to bring forward these proposals. I accept fully what was said about the need for therapy and treatment of prisoners. Senator Costello, above all others, will be aware of the types of therapy available. There are three types: individual counselling is available in all institutions, a multi-disciplinary thinking skills group programme is available in Cork and Arbour Hill prisons, and an intensive offence focused group programme is available in Arbour Hill and the Curragh prisons. The willingness of the offender to participate in these programmes is required in order for them to benefit from them. The Minister is examining the possibility of extending the range of multi-disciplinary treatment options for sex offenders in other prisons because there are now many sex offenders in prison.

The role of the probation and welfare service is crucial, particularly for the implementation of the Bill. For this reason, extra resources and more probation and welfare officers will be required. A competition took place for 25 temporary probation and welfare officers. It was so successful that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform obtained funding from the Department of Finance to increase the number of officers to 50, some of whom are ready to take up their contracts. They will be employed initially on temporary contracts. Arrangements are being made to hold a confined competition for permanent appointments at the end of the contract period. The first eight probation and welfare officers took up duty on 14 May and five more on 21 May. Seven will take up duty on 5 June and a further three on 11 June. Others will take up duty in the following weeks and months. This recruitment will ensure a service which can respond to the needs outlined in the Bill and provide a range of other services.

Mr. Costello

I am not reassured by the appointment of 25 or 50 probation and welfare officers. There are approximately 3,000 prison officers in the Prisons Service, more than the number of prisoners. The numbers envisaged by the Minister of State do not amount to a serious probation and welfare service. We have not adjusted mentally to the need for rehabilitation and what is required by offenders in prison and after their release. The Bill is concerned with the supervision and welfare of offenders after their release from prison. A small number of additional recruits to the probation and welfare service will not deal with the problem. The number of offenders involved is large and designated recruitment of officers specifically for this area is required.

The matter is not being taken seriously. Probation and welfare officers and their trade union representatives constantly bemoan the fact that lip service is paid to this important aspect of their service. Once offenders are sent to prison they should immediately begin preparation for their release. This is not happening. This legislation adds a further layer of justice management and administration for which I do not see resources being given. Too often we pass legislation but do not provide the resources to make it successful.

Ms Hanafin

The Minister accepts that other responsibilities and duties arise from the Bill and that extra resources will be required for the probation and welfare service. These requirements will depend on the level of supervision required and the use made by the courts of post-release supervision orders and so on. Resources will also be needed to provide the necessary therapies. The Minister is committed to ensuring those resources are made available and that the service can be provided and upgraded.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

TITLE.

Government amendment No. 19:

In page 5, line 16, to insert after "1981,""TO AMEND SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990,".

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Ms Keogh

I thank the Minister of State. This is an important Bill in which great interest has been shown. It will play a significant role in the protection of children. This is very important.

The Minister of State has shown a willingness to compromise in accepting points raised by Members on all sides of the House. This openness in relation to legislation of this sort is welcome because legislation is improved by it. I thank the Minister of State for her open-mindedness. I am delighted to see the legislation on the Statute Book.

Dr. Henry

I congratulate the Minister of State on the skill with which she brought the Bill before the House and her officials on the help they have given her. It is useful to have a Bill clearly explained as it is being discussed and when amendments are not accepted it is helpful to hear why not. Those of us who had amendments accepted are extremely pleased. I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing this useful Bill through the House.

Mr. Costello

I wish to be associated with the compliments being paid to the Minster of State and her officials. This will be useful legislation. If the resources are provided it will be effective. I compliment the Minister of State on her understanding of the Bill and willingness to discuss all aspects of it.

Mr. J. Cregan

I endorse the comments of previous speakers and compliment Members on all sides of the House on ensuring a speedy passage for the Bill. While the Bill's passage was speedy we had a worthwhile debate both on Second Stage and Committee Stage.

A number of amendments were tabled in good faith. It is important that some, particularly those proposed by Senator Henry, were accepted. This is important legislation. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House for the debate on Second Stage and today. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, for her attendance on Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ms Hanafin)

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis na Seanadóirí. I was present for all the debate today and for a large part on the previous occasion. I thank Senators for their careful consideration of all the issues and the amendments put forward. This is important legislation which will protect people, particularly children. I also thank the officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for their sterling work on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.