I move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time. "
Private Members' Business. - Sexual Offenders Registration Bill, 1998: Second Stage.
Deputy Neville may speak for 40 minutes and all other Deputies for 30 minutes.
I wish to share time with Deputies Clune and Stanton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to introduce this Bill on an issue on which the Minister has commented on numerous occasions in the past five or six months. Many crimes are vicious and unpleasant but the crime of sexually abusing a young child, robbing that child of its innocence, is surely so repugnant that we are entitled to look for special ways of dealing with it to make society's abhorrence of such activities clear.
According to studies carried out in Britain, repeat offences among paedophiles run at an estimated rate of 95 per cent. Suffice to say these statistics make the curative approach quite unrealistic. Containment and control is the appropriate policy in these circumstances. These need to be combined with more effective and co-operative arrangements amongst concerned agencies and a long-term preventative effort directed against child abuse. The rate of recidivism among other sex offenders is less pronounced but disturbingly high nevertheless.
This Private Members' Bill, if enacted, will establish a register of those convicted of sexual offences against children. Under the proposed legislation, convicting judges will have the discretion to decide whether, and for what period, those found guilty of such offences must remain on a register. The register will also extend to people convicted of similar offences in the United Kingdom. It is ironic that on 9 February this year, the eminent Mr. Justice Budd released a former Irish soldier from Arbour Hill Prison on condition that he agreed to be registered in Britain as a sex offender. He was serving a six year sentence, imposed in 1995, for sexually abusing his step sister and assaulting another ten year old victim. He agreed to reside with relatives in the UK. This is a firm indication of the view of the Judiciary with regard to the availability of a register of child sex offenders to ensure some control over their movements.
This Bill is a small, but important, step in the fight against child sex abuse. I am introducing this Bill because society must give the rights of children priority over those of their abusers. I do not regard the Bill as a panacea to prevent all sexual offences against children. No measure can control all paedophiles but this Bill would be a significant step which would help the Garda to track those who might offend against children. If the Garda were armed with the information provided for under the Bill, it would not only help them identify suspects once the crime has been committed, but would act as a deterrent to some would be re-offenders.
This Bill constitutes a fair and balanced approach to the issue. Convicting judges will decide on whether a person found guilty of a child sex offence should be registered. In these cases, the notification of the offender will be quite stringent. He will be required to register any change of name or address with the Garda within seven days of release from a penal institution. In addition, the offender must inform the Garda of any address at which he spends a total of 14 days in a calendar year. Severe penalties will be applied to offenders who fail to comply with the notification requirements.
Access to information contained in the register will be restricted to the Garda Síochána. This information can only be disclosed with the permission of a designated High Court judge who will also decide to whom the information can be given. Sex offenders, who are subject to the notification requirements of this Bill, will be allowed to apply to the courts to be exempted from these requirements if they can provide evidence they have been fully rehabilitated.
The notification requirements of this legislation will also apply to those convicted of similar offences against children in the United Kingdom. Given that UK paedophiles have been identified in Ireland, seeking to escape the rigours of the UK register, it is imperative that such individuals would be statutorily required to inform the Garda of their personal details.
In a report published during the latter part of last year, the eminent journalist, Phelim McAleer, outlined that four Derry paedophiles had moved to Cork to avoid the sex offenders register which tracks and monitors their movements within the UK and Northern Ireland. Mr. McAleer stated that the revelation will increase concern that sex abusers are now using the Republic as "a safe haven" to continue their activities. He reported that, according to legal sources in Derry who deal with ex-prisoners, the four paedophiles who moved to Cork met when they were serving their sentences at Magilligan Prison. One of the men is a persistent offender who has served two separate jail terms. The legal source said that, from the questions the men asked before they left prison, it was clear they were going to Cork to avoid the register. They were asking if they could be tracked there and what their obligations would be. Cork is a logical choice, it has no register and is the furthest place in Ireland from Derry. If one goes to Dublin for the weekend, it is even money one will meet somebody from Derry walking down Grafton Street. That would be highly unlikely in Limerick and even less likely in Cork. Cork is also a city and one can be more anonymous in a city, the source said.
There is some evidence that groups of paedophiles are also arriving in the Republic from Britain. The situation is a very dangerous one. Being in each other's company provides paedophiles with self-justification, each validating the other's illegal behaviour as acceptable. In those circumstances, they pose a high degree of risk to children.
Mr. McAleer reports that Breidge Gadd, head of the Northern Ireland Probation Board, said the failure to set up a register in the Republic means it will attract paedophiles, particularly persistent offenders, who intend to continue abusing. She saw it as an inevitability that people involved in paedophile rings would see the South as a safe haven. She said it was clear that abusers would take advantage of the loophole. She is quoted as saying that "a paedophile with evil intent will almost naturally go to one of the parts of these islands which does not have a register and where his movements are not being monitored as closely". Ms Gadd said that those in statutory agencies, who worked with sex offenders, were increasingly finding that their clients had moved to the Republic:
I hear from other professionals that there are people who have gone to the South, there is word around Northern Ireland that this is happening.
In Ireland, it is estimated that about 5 per cent of boys and 7 per cent of girls are sexually abused before the age of 16. The estimate for physical abuse is put in a range of somewhere between 8 per cent and 12 per cent of children. The characteristics of a person who sexually abuses children vary depending on the relationship. If strangers are abusing a child, they are generally loners, single men who usually have no history of being in a marital relationship.
They attack children in a violent way in a once off situation. They sexually assault the child and move on to other victims. They accumulate a number of victims and have been known to claim as many as 200-300 victims.
A different type of sexual offender is the parent or blood relative who is abusing the child. Such offenders do not have many victims and are not usually violent. They persuade the child to accept the abuse over a long period. They convince the child that such abuse is an education or a game. They persuade them it will do no harm. In most cases they are living with the child. Between the above two spectrums — the once off violent case and the close family relationship — there is a person who is known to the child but does not necessarily live in the house with the child. They can have a number of victims at any time or sequentially. All sex offenders tend to have low self-esteem, low sense of self-worth and little understanding of their victim's position. They do not understand how the victim feels. They often consider they are not doing the child any harm or minimise the harm caused and many blame the child for the abuse. They blame the child for what happens, that the child was being too friendly or too dependent. They do not accept any blame for the abuse. If they accept any blame they usually point to an external source such as drunkenness and as such make excuses for their actions. Such offenders are usually socially isolated. The main difference between physical and sexual abuse is that the latter can never be accidental. Sexual abuse is planned and if taking place in the home, is planned over a long period.
Child sexual abuse is a carefully planned act over a long period, whereas physical abuse can occur on the spur of the moment. Deep regret usually follows physical abuse because the person lost his or her temper and did not intend to harm the child. Studies reveal that child sex abusers are approximately 85 per cent male and 15 per cent female. For physical abuse it is 50-50.
Most sexually abused children suffer long-term traumatic stress disorders. Such children usually have a range of mental health problems. They often inflict harm on themselves either directly through deliberate injury and self-mutilation or indirectly through eating disorders and drug abuse. Once children become victims of abuse, they tend to suffer further abuse in later life at the hands of the same person or another perpetrator.
Children abused in a family situation are often more vulnerable to the advances of paedophiles on reaching school age and adolescence. This is due to low self-esteem and low self-confidence. The paedophile identifies and targets them by offering some form of comfort and attention.
There is no argument against controlling the movement of paedophiles when one examines the effect of their vile activities. The victim of child sexual abuse is likely to suffer deep and extremely traumatic effects as a teenager and as an adult. They suffer from multiple personalities, bouts of alcohol consumption to the point of feeling suicidal, depression and elation, nervous breakdown, long periods of life spent alone in self-imposed isolation from human beings due to mistrust and disbelief in humanity. They discard friendships like a spoilt child throws away sweet papers and are unable to see the difference between reality and fantasy. They live most of their lives in a state of fear. The argument that people who inflict this should not be controlled is akin to condemning many children to a life of no self-esteem or self-worth, a sense of hopelessness, isolation and difficulty with relationships.
The argument is often advanced that a register will leave those who are on it open to attack. This must be controlled. The Bill provides that access to information be restricted to the Garda Síochána. This information can be disclosed only with the permission of a designated High Court judge who will also decide to whom the information can be given. This would provide a balance between the safety of the person on the register and the protection of children.
In December 1997 the Irish Independent revealed that the Garda uncovered a major paedophile ring which has been operating in the west for several years. Middle-aged and elderly men had been targeting boys in their early teens and using them for sex. The Garda believe at least a dozen men have had an involvement since the late 1980s and that members of the ring sought to win the boys' confidence and eventually proposition them. In many cases the approaches were made in or around public toilets in Galway city centre. Other boys were targeted near the promenade in Salthill. A boy who agreed to go off with a man was usually invited into his car. The Irish Independent report stated that the men drove to a remote area outside the city and sexual activity took place in the back of the vehicle. The boys were sometimes rewarded with money while information on their names or whereabouts was later passed among the ring.
A number of boys were subsequently followed by other men and propositioned after the adults indicated they had a mutual acquaintance. In many cases the boys were from poor backgrounds and came from families where the home circumstances were far from ideal. They were easy targets.
While such paedophile rings are dreadful and disgusting, it prompts a still more dreadful question. Is it the only one of its kind? We cannot afford not to answer this question because there is a strong possibility that more paedophile rings exist than the group whose vile activities were disclosed in the Irish Independent in December. It has long been known that paedophiles are well organised and have a number of such rings operating throughout Europe and more recently on the Internet. This is particularly disturbing as innocent people can access information by mistake. It is easy for a paedophile ring to create a home-page titled under an agreed name. The ring can decide to include child pornography under a pre-determined though generally innocent generic heading. Tracking this ring takes law enforcement agencies significant time and resources.
When the processing has eventually been done the paedophile ring has moved to their next home-page. It is worth noting that many paedophiles do not use hard-core pornography to sexually excite themselves. What would be considered innocent photographs of children playing on a beach or having a bath can be intensely erotic to a paedophile. This matter was discussed at length recently on Second Stage of the Child Pornography Bill.
Society must protect itself from such activities. We must start by instituting a register of child sex offenders as outlined in the Bill. The threat is real and we must have real action to counter it.
The provision of such a register of child sex offenders is a new approach in our justice system. It is absolutely necessary and I believe everybody accepts that among criminals paedophiles are in a special category. We can distinguish their sexual activity from that of violent criminals. Research shows that paedophiles are highly manipulative and clever and often their offending behaviour intensifies as they get older. They are in a particularly dangerous category, and there is a need for a register to tackle the problem. One of the difficulties of dealing with hardened paedophiles is that they do not consider their activities to be wrong. Hardened paedophiles believe the rest of us set unfair parameters on their sexual behaviour. They do not believe that having sex with children is wrong. Many believe it is right and that we are wrong in trying to restrain their activity.
That is what makes them especially dangerous and that is why they are so clever and manipulative.
Section 1 of the Bill is the interpretation section. Section 2 provides for the short title and commencement. Section 3 deals with the sexual offenders who are subject to the notification requirements, which includes both those convicted of a sexual offence or those found guilty but insane in respect of such an offence.
Section 3(2) outlines the main criteria which should underline the judge's decision. The principal objective of this legislation is to act as a deterrent against recidivism. Consequently, those whom the court considers particularly likely to reoffend are specifically targeted by this measure. Aside from the offender's history, the court, in ruling on the matter, shall also consider the degree of access he or she is likely to have to children in his or her social or domestic activities.
Section 3(2) provides that the court should consider the offender's private profile, which means making a professional assessment of whether the offender has regular contact with children in the course of his or her private life, and social profile, which means making a professional assessment of whether the offender has regular contact with children in the course of his or her work or recreational pursuits. Section 3(2)(f) provides for judicial variations of the notification requirements where there is evidence of rehabilitation or deterioration in the convicted offender's behaviour. This introduces an essential element of flexibility into the process.
Section 4 deals with the notification requirements. The governor of a prison or place of detention or the medical director of the hospital in which the offender was last held must inform the Garda Commissioner of the date of release from the institution or place of detention or hospital of a person who is subject to the notification requirements. The notification requirements are stringent. An offender must report to the Garda Síochána before the end of seven days, beginning with the date of release, and upon registration the offender's personal details — address, fingerprints and a signed photograph — must be submitted to the Garda Síochána. When the offender changes his name or address he or she must notify a local Garda station within seven days of this development. If he or she spends a total of 14 days in a calender year at an address other than his or her residential address in the Republic of Ireland, he or she must give the address to the local station.
Section 5 provides that young sexual offenders between the ages of 17 and 21 should not be exempt from notification requirements as the judge can take all circumstances of the case, including the age of the offender, into account when ruling on this issue. It would be better to omit offenders under the age of 17 years from the provisions of the Bill. Specialists working in the area claim that this group have significantly better rates of rehabilitation. Many of the offenders in this category may not be aware of the illegality of their behaviour.
It is submitted that there could also be a problem with enforcement in the event of the offender breaching the notification requirements. United Kingdom legislation makes a person enjoying parental responsibility for the young offender liable in the event of the young offender breaching the notification requirements. This might not be acceptable in Ireland. However, section 5 provides that the Bill shall apply to a sentence of detention in St. Patrick's Institution.
Section 6 provides that a person convicted of an offence under the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1966 shall be obliged to comply with the notification requirements of this legislation. Under section 7, a person subject to a statutory notification under United Kingdom law for a sexual offence perpetrated against a child shall, within 48 hours of taking up residence in the State, provide a member in charge of his or her local Garda station with the information specified in that section.
Such a person shall be deemed to be resident in the State if he or she has been resident in the State or is planning to reside in the State for a period of 14 days or more from the date on which he or she entered the State. The person subject to notification requirements under United Kingdom law has four days to inform the member in charge of any Garda station where there is a change in the information originally given to the Garda station. Such an individual shall comply with the notification requirements described in sections 7, 1 and 4 for as long as he is subject to statutory notification requirements under United Kingdom law.
The Minister and the Government should promote among their EU colleagues the establishment of a European-wide register. It is important that there is international cross-reference between such registers. However, because of the ease of communication it is important that paedophiles travelling from the North of Ireland and the UK are included under this Bill.
Section 8 deals with breaches of notification requirements. A person who so breaches shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, or on indictment to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.
Section 9 deals with disclosure of information on the register. It is essential that access to the register be confined to the Garda Síochána. Only the Garda can make an application to a designated High Court judge to lift this requirement in exceptional circumstances. This procedure is similar to that employed where the Garda must make a judicial application for a telephone tap and is designed to protect the constitutional right to privacy of the individual. Such restrictive access to the register should reassure offenders that they have nothing to fear from vigilantes, thereby increasing the efficacy of this Bill through improved compliance rates.
The greater awareness and huge emphasis given to child sexual abuse and the social revulsion at such abuse does not confer a licence on people effectively to take the law into their own hands. Repugnance for child sexual abuse cannot be a justification for mob rule.
There can be few more reviled figures in society today than the persons who sexually offend children. In the past, such men were often tolerated and classified as dirty old men whom it was better to avoid. They were rarely, if ever, prosecuted. The change in awareness of the damage done to children by such people has changed society's attitude to them. However, offenders are released from prison without any real co-ordination between the various statutory services.
I ask the House to support this Bill. It recognises that nothing could be more hateful than sexual offences against the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society. The Bill contains important provisions to tackle a problem which is the cause of widespread concern. Its enactment will mean the Garda Síochána will have up-to-date information on the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders and will be able to use that information for the investigation and prevention of crime. The registration requirements will be a powerful deterrent to offenders who will be aware that, from the moment they register an address or change of address, the Garda will be aware of their presence and will have them in their sights. Those who are tempted not to register will be aware they are committing a further serious offence.
The provisions of the Bill are tough and I make no apology for that. They will place some offenders under an obligation to report their movements for the rest of their lives and that is as it should be. I commend the Bill to the House on the basis that it strengthens the power of the Garda Síochána to tackle the scourge of child sexual abuse. Our children deserve no less.
I congratulate Deputy Neville on his initiative in introducing this Bill. It is a welcome measure that will address the fears which have been raised throughout the country that Ireland is fast becoming a safe haven for paedophiles.
Last December, newspaper reports revealed that four paedophiles from Derry had moved to Cork in an effort to avoid the sex offenders register in the UK. These reports caused serious concern and worry among parents in Cork, particularly in my constituency. They feared that convicted paedophiles were living within their community and were concerned that there was no system whereby they could be monitored and kept in check. Deputy Neville has described the horrendous nature of the crime of sexual abuse of children and one can understand the worry of such parents. How are they to protect their children when known paedophiles are living unchecked in their communities?
They cannot allow children to go to the shop, be five minutes late in collecting them from school or let them play outside on their own in green open spaces. They have to protect them. Parents will be somewhat appeased by the introduction of this Bill which I hope the Government will accept.
Parents in the vicinity of Dillon's Cross, Cork city, are in a state of high alert following the horrific rape of an eight year old in broad daylight in recent weeks. The person who committed this horrendous crime remains at large. All the research shows that he is likely to reoffend. A sex offender's register may not have prevented this attack or necessarily help the Garda Síochána with their inquiries but if such a register was in place, they would have some idea about the nature of the people living in an area and would be able to monitor known offenders.
This Bill would require the registration of offenders convicted by Irish courts of certain sexual offences against children committed inside and outside the jurisdiction. The convicting judge would decide when handing down sentence whether the convicted offender's name should be entered in the register on release from detention and the length of time it should remain on it. I welcome the fact that members of the Judiciary will make this decision and I hope the Minister will provide a comprehensive training package to enable members of the Judiciary to fulfil this role in a meaningful way.
The notification requirements laid down are stringent and thorough. The Bill provides that access to the register would be confined to the Garda Síochána. That is right and proper. There are systems in place for the exchange of suspicions of alleged abuse between the Garda Síochána and the health boards.
I welcome the fact that offenders convicted in the United Kingdom will be required to register with the Garda Síochána within 48 hours of taking up residence in Ireland. The UK Sex Offenders Act came into force last September. The statistics show that, to date, only 12 per cent of convicted sex offenders in Britain have failed to register with their local police force. Under further legislation they face a six month jail sentence for not informing the authorities of their current addresses.
Extra resources are required by the Garda Síochána for monitoring the most dangerous paedophiles once released from jail. The Minister will have to address this issue in conjunction with the Garda authorities. A recent article in the Sunday Tribune highlighted the fact that more than 150 sex offenders are due to be released from jail by the year 2000. They include some of the country's most harmful child abusers. The impending release of paedophiles will instil fear and worry in communities, especially since Arbour Hill is the only prison to offer a sex offenders' treatment programme. Only 30 prisoners have availed of this treatment since the introduction of the programme in 1994.
I am aware that the issue of treatment for sex offenders is a subject for another debate but I urge the Minister to address the issue. Treatment programmes must be introduced in all prisons where sex offenders are held. There should be mandatory follow-up programmes on their release into the community. Treatment for offenders in the younger age group of 17 to 20 is crucially important as research shows that this group responds best and has the greatest chance of reforming their ways.
I urge the Government to support the Bill which would go some way towards protecting our children from convicted sex offenders. I urge it to provide the necessary backup resources for the Garda Síochána, training for members of the Judiciary and treatment programmes for sex offenders in our prisons. Acceptance of the Bill would go some way towards allaying the worries and fears of the parents of young children.
I congratulate Deputy Neville on introducing this Bill. My only criticism is that it should have been introduced a long time ago. It is, nevertheless, timely. We have heard that many sex offenders are due to be released from jail. Are we to allow these people to wander freely in the community? One more child abused is one too many. We have to gather the resources of the State to fight this growing evil. This should have been done a long time ago. I have four children. As Deputy Clune said, many people live in fear that something awful, terrible and unspeakable could happen to one of their children.
It is horrific to consider that this country could become a safe haven for paedophiles. As a former counsellor, I can testify that for many paedophiles there is no treatment or cure. They are devious, clever and well organised. They work so that they can get close to children and gain their confidence. We must act immediately. I urge the Government to accept this Bill, even if it is in need of amendment, but we should not waste time as the matter is too important. These people, if one could call them that, use the Internet to spread their evil and communicate with each other. It is important that the Garda Síochána have the necessary resources and power to keep track of them. At the very least, it might act as a deterrent and prevent offenders coming here from other jurisdictions. We have enough of our own without attracting others from other jurisdictions. We have been told that Britain has put its house in order to some extent. It is time we put our house in order. I ask the Minister to provide the necessary resources as soon as possible to implement the Bill.
We must not pretend that the problem does not exist. As a Deputy from Cork, I am horrified that paedophiles head south, the furthest point from Northern Ireland where a register is in place. It was reported recently that a paedophile was living in east Cork. People were afraid. We turn to the Minister and the Government to support the Bill. I am confident the Minister will agree with the spirit of the Bill, that it is timely and should have been introduced a long time ago. It is important to send a strong message from this House to these people that they are not welcome and that if they do decide to come, they will be monitored, tracked and controlled. It is frightening to think that people can gather together to plan to sexually abuse children.
The Bill is balanced in that it safeguards the rights of individuals. It is important, however, because it puts the rights of children to the fore. I beg the Government to accept it in the name of humanity.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on Deputy Neville's Bill. I commend the Deputy for the work he has put into this Bill. I acknowledge his interest in introducing effective legislation in this area over a protracted period. Having introduced a number of Private Members' Bills in Opposition, I can fully appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into preparing such legislation. It is something that should not go unacknowledged.
Having said that, however, while I accept fully the desirability of establishing a sex offenders' register, I will, for reasons that will presently become clear, be opposing the Bill.
The primary aim of the Bill, as set out in its accompanying explanatory memorandum, is to require registration of offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. Most responsible people would agree that this can play an important part in managing the risk of child sexual abuse. In fact, the need for some type of register is beyond doubt. The detail, however, such as whose names should be on it, how long those names should remain on it, who should decide in what circumstances, if any, those names should be removed and who should have access to it, are still matters for debate and decision.
An Action Programme for the Millennium contains a commitment to introduce a register of sexual offenders. I am fully committed to implementing the Government's intentions in this regard. For some time now my Department has been carrying out a detailed study of the issues which arise from a system of registration of sex offenders. That study has been undertaken in the context of a discussion paper on the law on sexual offences which I will publish in a week or two.
Deputy Neville is well aware that the publication of the discussion paper is imminent as it has been made clear to this House on a number of occasions that work on it was at an advanced stage.
The Deputy's Bill is somewhat minimalist in that it concentrates on only one aspect of registration, namely, the requirement to register per se. The discussion paper, on the other hand, will contain a thorough analysis of the many other complex issues involved in the setting up and operation of a registration system. The paper will, I hope, stimulate a public debate and encourage interested persons, professionals and bodies to make submissions to me and my Department on any changes to the law they believe necessary. It will thus provide a backdrop against which all aspects of a register can be assessed.
I am keen to ensure that, in debating this Bill, we do not pre-empt the outcome of the debate that will undoubtedly ensue from the discussion paper and, in particular, that we do not deprive people of their opportunity to participate in the consultation process. With the publication of the discussion paper now imminent, this debate should help to stimulate an interest in aspects of the law on sexual offences, in particular a sex offenders' register and, as such, is welcome.
In light of the outcome of the consultation process following publication of the discussion paper, I will bring forward proposals to Government without delay for whatever legislative measures may be deemed necessary and appropriate.
In the meantime, I would like to comment on the proposals before us. There are some good, or potentially good, aspects to the Bill but it raises as many questions as it answers and, while I do not wish to overemphasise its drafting weaknesses, some would have consequences that I feel obliged to point out.
Section 1 of the Bill contains the words and definitions used in the Bill. The word "child" is not actually used in the Bill, but I presume it has been included with a view to limiting the scope of the Bill to persons convicted of sexual offences against children. The long title and explanatory memorandum certainly seem to suggest that is the intention.
However, the Bill, as drafted, would have the opposite effect. It would require the registration of all offenders convicted of the sexual offences listed in the Schedule, regardless of whether they were committed against children. While I am not sure if this is what Deputy Neville intended, it nevertheless raises an important question concerning the scope of any system of registration and who should be required to be registered.
We should think carefully about the appropriateness of confining the register to persons convicted of sexual offences against children. A case can well be made for a more expansive register dealing with a wider category of sex offender. While I do not want to prejudge the issue in advance of the consultation process, of which the discussion paper will be the catalyst, an important factor in considering the scope of a register may prove to be the likelihood of reoffending and not just the age of the victim or the nature of the offence. This is, as I have intimated, one of the elements being addressed in the context of the discussion paper.
Moving to the other definitions in section 1, the concepts of "domestic profile" and "social profile" could lead to problems. For one thing, what does "regular" mean in each definition? An event that occurs on one day a year every year could be said to be regular. Also, what does "professional assessment" mean? I would have thought that evidence from the prosecuting garda ought to be sufficient in some cases, but the Bill might rule this out.
I do not want to dwell on drafting points, but I should also mention that if, indeed, a sex offenders' register were to cover persons found "guilty but insane", then consideration might need to be given to the question of providing also for the case where a person charged with a sexual offence relevant to such a register was unfit to plead to the offence charged.
Turning to section 3, I note that subsection (1) is taken from section 1 of the UK Sex Offenders Act, with the omission of persons who are cautioned by the police. The reference in subsection (1) to persons "convicted", however, would mean that some non-custodial sentences would also come within the scope of the Bill. This seems to conflict with the requirement under section 4 of the Bill for persons to register upon release from detention or imprisonment.
As to the type of sexual offences applicable, I will deal with these later when discussing the Schedule.
Subsection (2)(c) of section 3 deals with the length of time the name of the convicted offender remains on the register. This seems to be left to the court's discretion. Subparagraph (e) would require the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, by regulation, to set out guidelines for the court to follow. However, the section is silent on the nature of such guidelines or the criteria that should apply. The Bill seems to be deficient in this respect because it would be left open to legal challenge as an unlawful and unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. This House will know that Ministers cannot make regulations in a vacuum or on foot of vague primary legislation. At the very least, it would be necessary to give an indication of time limits and criteria applicable to a person's registration.
The United Kingdom has dealt with this matter by way of primary legislation. Under the 1997 Act the length of registration is determined by how the case is disposed of. The Act sets out applicable lengths of registration on a graded scale proportional to the gravity of the punishment. At the lower end of the scale a police caution or a non-custodial penalty results in registration for five years. At the other end of the scale, imprisonment for 30 months or more results in registration for an indefinite period. Furthermore, the duration of registration is halved for offenders aged under 18 years at the time of conviction.
Subparagraphs (b) to (d) of section 3 deal with the court hearing evidence and making its decision. The Bill omits to say at what stage in the proceedings the court would attend to this.
The implication is that the decision would be made after conviction and determination of sentence but that is not clear. If that is the case, the legislation would need to specify it. However, would that be the best time to make such a decision? People change, even sex offenders. What incentive would there be for a sex offender to undergo treatment while in prison if it made no difference to his or her name being placed on a register?
I want to make two points on section 4. It would be better for the prison governor to notify the Garda Síochána in advance of a pending release. Notification after the event could prove too late and would defeat the purpose. It may be that advance notification was in fact intended but this is not clear from the drafting of subsection (1)(a).
The second point relates to the requirement in subsection (1)(b) for the offender to physically report to his or her local Garda station within days of his or her release from prison. I am not convinced that actual attendance at a Garda station should be a necessary prerequisite to the registration procedure getting under way. Section 4(5) proposes that a person may opt to furnish the information to the Garda either orally or in writing. The authenticity of fingerprints provided through the post would be open to question. There is also the point that fingerprints would be available to the Garda already since the time of investigation of the offence and charge. It appears that the nature of the information to be furnished or registered and the mechanics of how information should be furnished would need to be thought through.
Section 6 would bring certain child sex tourism offences within the scope of the Bill. The offences mentioned are, by virtue of the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996, treated in law as if they were offences committed in this jurisdiction. I query, therefore, why the Bill has dealt with them in a separate section as opposed to including them in the list of offences set out in the Schedule.
Section 7 would make persons who are subject to registration requirements under the United Kingdom 1997 law liable to notify the Garda upon their taking up residence here. The explanatory memorandum describes this provision as an imperative for paedophiles who seek to escape the rigours of the United Kingdom Act. I appreciate the motives behind the section but I have some reservations about its feasibility in practical terms. We should not lose sight of the fact that failure to notify in the United Kingdom is already an offence under United Kingdom law punishable by up to six months imprisonment, not three years as would be the case under this Bill. We should also bear in mind that well established channels of communication exist between the Garda and the United Kingdom police authorities whereby information and intelligence is exchanged on an operational basis. This seems to be an area where co-operation not only on a bilateral but on a multilateral or European level would be appropriate.
As regards section 8, I have already mentioned that the penalty maxima for a breach of the notification requirements far exceeds those provided for in the United Kingdom. Under the 1997 United Kingdom Act, the offence is summary only and punishable by up to six months in prison. Under the Bill the offence is punishable by up to three years imprisonment on indictment. This could mean that a sexual offender in breach of the registration requirement, depending on the seriousness of the original offence, could end up spending more time in prison for the breach than he or she did for the original sexual offence. From the point of view of proportionality of punishment, therefore, the section is seriously suspect.
Another aspect of this provision which gives me cause for concern is that it takes no account of the age of the person found to be in breach. This is in contrast with the provision in the United Kingdom legislation where persons under 18 can be fined only and not imprisoned. I assume that it followed a deliberate decision during the course of drafting. Deputies will know that the Children Bill, 1996, which is currently awaiting Committee Stage in this House, proposes that no person under the age of 18 should be sentenced to imprisonment. I am interested to know the reason Deputy Neville is now proposing a departure from that policy.
One other consequence of section 8 is that it could potentially lead to the imprisonment of a prison governor or a medical director of a hospital for three years for failure on his or her part to notify the Garda of a sexual offender's date of release in accordance with section 4(1)(a). That may not be the intent but it is certainly the effect.
Section 9 would confine access to the register to the Garda. It proposes that disclosures to anyone other than the Garda could only be made after application to the High Court and then only in accordance with the limits laid down by that court. The section is markedly lacking in any appreciation of the function a register should serve and the purposes for which information contained in the register might legitimately be used.
In this regard it might be useful to refer to existing practices within the Garda Síochána. The Garda Criminal Records Office maintains an index of all persons convicted of criminal offences, including persons convicted of sexual offences. These records may be disclosed to third parties, such as the health boards or other prospective employers, with the consent of the individual concerned. There are also times when the Garda need to share information with other law enforcement bodies both inside and outside the State.
Section 9 would appear to outlaw these current practices if the register proposed in the Bill is intended to replace the present arrangements, at least in so far as the offences covered by the Bill are concerned. It gives the impression of a register lying idle serving no useful function. I hasten to add that I am certainly not advocating the gratuitous dissemination of information on such a register. Neither do I want a situation where the register is a public document and prurient members of the public can visit their local town hall or surf the Internet to discover which of their neighbours are sex offenders.
The information on the register would be of a highly sensitive and confidential nature. It should only be disclosed when relevant and necessary in a formal and controlled manner on a case by case basis with safeguards to protect the individual concerned. Each and every disclosure would require a balance to be struck between the legal and constitutional rights of the offender and the protection of other persons. The requirement in the Bill to resort to the High Court every time a disclosure is anticipated would tilt that balance unduly.
The Schedule to the Bill contains a list of offences which would be subject to the requirement to register. As I said earlier, there is some confusion in the Bill as to whether a paedophile register or a more general sex offenders register is being proposed. On the one hand, the long title and the explanatory memorandum refer only to sexual offences against children. On the other hand, the Schedule and the short title deal with sexual offences against persons of every age.
There are other aspects to the Schedule which would require clarification. I note the offences of unlawful carnal knowledge of girls under 15 and 17 years of age are not mentioned. As those offences would be ones with which paedophiles, in particular, would be likely to be charged, I am surprised at this omission. Neither is there any mention of incest by a female aged 17 years or more, though incest by males is listed. Careful consideration needs to be given to the question of the offences to which a register should apply.
I have shown this House has some way to go yet before approving legislation in this area. The issue of a register of the nature we are discussing raises complex, sensitive and often constitutional concerns. The Bill before us is narrow in focus in that it touches on only some aspects of such a register and many of its underlying policy considerations can be questioned. Issues, such as who would maintain the register, whose names should appear on it and for how long, who should have access to it and in what circumstances should such access be granted and disclosures made, are not cut and dried. Issues related to who decides to place names on a register and, if and when appropriate, to remove them, are also not as straight-forward as this Bill would lead one to believe. Other important related issues, such as post-release supervision and rehabilitative support of sex offenders, are also relevant to the decisions I will take in the light of the discussion paper. That is not to say I disagree with the underlying aim of this Bill. On the contrary, I have already taken the initiative in this area by prioritising the publication of the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences.
While I commend Deputy Neville for his efforts in bringing forward this Bill, apart from the frailties I mentioned, it has the appearance of running ahead of the consultation process that will follow the publication of the discussion paper and thus depriving interested persons of the opportunity to put forward their views. I am not prepared to operate on that basis. I strongly believe this House owes it to those interested in the subject matter of this Bill to have the benefit of their views taken into account in whatever legislation is introduced in this House on the matter. The discussion paper will set a time limit for the receipt of views, and I assure the House there will be no delay in acting on them and bringing forward fully thought out, comprehensive proposals for legislative reform. For the reasons I outlined the Government opposes this Bill.
I commend Deputy Neville on introducing this Bill and giving us the opportunity to debate the registration of sexual offenders. I am disappointed the Minister will not accept it but I welcome his indication that he will produce a discussion paper and there will be a time limit for the receipt of views. I urge him to consult widely and to ensure there will be no delay in introducing effective legislation.
This is a timely and important debate which gives us an opportunity to examine ways of reducing the opportunity for sexual offenders to repeat their heinous offences. It is not possible to describe the sense of terrible shock felt in our society in recent years over the type of revelations made particularly when people view our society as a caring one that values and protects our children. People have to come to terms with the fact that appalling offences occurred over many years. We must introduce effective legislation that deals with these offences and does not try to hide them. We must learn from other countries that have introduced effective legislation in this area.
Over the recent past the frightening level of abuse and exploitation inflicted, particularly on children, in Irish society has been laid bare. For too many years we sought to ignore these offences and pretend they did not happen. That attitude effectively facilitated the brutal acts perpetrated by sexual offenders. The revelations of recent years exposed the dangers of that attitude. That attitude ignored the plight of those who suffered and, in effect, offered shelter and support to the criminals who perpetrated those acts. As legislators, it is our duty to provide protective legislation that will no longer allow such things to happen.
We must learn from the hurt and pain experienced by so many in the past, from the young boys and girls whose childhoods have been ripped apart and from the women who have been savagely raped and left for dead by sexual offenders. As legislators, there is an onus on us to design legislation and administrative systems that seek to protect society and to ensure criminals, who have perpetrated acts of abuse, are effectively prevented from doing so again.
Earlier speakers mentioned that legislation in this area is in place in the UK and some people are travelling to this jurisdiction because we do not have such effective legislation in place. That means the need to introduce legislation in this area as soon as possible is even more urgent. We must also examine ways to rehabilitate and educate offenders in so far as is humanly possible. It is ironic that when we are debating this Bill the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stands over the shameful neglect of our prison system, nowhere more so than in the appalling failure to provide rehabilitation places for sex offenders.
There was extensive media coverage of a case today, of the horrific details of the offences committed by the offender and of the life he had led up to the time of the offences. Apparently that offender sought rehabilitation and treatment while in prison, but was not able to receive it. It is extremely important that we should also examine the question of rehabilitation and the complex needs of people who have offended in this way. They are often people who have been horrifically treated in their childhood. We cannot deal with one aspect of this matter without dealing with the rehabilitation, where possible, of offenders.
The Bill offers ideas as to how we could go some way towards providing the protection we need for our society. From my reading of it, it appears only those offenders convicted of sexual offences against children would be liable for inclusion on a register. When Deputy Neville is replying to the Bill, he might indicate if that provision has a broader meaning, but from my understanding of it protection would be provided only in relation to offences against children. That would apply to offences committed inside and outside this jurisdiction and would allow the courts to identify those particularly liable to repeat the crime of sexual abuse for inclusion on a register. This is a complex issue and we must take care to ensure that proposals we make are effective, will provide real solutions and respect fundamental values. A balance of values must be found in any legislation that will be introduced in this area.
The Minister indicated he will produce a discussion paper and it is extremely important there should be consultation on this. The question of how such a register would be used needs to be carefully examined. This Bill restricts the use of a register exclusively to the Garda.
In doing that, it may be that we will not be in a position to effectively deal with the consequences of sexual abuse. The role of health boards and the probation service is important in ensuring not only that the offender does not repeat the horrific crime of sexual abuse, but making sure that the offender is actually supervised and steered from further crimes. It is extremely important that there is co-operation between the Garda, the health boards and the probation service if we are to effectively use such a register. In restricting it solely to the Garda, we should examine whether there are appropriate people within the health boards and probation service who should also have access to the register in particular cases.
The Bill does not name the rank and file gardaí who will have access to the register. However, it should specifically restrict access to those gardaí who have a specific reason to consult the register as it should not be a free for all for members of the Garda force. This House needs no reminding of the grim past which has dogged so many young lives. Sexual abuse of children has been widespread within families, within communities, within institutions and in social outlets. The harrowing story of the McColgan family and the revelations of sexual abuse perpetrated by people to whom children and parents gave absolute trust — I include members of churches, swimming clubs, etc. — have left many in shock. In many cases the abuser is somebody in whom trust is placed. Often they are people who can be persuasive that that trust is justified. Therefore, it can be extremely difficult to withstand that kind of person who has the skills to encourage trust when, in fact, that trust is being abused.
During the World Congress on the Sexual Abuse of Children held in Stockholm in 1996, UNICEF produced shocking figures in relation to child exploitation and abuse. These figures showed that over one million children are entering the prostitution trade each year. Many of these become deeply traumatised and hurt by the acts perpetrated on them.
The horrific details of cases across Europe, particularly in Belgium where the vices of Marc Dutroux numbed a nation, point out the necessity of not only strong national laws to prevent this abuse, but also of the need for maximum co-operation between states. This Bill provides a means to ensure that Ireland does not become a hideaway for paedophiles seeking to escape from the registers in their nation. It ensures that Ireland can be put on an equal footing with those EU member states which have come out hard and strong against child sexual abuse.
Deputy Neville indicated the use of the Internet in this regard. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to control paedophile rings using the Internet but every effort must be made through international co-operation to exercise control.
The question of legislation in relation to sex tourism has been dealt with, and I remember taking part in a debate in Seanad Éireann in that regard. It is important that we protect children in other jurisdictions as well as in this one, and ensure people are not going abroad to perpetrate abuse on young children in other countries.
Sexual offenders are, without doubt, one of the most difficult groups to supervise in the community. However, it has been cited time and again that one of the most effective ways of ensuring that offenders do not repeat such acts is through co-operation with the police and other agencies so that they can be monitored and supervised. The role of a register of offenders is, therefore, relevant in both preventing recidivism and in maximising the opportunity to afford treatment for the offender. Restricting the register to the Garda may not offer that maximum level of protection. We should consider limited access to the register for other relevant professionals, being careful to have the balance of rights so that there is no abuse of it and people's human rights are not violated in that regard.
The arguments for a register are clear. If we do not know where offenders live, to where they travel and how much access they have to children, we simply cannot uphold our function to act in the best interest of society
On the introduction of a number of key Bills in Britain, including that of a Sex Offenders Act, which provides for a register, Joyce Quinn said: "If sex offenders are not accommodated in this way [that is, through across the board co-operation with key institutions] we are in fact increasing the danger to the community by driving them away from safe and secure circumstances where they can be supervised, to a life underground where they may resurface, unknown and pose an even greater threat to children".
The recent appearance by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, before the UN committee on the rights of the child and the subsequent report of that committee point to our failure, as a society, to provide adequate resources in terms of services and protection for our children. The UN made a number of points in its report that the Government must address. These shortfalls include the lack of co-ordination between agencies whose task it is to protect children and the lack of an ombudsman for children's rights.
We must send out a signal to people involved in the sexual abuse of children that the State will not tolerate their heinous crimes. For that reason, the Labour Party will support the Bill on Second Stage although we would not endorse each and every proposal therein. I congratulate Deputy Neville on bringing forward the Bill and on moving the debate forward as a result. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept this Bill on Second Stage, but I welcome the fact that he is introducing a discussion paper in the immediate future. I encourage him to waste no time in bringing forward effective legislation.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this Private Members' Bill, the Sexual Offenders Registration Bill, 1998 as it is useful to have a discussion on it. Everybody in this House agrees with the underlying objectives behind this Bill, but we have a difficulty with it being presented in this form at this time.
The question we are looking at here is the sexual abuse of children. In recent years this has become prevalent in Ireland and we have discussed it in the House on previous occasions. I take the view — it is a personal view and there is no empirical evidence to support it or otherwise — that we are only lifting the lid on what was happening for a long number of years and which had not been reported. It was being covered up. It is a sign of our openness and maturity that we are now able to face these issues which have been underneath our society for so long. It is an old problem, but I am pleased to see that we are now starting to deal with it for the first time. It is a compliment to this generation that we are prepared to do that. It is a difficult and painful issue for families and the victims who have been so abused over the years.
It is important to note when we see so many cases reported of people accused of abusing children it comes out in their previous history that it happened to them when they were youngsters. This is further evidence that this issue should have been dealt with a long number of years ago.
I especially thank the media on this whole issue because they have been highlighting this problem. Maybe some people, particularly older people, find it uncomfortable to listen to it every day, but the media has pursued the issue relentlessly. They are to be complimented for highlighting the issue to the extent that people cannot walk away from it any more and pretend it is not happening. It forces us into the reality of dealing with the situation and in that context Deputy Neville brought forward this Bill. It is a sign of the times that we are having an open and public discussion in Parliament on this issue. This type of debate would not have happened many years ago.
It is not just an Irish problem. It is a European and worldwide problem. We are all aware of the issues in Belgium in recent times and the gravity of the problem is recognised at the highest level of Government there. Not only is it happening in various countries, it is now transnational. There is now child pornography on the Internet, a new phenomenon. It is a whole new experience for us as legislators to face up to. It is an issue that will probably take us a long time to come to grips with because it involves new, evolving, fast-changing technology, something with which legislators around the world have not come to grips.
Some of the difficulties that will arise will relate to where the offence has been committed, whether it is where the pornography is produced, where it is put on the Internet, where the server provides it to customers, where it is transmitted or received, or in the house of the individual who uses the Internet facility. I do not know the answers to those questions and the best minds in the world could not give definitive answers. This is an issue that cannot be tackled in isolation by individual countries. It is a wide issue which requires a worldwide response.
Many questions have been raised about access to the register. If we are to have a meaningful register there must be ready access to it. There is no point having a hidden register because that would add further complication to the system. An open register will, however, cause problems. Those issues have not been fully teased out in the Bill introduced by Deputy Neville. While opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, Fianna Fáil supports the underlying objectives of the register. The Government action programme prioritises the introduction of such a register, which is welcome. The Bill is premature and pre-empts the discussion paper on the law on sexual offences which the Minister will publish shortly. Nevertheless, it serves a useful purpose in bringing the issue before the House. A register of sexual offenders cannot be considered in isolation from other related issues which the discussion paper will address. One of the basic problems with the Bill is that, while its focus is well intentioned, it is too narrow in its approach.
The Bill is modelled on the UK Sex Offenders Act, 1997. The UK Act was preceded by a Home Office consultation paper inviting comments from the public, in the same way that the forthcoming discussion paper will invite comments and stimulate and inform public debate on the matter. It is important that is done at this stage. As we are all aware, on issues of sexual offences and sexual morality it is difficult to get consensus. There should be informed public debate on this issue before specific proposals are finalised. It is important we get the legislation right rather than concentrate on its quick passage through the House.
The scope of the Bill is confused in some respects. I think it was Deputy Neville's intention to limit it to persons convicted of sex crimes against children, or so-called paedophiles, but as drafted the Bill would cover all sexual offences. The scope of the register needs to be carefully considered. The discussion paper will deal with this matter and raise issues for debate without taking a particular stance.
The explanatory memorandum states that the main objective of the Bill is to deter offenders from recidivism. Some of the information on this matter is not based on fact. There has not been sufficient research into this issue to draw conclusions on it. This matter should be further investigated and statistics sought not only in regard to Ireland but also other countries. We need to know the reoffence rate in this regard.
The question of a treatment programme for sex offenders in prison is relevant to discussion on this matter. This issue came into the public arena today. I hope greater resources will be provided in this area. It is not sufficient that there are only ten places in prisons for treatment of sex offenders. It is important that that number is increased because an increasing number of the prison population are there for committing sex offences. That issue will have to be addressed. Neglect of this area is not the fault of the last or the current Government. This issue has come into the public arena only in recent times and we are starting to face up to it and provide the necessary framework and resources to deal with the problems. There will be improvements in this regard in the period ahead.
Drafting of the Bill appears to have been hurried and flawed. The substance needs to be thrashed out in greater detail. Section 1 of the UK 1997 Act covers persons cautioned by the police and non-custodial sanctions. This Bill is confined to persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention, or found guilty but insane. Under section 3 of the Bill there is a requirement for the Minister to introduce regulations and secondary legislation setting out guidelines for a court to follow in determining how long a person will be on the register. This could be struck down as an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Executive. The question of how long a person should be on the register and at what stage, if ever, the person's name should be cleared must be thrashed out in further detail. There should be greater transparency on this issue. Primary legislation should set down some indication of the time limit applicable to this matter. It should not be deferred, as suggested in the Bill. The UK Act dealt with this point in primary legislation, but it is not clear why it is not dealt with in this Bill. Perhaps Deputy Neville is not happy with the UK approach, but given that he followed the UK Act in such detail in many respects I am curious to know why he did not follow it in this case.
Section 4 is modelled closely on section 2 of the UK Act, but that Act does not require finger-printing or the provision of a photograph. The mechanisms on how the requisite information is to be collated are not clear from the Bill. Subsection (1)(b) states that the offenders shall report to the local Garda station, but subsection (5)(b) refers to written notification. We must be consistent in our approach to this issue. I compliment Deputy Neville on the Bill, but there are a number of technical faults in it and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to pass it at this stage.
Section 7 deals only with persons subject to registration requirements in the UK. This is one of the biggest flaws in the Bill. As has been stated, this is not just an Irish or an English problem, it is a worldwide problem. I do not know the reason for the suggestion that registration requirements relate specifically to the UK. What about other countries that have registration systems? They need to be considered and provided for. Before finalising debate on this issue there must be co-ordination at European level.
On a wider issue, the provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty on greater co-operation between police forces in various European countries through Interpol will, in time, provide greater scope for preventing transnational crimes. Again I highlight the question of Internet crimes, crimes on computers to which many people have access.
The penalty of up to three years' imprisonment for breach of the notification requirement seems excessive. To make prison governors subject to the same sanction for failing to comply with the requirement to notify the Garda Commissioner in writing as laid down in section 4(1) is drastic. I understand why there should be a penalty for failure by the prison governor to notify the Garda, but the sanctions proposed are too extreme and need to be considered. That point must be considered in the wider debate.
The requirement for a Garda inspector to have High Court approval in advance of disclosures of information from the register is incredibly unwieldy and flies in the face of current Garda practice. Fianna Fáil opposes the Bill.
Debate adjourned.