Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Apr 2000

Vol. 517 No. 6

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

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

Last week I addressed the matter of the treatment of sex offenders before release from prison, as it is crucial we provide the maximum level of treatment for offenders before they are released. I was particularly concerned by the small number of places available to them and also by the small number of prisoners who attend the dedicated treatment programme currently available in Arbour Hill. Only five of the 80 offenders released last year participated in that dedicated programme and this is of particular concern. The Minister must as soon as possible implement the programme which has been promised for the Curragh, which will provide more places for offenders when in prison.

There is a particular need to investigate seriously why so few sex offenders are found, when in prison, to be suitable for the programme or volunteer for that programme. I do not raise the matter out of academic interest; there is no doubt that it is terrifying for the victim of a sex crime to know that the perpetrator has been released without receiving appropriate treatment and this is even more traumatic for children. I have received representations – as have other Members – from people about perpetrators who have been released from prison and who have been seen in the area where their crimes were committed. This is terrifying for the whole community but for the victim in particular.

The Minister tells us that a perpetrator cannot be forced to participate in the dedicated programme in prison, but according to section 29 the courts can require a person, on post-release supervision, to receive psychological counselling or other appropriate treatment programmes run by the probation and welfare services or other bodies. If the courts can require such treatment in a post-release situation, can they not also require people, while in prison, to attend relevant programmes? If this can be done after release I do not see why it cannot be enforced before a person is sentenced. I look forward to the Minister's response.

We are all obviously trying to minimise the likelihood of people reoffending. We must get across to the public that the best way of doing so is by providing appropriate treatment. That is not being soft on sex offenders but is the best way to protect children, in particular, and other potential victims of sexual abuse and will have to be a major priority. While drafting this legislation did the Minister consult the National Organisation of Treatment of Abusers, which is a network of professionals working with abusers? That body has done a great deal of work in this area and, as professionals, its members would have much information about how we can provide treatment and prevent people from reoffending. As Deputy Neville rightly said, many hard-core paedophiles do not believe they are wrong and are hence the most likely prisoners to refuse treatment and reoffend. It is true that many sex offenders would not particularly want to receive treatment because of their mental attitude. Whatever can be done to persuade or force people to receive treatment has to be done.

We must be realistic about the legislation. It will not be the solution to the problem of sex offenders in our communities. One study estimates that only 10% of offenders are prosecuted, while other studies suggest the figure is lower. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre states that only 36% of people reporting sexual offences to it reported those offences to the Garda, so we are dealing with a very small percentage of those who have committed such crimes. Putting them on a register is not the solution to the fears and concerns surrounding this issue. Other research indicates that 70% of offenders are family members. This measure will not be effective in that regard either. We must be realistic about the extent to which legislation is effective. Nevertheless, the speedy introduction of the legislation is, unfortunately, necessary.

Deputy Neville referred to paedophile rings and the use of the Internet to circulate information and protect people from detection. This also militates against safeguarding the community. We must be constantly vigilant and try to devise new ways in which we can stop this use of the Internet so we can be one step ahead of those who use it for criminal purposes.

I welcome the part of the Bill which deals with offenders applying for jobs which involve unsupervised contact with children. Under this legislation, they must inform their employer or potential employer of their record. This is extremely important. Will this be effectively policed? Will the funding and relevant staff be provided. The worst offenders are most unlikely to comply with this part of the legislation and say they have been convicted of a sex offence when looking for a job involving contact with children. This measure must be properly policed.

A large amount of funding will be necessary to implement this Bill. The probation and welfare services will require significant funding and staff to fulfil their obligations under it. I welcome these obligations, particularly those in section 29 which gives them the power to make offenders take part in programmes. Section 29 also enables the courts to make regulations regarding offenders. When the Minister announced the introduction of this Bill, he indicated that it might oblige sex offenders to stay away from schools and other areas where young people congregate. I cannot find a specific reference to this in the Bill but I think section 29 could be used in this regard. Will the Minister clarify this?

Access to the register is another grey area in the legislation. Will the Minister clarify how this will work? How senior will a Garda have to be to decide who should have access to the register? The term "need to know basis" is used. There is a lack of clarity regarding what this means and to what extent the register will be available and to whom. There is also a question of balance. We are all concerned that the families of sex offenders do not suffer because of the crimes committed by the offending member of the family. The wording of the Bill is ambiguous in this regard and perhaps the Minister will provide some information on that.

Will the Minister clarify the application of the Bill to persons convicted outside the State? How does one ensure a person convicted outside the State complies with the section which obliges him to inform the authorities within a ten day period that he is temporarily or permanently resident in the State? I presume that the authorities would have that information in the case of those convicted within the State. However, regarding someone convicted outside the State, would information that a person had applied for permission to enter the country be directly given by other jurisdictions to the Garda? Given our common travel area with Britain, this will cause problems. However, there is a concern that people have and will enter from outside the State, particularly given the introduction of the British register of offenders. It is important that we know that an offender has entered the State. Is it up to the individual to comply with this part of the Bill? If it is, many people will not comply and it will be more difficult to trace people who have come in from outside the State than those who are already resident here.

I welcome the provision of limited separate legal representation, particularly for rape victims. We, with rape crisis centres have been looking for this for a long time. The provision of separate legal representation is limited and only applies when the sexual history of a victim is raised in the court. In most cases, this information is not allowable in court because it is not relevant to the case. Will the Minister consider the extension of this provision? I know there must be balance and one side cannot be seen to have more representation. However, one of the concerns expressed to us by rape crisis centres and others is that victims should be informed about what is happening, which is often not the case. I read of one case where the victim said, "I met the prosecuting barrister at 9 a.m. on the morning of the trial, which is a ridiculous set up; the woman to try and represent five years of my life and 21 years of living with abuse meets me for half an hour." Frequently, decisions are made about the timing of the case of which the victim is unaware. Victims are reliant on someone on the State's legal team finding the time to inform them.

Someone, preferably a solicitor or barrister, should be assigned to keep the victims informed of what is going on and to answer any questions they have. Frequently the victims feels they are the least important people in the case and they are often left sitting for hours not knowing what is going on. The victim and the alleged perpetrator must often wait in the same lobby outside a court while waiting for the case to be called or during deliberations. This is difficult for the victim of such a crime. I know the Bill is not intended to focus on this issue to a great extent and the only aspect dealt with is separate legal representation where past sexual history is raised in court. Nevertheless I would like the Minister to consider those aspects also.

The Bill will help to some extent to allay people's fears that sexual offenders may be allowed to roam free in the community once they have served their sentences. That these obligations exist in legislation gives some support, comfort and protection to society at large. However, the most effective way to deal with sex offenders and protect the community from sex offenders is to use the methods of prevention and treatment and to provide the necessary treatment before the person is released from prison.

That there is such a small number of places available and such a small number of prisoners participate in the programmes is a serious cause for concern. The professionals in the area state that young offenders respond well to treatment programmes and there is a real possibility of avoiding recidivism among young offenders if they get the appropriate treatment programmes at an early stage. If all possible provision was made with regard to treating all offenders, particularly these young offenders, before they return to the community, it would surely be a great favour to society. If we can do that, we will have addressed a terrible scourge which puts fear into the hearts of parents in particular. When one considers there are sex offenders in society and that it is possible that treatment would make a difference, we must make every effort to ensure that treatment is made available.

I welcome the provision of a register, but for it to be effective, it must be adequately financed. The Probation and Welfare Service must be adequately financed in order that there is effective supervision in the community and that what is designed to happen, according to the Bill, will actually happen because if the Bill does not have the desired effect, there is not much point in putting it on the Statute Book.

I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. We are at the beginning of a new millennium; a new century is dawning. We must re-affirm the commitment to De Valera's Constitution in respect of protecting children and safeguarding their future. If we do not address these fundamentals, everything that has happened since the founding of the State is meaningless. We must protect children and all others who may be at risk.

The Bill provides a package of significant reforms to protect the public against sex offenders. Its main purpose is to make it mandatory for certain convicted sex offenders to ensure that the Garda is notified of their names and addresses. This will ensure that Garda records are kept up-to-date at all times in respect of sex offenders and their current whereabouts.

The Bill creates a new civil court order that will enable the Garda to protect the community against the behaviour of sex offenders. It also prohibits sex offenders from seeking employment which would bring them into unsupervised contact with children without advising their employer of their conviction. I ask the Minister to re-visit this area. There should be a corresponding onus on employers not to employ persons, who have informed them that they are sex offenders, in positions in which they will care for vulnerable persons of any age. It should be an offence for employers to do this, just as it will be an offence for the applicant to seek the position without disclosing all the relevant information. We must not forget that there are some unscrupulous employers. This responsibility on employers not to hire those they know to be sex offenders in positions where they would care for vulnerable people would be a double safeguard for those at risk.

The Probation and Welfare Service will be empowered to exercise post-release supervision of sex offenders. The Bill also allows for separate legal representation for complainants in rape and other serious sexual assault cases. This would apply during applications to cross-examine the complainant's past sexual experience. I want to see a broadening of this provision of legal representation for the complainants. It should not be limited only to the area of past sexual experience. The victim should be afforded the same level of representation as the accused, who has the right to legal representation without qualification. I agree that the accused persons should be given the full protection of the law; they are entitled to this. This, however, should not be to the detriment of the victim who has already suffered enough in his or her traumatic experience. Will the Minister reconsider this aspect of the legislation. He and his officials should re-visit it without delay.

I am worried by another aspect of the Bill. In a case where the offence occurs during the employment of the offender, should the employer be advised? This could be relevant if the offender were employed in a public occupation, for example, as a taxi-driver. Another point which would also need to be addressed is the legal position of the employer if he or she were to act on the information received. Will the State protect the employer against a legal action such as an unfair dismissal action? It should do so.

Section 3 lists the sexual offences to which the Act will apply. It places emphasis on the offences which relate to children and is intended to protect them against sexual abuse. It also lists certain offences, such as rape and sexual assault, which can be committed against adults and children. It targets the serious offender and child abuser. All of the offences to which I have referred will trigger the notification requirement. I note that there are exceptions, particularly where there is consensual sexual activity between persons between the ages of 15 and 17.

I am not happy that an offence of sexual assault on a person of 17 years of age or more should be exempted from the notification requirement if the offender is not sentenced to prison. In Part II, the notification requirements are outlined. They define the person to whom they will apply. They also explain the manner in which they will work. It is of the utmost importance that this legislation will be made work. That is why I am pleased to see that those who have committed an offence prior to the enactment of the Act will be bound by the terms of this legislation. This will apply to offenders in prison, in the Central Mental Hospital and to offenders on bail pending appeal. All of those categories will be subject to the notification requirements.

Section 8 sets out the notification periods. I welcome the minimum five year period for per sons given a non-custodial sentence or a fully suspended sentence; the seven year period for person convicted and given a custodial sentence of six months or less; the ten year period for those sentenced to between six months and two years; the lifetime notification obligation for those who are sentenced for more than two years; and the 50% reduction in the periods which apply where offenders are under 18 at the time of sentence. Provision is also made for an increase or a reduction in the notification requirement period where a sentence has been varied on appeal.

Section 9 defines the requirements of the State on the sex offender regarding notification. I note that an offender must, either in person or in writing, notify his or her name and address to a major Garda station within ten days of becoming subject to its terms. The Garda must also be advised of any change of address, whether it be temporary or permanent.

The authorities must be kept advised of a continued absence outside the State. A person who is subject to the life-time requirements may apply to the Circuit Court for an order discharging him or her from this obligation. It may be done on the grounds that the interests of the common good are no longer served by the applicant continuing to be subject to them. This application may be made after ten years have elapsed from the date of release from prison.

It is a good idea that persons who have been convicted of sex offences abroad should also be subject to the terms of these qualifying periods.

Under Part III, provision is made for a new civil court order called a sex offender order. This applies to persons whose behaviour gives cause for concern that they would pose a serious threat of harm to the public. l would agree with this approach because prevention is the best form of action which the authorities can take in this field. The making of a sex offender order will also mean that the person named will go on the register.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn