(Mayo): Like those who have spoken in this debate, I welcome the legislation. The introduction of a register of sex offenders is inevitable given that such a register was introduced in the United Kingdom and has given rise to the understandable fear that, unless a similar register is introduced here, sex offenders from Britain will flee to this country. However, one must put the role of the register into perspective and see that it is part of a much larger picture.
One of the strange aspects of sex offending has been the marked lack of a coherent approach to the problem. Lenient and inconsistent sentencing in many rape and sexual assault cases has been rightly and severely criticised by the National Network of Rape Crisis Centres. The centres instanced three serious cases all of which were heard within a short time of each other and where inexplicably lenient sentences were handed down. One case involved a serious sexual assault on a 17 year old girl by four youths. The incident was described in court as mere "horse play". This was accepted by the judge and a community service sentence was handed down. The second case involved a sentence of a mere two years given to a priest who sexually abused and destroyed the childhood of at least nine boys. A jail sentence of two years was totally inadequate in the context of the evidence graphically presented to the court. The third case involved a County Cork school principal who admitted 21 sample charges of indecent assault and was sentenced to a three year prison sentence.
While there have been many successful prosecutions which succeeded in drawing down adequate sentences in terms of their severity, especially more recently, cases such as the three I outlined undermine much of what has been achieved in putting sexual assault into the serious criminal category to which it belongs. The handing down of lenient sentences in serious cases has undoubtedly led to many victims being reluctant to go through the trauma of a court case and facing the possibility of being identified, at least within their own community, only to have a derisory sentence imposed by the court. While no two cases are exactly the same, we need a judicial system which guarantees at least a minimum level of sentencing consistency. There is a long overdue need for non-statutory judicial guidelines to assist this process.
Last month there were 354 convicted sex offenders in prison. Only ten of these were receiving the intensive treatment programme at Arbour Hill, which is the only prison where such a programme is available. To have only ten of the 354 convicted sex offenders receiving intensive therapy or treatment is an absolute scandal. It has been categorically proven that treatment and therapy work, yet they are not available in prisons except for a tiny minority. The Curragh has a quota of sex offenders, yet it has only one part-time psychologist and one part-time probation and welfare officer for more than 100 sex offenders convicted by the courts. Castlerea Prison also houses sex offenders and does not have any psychologist. Only 6% of convicted sex offenders released from prison last year took part in a treatment programme while in custody. Some 80 prisoners convicted of sex offences were released, yet only five of them had completed the Arbour Hill intensive treatment programme. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform figures confirm that the proportion of sex offenders treated in prison has fallen. In 1998, for example, 11 of the 103 sex offenders released during the year received treatment.
The number of convicted sex offenders serving prison sentences is now at an all-time high. The Minister defends his performance by saying that many sex offenders are unsuited or unwilling to participate in intensive therapy programmes due to insufficient motivation or emotional immaturity. He has commissioned "a major review of the effectiveness of the Arbour Hill programme". There is no need for a review. The Arbour Hill programme is working and is extremely successful. International experience has shown that therapy can and does work. There should be no question of emotional immaturity or insufficient motivation. There should be no choice or option. Such therapy programmes should be mandatory for all sex offenders without exception.
One must understand that paedophiles, by their nature, do not believe or admit they have done wrong. They are stuck in a psychological mindset and we should try to change that. That is what the therapy programmes are for and that is why they work where they are provided and if they are compulsory. Early intervention is particularly effective, especially where young offenders are concerned. Offenders should be part of such a programme not at the tail end of their sentence as happens at present but from the day they enter prison. Such programmes should be provided at community level as and when the offender moves back into the community but to release 75 sex offender prisoners back into the community in 1996 and 92 such offenders in 1998 without intensive therapy is grossly irresponsible. Yet there is little indication from the Minister that he proposes to improve the position.
In 1998, my colleague, Deputy Neville published the Sexual Offenders Registration Bill, 1998. That Fine Gael Bill covered people who moved to Ireland following release from prison in Britain after conviction for child sex offences if they had been required to register there under British legislation. The Bill gave wide discretionary powers to the Judiciary. The convicting judge would decide whether the offender's name would be entered on the register on release from prison or juvenile detention centres in the case of an offender between 17 and 21 years. The judge would also rule on the length of time the offender's name would remain on the register. The main consideration would be the likelihood of the convicted person re-offending on release.
Those under the age of 17 were not covered by the Bill because young sex offenders may not be fully aware of the implications and consequences of their behaviour and often respond very well to treatment which, unfortunately, is not available in most cases at present. Once entered on the register, the requirements in Deputy Neville's Bill were quite strict. The offender must not only provide the local Garda station with his or her name and address but also a signed photograph and finger prints. Any change must be notified to the Garda within seven days and the offender would also have to notify a local Garda station if he spends a total of 14 days a year at another address.
A registered offender who failed to comply with these conditions would face a summary conviction in the District Court with a fine of up to £1,500 or imprisonment for three months. If the case went to a hearing on indictment in the Circuit Court, the penalty would be a fine of up to £5,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
It was a good Bill and one intended to fill a major void. It specified, for example, that the identity of the names of the registered persons would not be disclosed to anyone other than a garda, except in exceptional circumstances. A garda not below the rank of inspector could apply to the High Court for disclosure to a third party in the interests of public safety and the hearing would be held in camera. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that the kind of vigilantism referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald and the hysteria that can often occur on the release of such persons is prevented.
The Minister flatly rejected the Bill on the basis that he had commissioned a study by his Department into the area of sexual offences. In May 1998 the departmental group produced an excellent report entitled The Law on Sexual Offences. Yet it took from May 1998 to 12 January 2000 for the Minister and his Department to produce a Bill which is now before us and plodding its way through the House. Had Deputy Neville's Bill been accepted the register could have been in place for the past two years.
One of the disquieting aspects of the report produced by the Department was the suggestion that a register of sex offenders would seem to pose more problems than it would solve. The authors stress that the purpose of any such measure must be the protection of children. However, they point out that not all sex offenders abuse children and among those who do, not all are fixated paedophiles who prey on children outside the family.
There seems to be a reluctance, scepticism or little enthusiasm for the Bill among the professionals who treat sex offenders. According to Mr. Kieran McGrath, editor of the Irish Social Worker, this is not because the professionals oppose the Bill but because they believe that its measures will achieve little or nothing. Mr. McGrath believes that it will create an impression in people's minds that a major step forward has been taken. Terms such as “a tough crack-down on sex offenders” make good soundbite material but fail to address the reality of our sex offender population. From the point of view of perception the new measures strike a very responsive chord with the general public and the electorate but, in essence, according to Mr. McGrath, it amounts to a very limited response.
There are many aspects of sex offending about which we know very little. However, there are other aspects which are quite clear. First, it has been clearly established that most sex offenders are well known to their victims. Some 70% of offenders are family members. The "stranger-danger" scenario that the register is supposed to address is a reality. This accounts for the low prosecution rate, around 5%. In many of the worst cases of incest, for example, no formal complaint is made to the Garda and in the absence of a complaint no prosecution can take place. In many cases, therefore, the Garda never get to interview the alleged perpetrator.
A sex offenders' register, as we have already said, will exclude a huge slice of the population. As we said during the course of the debate on the previous legislation we discussed, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Bill, 1999, the Bill is hugely deficient, not through any fault of its own but by virtue of the fact that it cannot be made retrospective because of the consequences of Article 15.5 of the Constitution. That is a problem. The register will not be able to operate retrospectively because this would be unconstitutional and would be seen as interference with the judicial process because only the courts can inflict punishment. Being placed on a sex offenders' register would inevitably be seen as an additional sentence. Thus, the currently known sex offender population, irrespective of how serious or heinous their crimes or transgressions, will have to be excluded from the register.
There are issues the Minister could have addressed in this Bill but did not do so. For example, it is possible for defendants facing allegations of sexual crimes to conduct their own defence. That is their constitutional right. However, by conducting their own defence they are automatically given the right to interrogate the women or children they are accused of abusing. I appreciate that this option is seldom taken up, although it was availed of in a notorious rape case in England some years ago with obvious consequences from the point of view of the victim. The fact is that it still exists and victims know it exists. It is a very real psychological threat and deterrent.
To return to the attitude of some of the professionals and the general feeling of disquieting scepticism on the part of some professional workers in the field, one is again struck by the comments of the editor of the Irish Social Worker. His summary of the Bill is very interesting. He wrote:
Social policy formulation should be based on what is shown to be effective rather than on what appeals to the more primitive instincts of the electorate. Sex offender registers may help people to sleep easier at night, in the mistaken conviction that someone is "monitoring" the paedophiles but this Bill will not achieve that objective. It may merely prove to be a safety valve for an adult anxiety rather than a safety measure for child protection.
We should be somewhat worried that people with hands-on experience dealing with this problem at the coalface, the professionals, express such scepticism. It is something on which we must reflect.
People across the political divide have supported the thrust of the Bill, as I do. However, I regret its late introduction. Deputy Neville's Bill should have been taken on board and any loopholes or defects rectified. Had that been done such a register could have formed part of the legal regime for the past two years, but the Minister did not see fit to do so. I see it as a public safety measure but in the light of the glaring negligence on the part of the State in failing to make treatment and therapy programmes available it is, as I have said, only one piece of a much larger jigsaw. There seem to be some glaring inconsistencies in that section 29 provides that offenders can be obliged to attend post-release courses. One must immediately ask why they are not obliged to participate in such courses while in prison.
While rape figures, which are extremely high, are now levelling out, is the reported figure only the tip of the iceberg? As the Minister of State said, representatives of the network of Rape Crisis Centres and other interested parties have come to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and the impression one receives from them is that the figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
There is little doubt that, for a variety of reasons, many rapes are not reported. We may welcome the prospect of independent legal representation for rape victims, which will hopefully encourage more people to report the violation of their person, but there is an ongoing major problem in that rape victims are very often not kept informed by the State of what is going on in their cases. A court case is conducted on behalf of someone whose person has been grossly violated and who is in fear of entering court, yet in many cases the DPP's office does not bother to apprise the victim of progress in the case, where the file is or the likely consequences of their appearance in court. In many cases in the past they were left languishing in total ignorance of what faced them in court. That is appalling and unpardonable. All victims should be kept up to date with the progress of their cases if the State is acting on their behalf, but rape victims should be kept completely up to date and briefed regularly in relation to the progress and processing of their case.
Deputies have already referred to the failure to properly resource the probation and welfare service, which will be a key cog in the working of this legislation, yet it is the Cinderella service of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We have drawn the cost comparisons before and looked at the paucity of resources and manpower within the service. This time last year the service was thrust into the unprecedented situation of threatening industrial action. It had to take strong, affirmative industrial relations action and got a mere 40 additional personnel. That is hopelessly inadequate in the context of its current demands, let alone the demands that this Bill will make of it. It is an excellent service which is totally under-resourced and understaffed. We wish the Bill well, but if it is to be successful, it has huge implications in terms of additional resources for the probation and welfare service. The Minister of State should anticipate the additional demand on the service and the additional personnel and resources that will be involved.
The Minister of State referred to the House passing the Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill and Members contributed enthusiastically to that debate, but the situation with regard to pornography is appalling. How successful is that Bill? One need only go into any newsagent to see graphic pornography on every shelf. It is readily available and there is no censorship or curtailment on the part of the shops themselves. One wonders if parents really involve themselves in supervising what their children are reading, as it is absolutely appalling, not to mention the Internet and multi-channel television. What is happening in terms of unsupervised access is appalling and the consequences are obvious both in the immediate and the long-term future.