Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill before the House. In many ways, it long overdue. While parts of it are quite technical, given the subject matter that is probably to be expected. I wish to take the opportunity to look in detail at the provisions in the Bill. Members of the public will be shocked that many of the current practices relating to sex offenders have not had the proper legal standing until now.

The Bill proposes to provide a legal basis for the further monitoring of those on the State sex offenders register, including the ability to perform risk assessment on offenders. The approach to further monitoring includes changes to the current notification requirements; a provision for the courts to prohibit an offender from working with vulnerable people and children; and a provision for electronic monitoring or tagging to ensure post-release compliance by offenders who are subject to sex offender orders.

The amendments also finally empower the Garda to collect photographs, fingerprints and palm prints to identify offenders. It will allow a Garda inspector to apply for changes to or discharge from the sexual offender order. Currently, this can only be carried out by a chief superintendent. Furthermore, the amendments will allow the Garda to disclose information to the public related to the offender on the register in specific circumstances. I will return to that matter shortly, but I want to outline what is proposed in the Bill first.

The Bill will provide a statutory footing for the SORAM multi-agency process. After reading through the Bill, I do not understand why many of these measures were not in place and why it took so long to introduce them. The original legislation, which is being amended here, is the Sex Offenders Act 2001. Here we are 20 years later introducing many of these necessary amendments to it. Many of these amendments are years overdue, as I think the Minister will accept.

One of the main examples is section 20 ,which inserts a new Part 4A that explicitly prohibits anyone, subject to a sex offender order, working with children or vulnerable people. I would have expected that to have been in place as standard. As it currently stands, the onus is on the Judiciary to include this restriction in a sex offender order and the only responsibility on the offender is to inform their employer of that order. It is disgraceful that was not dealt with before now. This provision should have been contained in the 2001 Act and it is mind-boggling that it has taken 20 years to sort this out.

As part of shaping any policy, my colleagues and I will meet with relevant stakeholders, especially in cases of legislation governing subjects such as sex crimes and domestic violence.

We are always led by the front-line workers and those who deal with the victims of these crimes, as well as victim organisations and support groups. Sinn Féin has specific policy on these crimes and amendments such as this were dealt with by my colleagues in the North a number of years ago. The stance came directly as a result of stakeholder engagement.

Sexual crimes are particularly serious, life-disturbing and grave crimes. It is probably difficult for me to find the words to describe the enormous and long-standing impact that these sexual crimes have on their victims, families, friends and the wider community. Many people I have met have told me this. These amendments need to be victim-focused, and for the most part they probably are, although many are years overdue. I note the statement released by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre yesterday, which welcomed the amendments but cautioned that these changes must be followed with adequate resourcing.

The most obvious example of this relates to the proposals on electronic monitoring or tagging by anyone subject to a sex offender's order. We support the use of electronic monitoring but I am also quite concerned about the ability of the Garda information and communications technology, ICT, system to support this. I know from conversations I have had with members of An Garda Síochána that its current ICT system is long overdue an overhaul. The last thing people want is that when an electronic monitoring system is introduced, it could collapse under the pressure. Will the Minister outline if the electronic monitoring will be in line with the Council of Europe recommendations on such monitoring?

I urge caution on the amendment allowing gardaí to disclose the identity of an offender in specific circumstances where there is an immediate and serious risk to the community and where the offender is living. The last thing we want to see is an offender being identified, which could, in turn, inadvertently identify the victim as well. It is something about which we must be especially careful and I trust the Department will introduce strict circumstances for the disclosure of that type of information.

My colleagues and I support the legislation and I am hopeful the Minister has taken note of the concerns we have around some parts of it. When it goes to Committee Stage, we might consider amendments for particular matters. The message is we need to manage and restrict offenders but we must also offer support and reassurance to victims and survivors. We must put the recovery of victims at the centre of the legislation in this way.

See this speech in context