Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“ ‘Act of 2018’ means the Data Protection Act 2018;

‘Act of 2019’ means the Parole Act 2019;

‘local district headquarters’ means the local district headquarters of the Garda Síochána which is closest to the place within the county where he or she intends to reside;

‘psychosexual evaluation’ means an evaluation that specifically addresses sexual development, sexual deviancy, sexual history and risk of re-offence as part of a comprehensive evaluation of an offender;”.

I thank the Minister for being here to deal with this important legislation.

Amendment No. 1 provides a number of definitions for further consequential amendments that I have tabled.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, address the issue in the legislation where there is a requirement for a sex offender who is being put on the sex offenders register to notify a divisional headquarters. The reality is that divisional headquarters are spread across the country. For example, the divisional headquarters for Longford, Roscommon and Mayo is located in Castlebar, County Mayo. So for someone living in Longford, Roscommon or Mayo, the nearest location is Castlebar. The legislation does not state that sex offenders must inform their local divisional headquarters. A sex offender can inform any divisional headquarters in the country. One could have a situation where someone who is convicted of a very serious offence, is considered to be a high-risk sex offender and, say, resides in Roscommon or Galway notifies Wexford Garda station. That person would have complied with the legislation, as currently drafted. My amendment states that such persons must present themselves at "the local district headquarters of the Garda Síochána". Let us remember that it is the gardaí in the local district who will be responsible for monitoring these sex offenders. We are not even asking sex offenders, in order to comply with the register, to present themselves at the Garda station from where they are going to be monitored. We are facilitating high-risk sex offenders going undetected by allowing them to contact any divisional headquarters. This comes back to the culture that we have concerning the overall legislation that protects the rights of the offender rather than the rights of the victim or any future potential victims of the individual concerned.

As the Minister will know, we have a so-called sex offenders register but it exists in name only because, in practice, gardaí have both hands tied behind their backs in trying to enforce it. Every year there are in excess of 70 breaches of the register. These involve individuals who have come to the attention of An Garda Síochána for some other reason and then they are prosecuted for a breach of the sex offenders register. We need to put a robust system in place and facilitate the Garda to monitor these individuals.

I want to raise another issue. As set out in the legislation, a sex offender can comply with the requirements of registration by writing a letter to, for example, Wexford Garda station if he or she is going to reside in Donegal, Roscommon, Galway or wherever. Sex offenders should have to present themselves in person at the Garda station that is located closest to where they reside. In 2012, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, passed a motion at its annual conference which stated that sex offenders, in order to comply with the sex offenders register, should have to present in person at the relevant local Garda station where they plan to reside and should not have the option to notify by post. The motion was put forward as a result of the work being done at the time by Sergeant John Hynes, who has probably been the foremost member of An Garda Síochána in terms of securing prosecutions against sex offenders right across the west of Ireland. He had that motion passed out of sheer frustration regarding the existing register. The anomalies that are in the register are replicated in this legislation and, therefore, I ask the Minister to accept my amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 30 relate to the court being able to order a sex offender to avail of treatment or counselling or participate in a psychosexual evaluation. A psychosexual evaluation is one where the risk of that offender is evaluated by a mental health professional to determine if the individual is at risk of committing a further sexual offence, and recommends treatments to diminish that particular risk. The ultimate objectives are to: identify deviant sexual behaviour patterns; determine the risk of sexual and non-sexual tendencies and-or repetition; estimate whether there is a threat to the community; assess if they should be allowed contact with minors; clarify diagnostic impressions; offer treatment recommendations; identify specific elements that should be targeted during the patient's treatment; and render suggestions regarding community supervision. I do not think it is too much to ask that those criteria be assessed for any individual prior to his or her release from prison. This process would protect them as well as protect the community at large and I hope that the Minister can accept my amendments.

Amendment No. 29 seeks to ensure that an incentive is put in place for sex offenders to complete their treatment programmes. As the Minister will know, only one in eight sex offenders avails of treatment in prison. I accept that treatment is not always available when offenders want it but the reality is that there has been an expansion in the capacity of treatment within the Prison Service. Yet, despite an expansion, the actual number who avail of the treatment has decreased. In the three years up to the end of 2019, just 55 sexual offenders had taken part in the Building Better Lives programme.

In the three years up to the end of 2015, when the Building Better Lives programme was not as accessible prior to the expansion of the programme in 2016, there were 73 sex offenders participating in that treatment programme. The reality is that such treatment reduces the risk of re-offending by three and a half times according to the Irish Prison Service's psychological unit. The review that led to the legislation before us today, which was published by the Minister's Department back in 2009, recommended in respect of the sentencing, treatment and monitoring of sex offenders that early release of sex offenders should be conditional on their engagement with such treatment programmes. That is recommended by the Department's report. The report states that there should be extrinsic incentives, positive and negative, that will motivate sex offenders to participate in programmes. It goes on to cite the practice in Vermont, in which prisoners who do not participate in programmes are not deemed eligible for parole. The report says that the view taken was that sex offenders who do not participate in programmes should not be eligible for any form of early release or additional privileges within the prison system. The Department's report is saying that, and I am asking that the report be implemented and its recommendations acted on here in this set of amendments.

The final amendment, No. 35, relates to the general data protection regulation, GDPR, right to be forgotten. This is an issue I raised on Second Stage. We have a situation where the press coverage of the activities of sex offenders can be erased from the Google listings by exploiting the EU privacy laws under GDPR. It was never the intention of the right to be forgotten to include the facilitation of the removal and delisting of court reports regarding sex offenders and their convictions for very serious sexual offences. Our Constitution clearly sets out that courts should be held in public, and the only way that happens effectively is through court reporting. It is completely unacceptable that this mechanism is being used by sex offenders to erase their electronic record. Concerns have been raised regarding the operation of this right to be forgotten. While there is a right there, it is not an absolute right and it must be weighed against the interests of the public. It is vital that this information is available to the public. We cannot just airbrush away the stories of the victims. We all know that victims in the past and even today sadly have felt compelled to waive their right to anonymity to ensure that the perpetrators are named and shamed. Now we are exploiting the failure to apply the GDPR law effectively and the victims' stories are being erased. This is a further abuse of those victims. It should not and cannot be tolerated.

Google has defended its handling of requests to delist articles relating to these criminal convictions on the basis of the amount of time since the conviction took place being the main factor in that regard. It is not taking into account the public interest in this regard. I am saying that it must be taken into account. The reality is that all the big tech companies are regulated in this country. While the Minister will probably argue that this is a European regulation and must be dealt with by Europe, they are regulated in this country. If we apply a regulation here and act effectively in respect of the management of this type of information, and it is in the public interest and in the interests of victims that it would remain in the public domain, it means that this will happen across Europe. I hope the Minister can recognise the interests of victims here by ensuring that this particular loophole is no longer exploited by sex offenders.