Kevin Moran (Longford-Westmeath, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I acknowledge the presence of Debbie Cole in the Gallery. She has been campaigning for legislation on this for 20 years.

As they did on Committee Stage, Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace have opposed sections 4 and 5. The Government is not proposing any amendments to the Bill and is therefore opposing the proposed amendments. Sections 4 and 5 constitute the core of the Bill. They set out the presumptive minimum sentence to apply to repeat sex offenders under certain circumstances. The presumptive minimum sentence is three quarters of the maximum sentence applied to the offence. It will apply where a person has been convicted of a sexual offence and received a sentence of imprisonment of five years and goes on to commit another offence within ten years. The Judiciary is independent in its manner of sentencing. A trial judge can take into account all circumstances of a case and impose a sentence that is proportionate to the offence and the offender. The Oireachtas, however, is entitled to set out parameters for given offences to reflect what is considered to be a serious occurrence of that offence.

While, as the Deputies stated, concerns have been raised about the use of mandatory minimum sentences, they are nonetheless considered appropriate for serious crimes. We are all aware of the devastating impact serious sexual offences can have on victims and on society as a whole. That is why the Government is proposing to put these measures in place. These provisions have been carefully framed to ensure that they are proportionate. A presumptive mandatory sentence only applies where a person has received a sentence of five years or more. This ensures that the provision only applies to the most serious crimes. A judge may impose a sentence where imposing the minimum would be disproportionate in all the circumstances of the case. This is an important clause to consider and is incredibly valuable as it ensures that the introduction of such a sentence can be done only in a case where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the crime committed and the risk the offender poses to the public. Given the relatively limited application of the Bill to a small cohort of offenders, that provision does not exclude judicial direction in sentencing. I suggest that it in no way minimises the principle of rehabilitation of offenders which is managed by the Irish Prison Service and the probation service pre and post release from imprisonment.

In addressing Deputy Wallace's concerns, I know that many sex offenders have become rehabilitated but that a small number of those go on to reoffend. I remind my Independent colleagues across the Chamber who have come out so strongly against this that they are purporting to be experts in the field. Some years ago, they had the opportunity to sit where I am and bring forward good legislation. They failed to do so. They went off to the sun and forgot what it is like to help people like Debbie Cole and all those like her who have been fighting for 20 years for this Bill. While they sit there and say they have everything right this Government is recognising the Debbie Coles of this country by putting forward this legislation.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked a question and I thank him for his support on Committee Stage. Some of his amendments were ruled out of order. He asked whether the provision might act as a disincentive for a defendant to plead guilty. The provisions do not provide for the sentence where the court is satisfied that it would be disproportionate in all circumstances to impose the minimum sentence. That the defendant has pleaded guilty might be taken into account

See this speech in context