Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her statement and I agree with many of her comments. It is a very important matter and a serious topic. As has been outlined by my colleague, Deputy Kenny, it is a complicated matter and it is not black and white. It is important for the victims of sexual violence and only this week we saw members of one family in the North speak out about violence they suffered. This took immense bravery and we must do all we can to support victims.

We should look at the recommendations of Supporting a Victim's Journey and ensure the justice system can become more hospitable to those who have suffered while maintaining a proper balance between their need for justice and the rights we need to afford to defendants for a fair trial. At the same time, we must be mindful that resources and measures such as those proposed in the Bill are not sufficient by themselves and some of these crimes relate to a lack of social care or social work in many cases. We must provide resources for the Garda and others. The Minister mentioned reintegration into society, with which I will deal in a moment.

I note Adult Safeguarding Day is this week and it is important to acknowledge that vulnerable people are at a far higher risk of becoming victims of sexual offences. As the Minister outlined, this Bill attempts to strengthen the legal basis to allow courts to ban convicted offenders from working with children and vulnerable adults, for example, which is important, given the risks outlined.

In a similar vein, I have been examining possible amendments to the Garda vetting system that would improve its function. We saw one of the flaws in the current vetting system with recent attempts by hospitals to hire workers who have not been seen as Garda-vetted, leading to delays of six weeks, despite the people in question being Garda-vetted for sports organisations and clubs and given a clean record. Another flaw in the current vetting system is a lack of any proactive requirement on gardaí to inform employers where an individual may be in contact with vulnerable people when a conviction occurs after the vetting has concluded. I hope to introduce a Bill that would go some way to addressing that matter.

Placing the SORAM programme on a statutory footing is also a good idea, as the Minister mentioned. The SORAM currently operates on a non-statutory basis, as she outlined, but the information shared between the various agencies will only be as good as the resources provided to them. Tusla, in particular, is struggling to recruit qualified staff and this must be addressed.

There is also a matter to be addressed within the wider criminal justice system relating to these crimes and although the register contains largely only the most serious of sexual crimes, its expansion should be considered carefully. It is important to get the legislation right and although we are happy to support it through to the next Stage, some provisions may need to be addressed.

The proposed section 14B(2) indicates a representative of a housing authority may be included in the panel of risk assessment but it does not mention what qualifications that person must have in such an important role. The proposed section indicates any member of the team can share information with his or her own organisation or body to effectively assess and manage the offender and risk of harm to the community afterwards, which seems quite loose to me. The provision may need to be strengthened. The team, as constituted, should have to make that decision to share information and there should be conditions for doing so. It looks quite informal and subjective, lacking in transparency or having sufficient reasons to do so in individual cases.

With regard to the proposed section 14E, it is always important to maintain proper records for any type of system where there are severe consequences for somebody's liberty. For example, if a person is arrested for questioning in a Garda station and the period is extended by 12 hours, a proper record must be kept. The proposed section 14E refers to an inspector disclosing information but that should be a superintendent. He or she should have to record the decision in writing, just as is done when detention is being extended. There is an overall lack of record keeping in the legislation and the relevant parties should certify if they decide to do something and the grounds used. Any garda giving such a direction should be required to send a notification to the Garda Commissioner and a report on the use of this section should be required every year. The lack of such record keeping in a central repository could be troublesome in years to come if it were used in the wrong way. We are sometimes only a High Court case away from a system collapsing so it is important to get it right.

The proposed section 14F allows a person to make a submission against the proposed disclosure but it only gives five days to do so. I am intrigued as to why the seven-day period was reduced. Is this just to bring it in line with British legislation or were there complaints from An Garda Síochána that led to the period being reduced to three days? It gives five days to make a submission against the proposed disclosure but there is no provision for legal assistance. The period allowed seems quite short.

The proposed section 16C in the principal Act refers to contractual arrangements being put in place to monitor compliance, but what type of contractual arrangements does the Minister envisage? Some other provisions can be dealt with on Committee Stage but it is important we get this right. Reckless law making could mean a victim could eventually suffer if some provisions were struck down as unconstitutional.

As I indicated earlier, there are also some problems with addressing the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners. Having spoken with prison governors over the years, I know many, if not most, people who have been convicted of sexual offences do not engage with counselling programmes in prisons. If they did, it would prevent repeat offending and keep communities safe. Difficult decisions may have to be taken to ensure more of them engage to keep communities safe. Sexual offenders are correctly seen as offenders who are different from others but the integrity of the wider criminal rehabilitative system must be maintained. I look forward to examining the Bill further on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context