The announcement that the Government intends to establish a register of convicted paedophiles is welcome, so far as it goes. On its own it does not go very far, even though it is a useful and commendable move. Since paedophiles are exceptionally prone to re-offending and since they make it their business to get into situations which will put them in contact with children, then a register which can be used by health boards and other bodies makes a great deal of sense.
But here the first of many questions arises. What exactly is to be done with those whose names are on the register? If they are placed on a register on the basis that the State knows they are likely to re-offend, then does the State not have a duty to reduce their propensity to offend again?
Hardly any of the people convicted of sexually abusing children receive any kind of treatment while in or out of prison. And because they are jailed together - mainly in Arbour Hill but to a lesser extent in Wheatfield - they leave prison with knowledge of a substantial network of other sex offenders. While it is vital to have a register, this will not, in itself, stop paedophiles from abusing children. Surely an onus then falls on the State to institute a compulsory treatment programme both for paedophiles in prison and for those on the register? Indeed, the acceptance of treatment, on a permanent basis if need be, may have to be built into the sentencing of paedophiles.
One measure, which would not require complex legislation, would be the establishment of treatment programmes for sex offenders who are still in their teens. There is a far greater chance of success with offenders of this age than with older offenders and success in such cases can lead to the avoidance of untold misery in the future. One third of sex offences against children are committed by adolescents.
For some years, a small group of professionals from the National Children's Hospital in Temple Street, from the Eastern Health Board and from Our Lady's Hospital in Crumlin have been providing such a treatment programme. They do this valuable work out of a conviction that it should be done and they raise their own funds. But if they stopped doing it tomorrow it is probable that nobody would notice.
Treatment programmes do not have to cost the earth - yet how much more simple it is to focus on a register of convicted offenders than on the creation of nationwide treatment services to tackle paedophilia and the sexual abuse of children.
The majority of child sex abusers are the heterosexual fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, uncles and partners who abuse children in their own homes. Most of these will never see the inside of a Garda station, let alone a prison, and the only real protection which can be given to children is to encourage them to report what is happening.
But that only works if the person who is told actually does something with the information. Recent research in schools in the North West raises serious doubts about the extent to which teachers are prepared to act on suspicions of abuse - and that is an issue which will have to be addressed by those who oppose mandatory reporting.
The apparently simple issue of a register of convicted paedophiles raises a range of questions about other, arguably more important, things that should be done to protect children. For this reason the decision by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr John O'Donoghue, to issue a discussion document before deciding the details of the register is welcome. It is to be hoped that the discussion, and his response to it, will be wide-ranging enough to encompass the many aspects of this distressing issue.