The centrepiece of the Sex Offenders Bill is the proposal to establish a register of convicted sex offenders, though it also provides for separate legal representation for complainants in certain limited circumstances.
The idea of a register has its origins in the US and the UK, which have both introduced such a measure in the past few years. This fuelled calls for a register here, though the size and circumstances of this State are very different.
Initially those in the Department of Justice who had studied the issue did not favour a sex offenders' register, but the Opposition and certain voluntary groups were clamouring for it, and it became part of the Programme for Government. Combined with fears that convicted offenders might try to escape registration in Britain by coming here, it became inevitable that a register would be introduced.
Nonetheless, some of the reservations held by experts in this area bear repeating. It is a very blunt instrument indeed for controlling the behaviour of those sex offenders, especially paedophiles, who are likely to be a continuing threat to the public.
The vast majority of sex offenders will escape the register, for the simple reason that they will not be convicted. Only about 10 per cent of offenders are prosecuted, and only about half of them are convicted.
The category "sex offender" is a very wide one, and ranges from classic fixated paedophiles who are virtually incurable and will always pose a threat to children, to very young teenagers who have been involved in inappropriate behaviour and who, especially if treated, will not reoffend.
It also includes those who commit offences against adult females and those who offend within the family, neither of whom necessarily poses a risk to children outside the family. It is difficult to see what purpose placing them on a register serves.
There is no distinction in the legislation between these different types of offender. It does provide for a five-year limit on those who receive short or non-custodial sentences, but that is the only concession made to concerns about the impact on a young offender, with no established pattern of abuse, of being placed on such a list.
Every parent fears the spectre of the child abuser who stalks schools and children's playgrounds seeking out potential victims, abducting and abusing them. But, although there have been instances of this kind of crime in the US and the UK, it is virtually unknown here.
The police in the UK were hampered in tracking such criminals by the size of the population and the fact that there are 29 separate police forces, each with their own records. There is just one force in this State, and already it maintains a computerised record of all criminal convictions. Further, employers can already seek relevant information on potential employees from the Garda.
The register requires the registration of the address of the offender and any subsequent change of address. However, the onus rests on the offender to provide this information, with penalties for failing to do so.
It is not clear what resources will be allocated to pursuing those - likely to be the most determined and devious and, therefore, the most dangerous - who fail to do so. It remains unclear who will have access to the register. Mr O'Donoghue said that access would be on a "need to know" basis, and would be decided by the Garda.
He was not specific about who could request the information, or at what level the decision would be made by the Garda. Concerns must persist about confidentiality, especially that of victims, as well as the danger of vigilantism.
The Bill also provides for the supervision of offenders after their release by the probation and welfare service. This is to be welcomed, if it is properly resourced and includes treatment as well as monitoring.
Mr O'Donoghue said yesterday there would be counselling "in appropriate cases" and that the probation and welfare service would receive additional resources. Asked if the State would fund the counselling, the Minister said "yes", adding that it might be contracted to outside agencies.
This commitment comes in a context where treatment of those sex offenders already in prison is virtually non-existent. There is none in the Curragh and the programme in Arbour Hill can take only 10 at a time. This means that the vast majority of offenders leave prison without having received any treatment whatsoever.
It is now routine for defence lawyers to argue that their clients should not serve custodial sentences on the grounds that they are engaged in a treatment programme which would be disrupted by imprisonment.
This remains the major weakness of the Bill - the populist measure of setting up an offenders' register is in danger of taking the place of an extensive treatment programme for both present and future sex offenders.