Joint Committee on Justice debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 2023

General Scheme of the Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Agency Bill: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Good afternoon. Everybody is welcome. We have a number of guests. Members are joining us both in person in the committee room and online too, so people will pop up on video screens at various stages. The purpose of our meeting today is to engage with the stakeholders in the room on the scrutiny of the general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency Bill. This is a function we perform on a regular basis, where we consider legislation prior to it going through the different stages in the Houses. We conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. Many witnesses will be familiar with it but some may not. This is a vital part of the process where we consider proposals for legislation and hear from witnesses and experts like the witnesses, then we produce a report at the end. It produces the quality of the deliverable. That is what we are about today.

I welcome people in the order they happened to be seated. We have Ms Ivanna Youtchak, who is the National Women's Council violence against women co-ordinator and Ms Orla O'Connor, also from the National Women's Council. They are very welcome. From the Men's Development Network, I welcome Mr. Seán Cooke, CEO, and Mr. Colm Kelly Ryan, head of programmes and advocacy. I welcome Mx. Daire Dempsey, the education officer, and Ms Lee Martin, a legal intern, from Transgender Equality Network Ireland. I welcome Dr. Salome Mbugua Henry, CEO of Akina Dada wa Africa, AkiDwA, and Alannah Owens, its policy officer. I welcome Mary McDermott, CEO, and Caroline Counihan, legal support manager, from Safe Ireland. I welcome Dr. Clíona Saidléar, executive director of the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. Those are our expert witnesses and stakeholders. From the Department of Justice, we have valued input from Mr. Paul O'Farrell, principal officer, criminal legislation section, and Ms Layla de Cogan Chin, principal officer in the criminal governance section. It is always a feature of our meetings that we have officials from the Department of Justice as observers and witnesses from it can clarify any points that arise as required, which is quite helpful to our deliberations.

With all the introductions done, I will read a note on privilege. Some will be familiar with procedure here and some perhaps less so. There is a long-standing parliamentary practice that witnesses should not, in the course of giving their remarks or answering questions, criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they may be directed to discontinue those remarks. If that happens, it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. That is the housekeeping business. It is important to note that.

It is important to set out the format and how we operate at the start. Each organisation will be invited to give an opening address of three minutes. It does not seem like a terribly long time but it is really just to make their key opening points. There will be ample time over the course of the meeting thereafter to amplify points, come in and out and engage with the members. We will keep it tight because that allows for greater engagement in the later part of the meeting. We find it is a format that works. We have a clock which we will use. When we get to three minutes, I will remind people, if they are still going, that we have to move on to the next organisation. I will then take committee members in the order that they indicate. There is a six-minute initial round per member. Members can ask questions and make comments and observations. Witnesses can engage through me, as Chair, with the questioner. We will then move on to the next member for another six-minute block. We can do that a few times as needed to get the discussion going. I say that to explain how the process works.

I will start with Ms Youtchak from the National Women's Council.

Ms Ivanna Youtchak

I thank the Chair and members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice for the opportunity to meet it to present on the proposed general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, agency Bill. The National Women’s Council, NWC, is the leading national women’s membership organisation. The National Women's Council represents and derives its mandate from its membership, which includes over 190 groups and organisations from a diversity of backgrounds, sectors and locations across Ireland. The National Women's Council also chairs and convenes the National Observatory on Violence Against Women. The observatory is an independent network of 22 grassroots and national organisations that come together regularly to monitor progress on DSGBV in Ireland.

NWC strongly welcomes the establishment of the agency as it will provide new co-ordination and a clear structure with a wide range of crucial functions for delivering on the Government strategy on DSGBV. For the purposes of this brief presentation, we will focus on two key points of the National Women's Council submission that we consider vital for the agency to effectively and efficiently deliver a zero-tolerance approach to DSGBV. It is important to highlight that the discussion about this Bill is taking place in the context of Ireland adopting a number of crucial international obligations and instruments, as well as multiple policy and legal changes in the past decades. This Bill is an important step towards addressing DSGBV and it would be greatly strengthened by acknowledging via a preamble or Long Title the importance of this agency, including its purpose to promote zero tolerance, and recalling the Istanbul Convention and key international obligations to combat DSGBV adopted by Ireland, as part of a broader framework of fundamental human rights obligations.

With regard to ensuring inter-agency collaboration, the third national strategy acknowledges that a whole-of-government approach involving all the relevant Departments, agencies and bodies is necessary to respond to DSGBV. For this agency to be effective in its functions, cross-departmental and multi-agency co-operation must be enabled by strong legislation, accompanied by a recognition of the role and commitments to meet their responsibilities. Without this in place, we risk repeating errors from the past, such as fragmentation of policy development, service delivery competencies between different agencies, and dispersion of responsibilities across multiple Government Departments.

Therefore, the National Women's Council recommends, with regard to the functions of the agency, that it shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of its functions to oblige all public service bodies to fulfil obligations under agreed DSGBV strategies, policy and legislation. On the issue of data collection and analysis, the Bill currently limits the agency’s function to assist only in the development of statistical information. The implementation plan of the third national strategy clearly gives a stronger and leading role to this agency. Systematic and adequate collection of disaggregated data is crucial to inform the legal and policy frameworks, which Ireland did not fulfil under its second national policy. Therefore, the National Women's Council recommends that the agency co-ordinates the establishment and implementation of a gold standard of data collection and analysis by all relevant public service bodies, with the support of specialists and civil society organisations.

The second crucial point that we would like to highlight focuses on the participation of civil society organisations, CSOs-----

An Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am just conscious of time. Perhaps Ms Youtchak might close that point and we will take the next speaker. She can come in again later; her time is up. Does Ms Youtchak want to finish that point she is making?

Ms Ivanna Youtchak

Yes, it is a final point. We are concerned that the current Bill does not clearly outline the mechanisms to ensure meaningful collaboration of CSOs in the performance of the agency’s functions. The National Women's Council would like to see the recommendation of the explanatory report to the Istanbul Convention reflected in the legislation to ensure this. The National Women's Council recommends that the agency not only focuses on CSOs consultation, but to provide that, in performing its functions, the agency collaborates with civil society, including the participation of victims and survivors on planning, implementation and monitoring of DSGBV, including guidelines, protocols, resources, funding and training.

The composition of the board of the agency should reflect this approach as well by including civil society organisations and survivor experience, comprising at least two members of CSOs in the full composition. I have summarised it.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Youtchak, and I want to hear from her plenty more over the course of the meeting. Mr. Seán Cooke from the Men's Development Network is up next.

Mr. Seán Cooke

I am, but I am going to pass to my colleague Mr. Colm Kelly Ryan, who is going to do the opening statement.

Mr. Colm Kelly Ryan

On behalf of the board of the Men’s Development Network, our staff, clients, participants, and volunteers, we wish to express our gratitude for the invitation to provide testimony before the committee today. It is, as always, an honour to appear before an Oireachtas committee, and in particular to be here with our colleagues from Safe Ireland, Rape Crisis Network Ireland, the National Women’s Council, AkiDwA, Transgender Equality Network Ireland and the Department of Justice.

I am head of programmes and advocacy with the Men's Development Network and the White Ribbon campaign. Joining me is my colleague and friend, Mr. Seán Cooke, CEO of the Men’s Development Network. We would like to begin our statement by commending the significant work conducted by this committee, with the Department of Justice, on the general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency Bill. Our presentation today seeks to complement the committee's important work to date and provide support and refinement in presenting a comprehensive Bill later this year.

As an organisation that engages with men and boys through gender-transformative approaches, we are part of a growing movement nationally and internationally of men speaking out about gender-based violence, including violence against women and girls. In the field of gender-based violence prevention, we are indebted to the leadership of women, in particular, women of intersectional backgrounds, and their representative organisations for the leadership role that they have played and continue to play in this area. Organisationally, we believe it is vital for us, especially as men, to thank and acknowledge their leadership in the creation of a society that is free from violence.

The design, development, and implementation of a robust co-ordinating agency for all aspects of the third national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is a State obligation under Articles 7 and 10 of the Istanbul Convention. However, Ireland’s journey towards the establishment of a dedicated agency also starts with the role of women’s leadership. The National Women’s Council, in its submission of June 2021, specifically called for a DSGBV agency to co-ordinate policies and service delivery. Other organisations such as Ruhama, Safe Ireland and Women’s Aid, among others, also called for such policy and service co-ordination and accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, the work of the Minister, Deputy Helen McEntee, in leading the Department of Justice was vital in the development of this third national strategy. These are just some of many examples of women’s leadership roles and actions which have brought every single one of us here today.

The Men’s Development Network, through our own policy submissions as part of the drafting of the third national strategy and through our engagements with the citizens’ assembly process, has supported the development of this proposed agency, and continues to do so.

Our written submission, which I look forward to receiving questions on, as does my colleague Mr. Cooke, focused on heads 14 and 18 of the proposed general scheme, mainly centring on the functions of the proposed, the composition of governance structures and membership of the board. It also specifically includes, as part of the prevention pillar, engagement with men and boys, which is, for us, fundamental to developing a society where there is zero tolerance to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Kelly Ryan. Next up is Daire Dempsey from Transgender Equality Network Ireland, TENI. They are very welcome to the committee.

Mx. Daire Dempsey

I would like to start by thanking the joint committee for the opportunity today to speak with members around the general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency Bill. TENI is Ireland’s national NGO supporting trans and non-binary people throughout the country, and our vision is a world where all people, regardless of gender identity or expression, enjoy full acceptance of equality and human rights.

We applaud the positive measures contained within the Bill that will lead to the formation of Ireland’s first domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency, which is a positive step to help ensure equity of justice and developing further the routes and access to support for those victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence across Ireland. We are keen, in supporting this proposal, to ensure the intentions of the authors of the Bill, in creating the new agency as an inclusive and effective body, are realised to their fullest extent. We are also keen to ensure the needs and experiences of our trans and non-binary community members are centred, particularly taking into consideration intersectional identities.

As an organisation that provides direct support to the trans and non-binary community, we are regularly faced with hearing the challenges that community members have to navigate when accessing publicly funded services. These challenges range from gatekeeping and waiting lists experienced when trying to access gender-affirming care to the challenges many trans young people still face in receiving an inclusive environment at school. Often, the specific needs and experiences of trans people are not at the heart of decision-making, and the expertise to tailor support and services can be lacking.

Head 19 of the Bill shows the clear intent to try to ensure a focus around equality in the outcomes of the board appointments, but only as expressed in the Bill in terms of gender. This understanding fails to consider the reality of identities beyond the binary of men and women. This wording, while admirable in its aim, would see an exclusion of non-binary people in this measure, with their reality invisible in the methodology being used. In addition to this point, we hope that further work could be made around including steps to ensure broader diversity within the agency's new board, and the use of best practice measures such as diverse panels and other techniques.

It is vital from the start that the expertise and understanding of the needs of the diverse and intersectional trans community is a consideration when determining board appointments. We appreciate reassurance of what steps will be taken to ensure board members will have the experience and expertise around the needs of trans and non-binary people, and how this will be built into the agency’s formation.

One additional step we would support in helping ensure the success of the agency is a clear commitment that it will be fully trans inclusive. Many trans people often fear accessing domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services due to the impact of ongoing media narratives in this area and the experiences globally of trans people having their gender identities denied or stigmatised at the very moment of seeking support. While we are heartened by the inclusive approaches taken by many providers in this area across Ireland, it would be valuable to see this echoed in this historic moment in forming the new national domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency, role modelling an approach that we hope other EU and global jurisdictions will seek to replicate.

I thank the committee for considering our submission and my opening comments.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mx. Dempsey. Next we have Dr. Salome Mbugua Henry from AkiDwA.

Dr. Salome Mbugua Henry

I thank the Chair so much, and AkiDwA welcomes the opportunity to present to the committee today. Our organisation welcomes the establishment of this general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency Bill, and views it as an opportunity to advance gender equality and zero tolerance of DSGBV in all of Irish society for all people.

Our organisation is a network of migrant women living in Ireland which was established in 2001, and we try to promote equality and justice for migrant women of all migration statuses. It also works on domestic and gender-based violence in a way that reflects the intersectionality between migration, gender and gender-based violence. We work with women who have lived experiences of diverse forms of DSGBV. In the committee's consideration of this draft general scheme, it is crucial to note that DSGBV covers not only domestic violence but also other forms of DSGBV such as female genital mutilation, early forced marriages and trafficking, which are present in Ireland today and from which all women and girls need to be ensured protection and provision of services.

I have a scenario and I want to go through it all. We have flagged extensively in our written submission the statistics and trends relating to the full spectrum of forms of DSGBV. Before I move to the two key recommendations that we have, I wanted to pose a scenario for the committee.

You have moved to Ireland with your partner and two children when your partner got a job here as an engineer. You had been forced into marriage when you were aged 14, and you had female genital mutilation performed on you when you were six years old. Your partner has always been aggressive and controlling, but he is well respected in your community and your family holds him in high regard. Not long after moving to Ireland, your partner becomes very violent.

It is the middle of Ramadan, and you make a decision to visit the agency to seek support. When you arrive, the receptionist offers you some water, but you cannot accept because you are fasting. When the time comes to meet the social worker, you dictate through a translator because you cannot speak the language.

They appear confused by how you are saying things. The agency staff then find an Arabic speaker on the Women’s Aid translation line and you must repeat your story for the person on the other end. I cannot continue with this case because it will take a lot of time. I want to bring to the committee an understanding of the many migrant women we deal with from different diverse backgrounds and what we want to see, for example, in the structure of the agency in terms of staff.

Looking first at the provisions in the draft general scheme for personnel who will make up the agency, both the staff and the board, there is a uniting thread we are adamant about, which is the need to ensure representation of women and ethnic minority groups in these workforces. This could be achieved through mechanisms such as nested quotas for staffing and the board, as well as subgroupings within the board which would have consultative status with the Minister, to name a few examples of such temporary special measures for the agency. Moreover, and even more urgently, ensuring adequate and continuous training for staff who will engage directly with clients of the agency and board members will be of crucial importance to avoid unconscious bias in the agency and to ensure sufficient attention to diverse concerns, should representation initially be lacking.

Regarding the function and operation of the structure and services, we wish to flag some recommendations for the content and substance of the services to be provided by the above staff. In the provision of services by the agency, it will be crucial that client confidentiality is prioritised, no matter the arrangements with service providers. This will be essential for migrant women who are vulnerable to alienation, seeking independent status from abusive partners and on less secure migration status footing to engage with the service. Clear terms and conditions and a monitoring body that is external, representative and impartial is needed to regulate the relationship between service providers and the agency.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Mbugua Henry. We will now move on to the next speaker. We can hear more from her as we move on. I would like to hear the rest of the example she gave of a lady in distress because I think it would be very useful. We will take that in the next part of the meeting. The time slot is over for those particular opening remarks. I call Ms McDermott from Safe Ireland.

Ms Mary McDermott

Safe Ireland thanks the committee for this opportunity to address the general scheme of the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency Bill. We welcome the formation of the new agency strongly and urge that it be established at the outset with all capacity to do the work to remove domestic, sexual and gender-based violence from Ireland and, indeed, to eradicate it. The agency’s direct functions under head 14 must include the generation of policy, rather than the weaker role of simple policy co-ordination, as proposed, alongside its other functions. All functions of the agency must be integrated and shaped by its own evidenced policy, which must be grounded in international best practice, the expertise of support services and appropriate State agents and services. Additionally, given the stresses of the politics of representation in contemporary life, innovative methodologies are required to draw on the ranges of emergent experience provided directly by survivors, their families and communities. The holistic connection between policy and service provision is envisaged in the third national strategy. Within the new agency, the everyday work of policy generation and development cannot be separated structurally from the evidentiary feedback loop provided by these front-facing engagements. Such separation is not best practice. It appears to us as a problematic replication of the problems of fragmentation we seek to overcome. Positioning the agency primarily as a service provider will repeat these former problems.

Full integration of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence policy generation within the agency and all other prescribed functions will provide the Minister with the best possible advice, proposals and recommendations for which he or she will be responsible to the Government and the Oireachtas. The agency, which is accountable through its board to the Minister for Justice, to the Taoiseach through the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality and, ultimately, to the Oireachtas, should include representatives from all relevant departments with appropriate authority to take the necessary decisions. Safe Ireland welcomes the creation of a duty on public sector bodies and others to co-operate with the agency under head 4. However, we also call strongly, as do our colleagues, for explicit and clear domestic violence expertise representation on the board. As it stands, the proposals are heavily focused on administrative and governance skill. Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence expertise must be well-represented on this board. Safe Ireland’s view is that the agency should propose a draft multiannual performance framework to the Minister for consideration and directly advise on the Minister’s annual statement of priorities, to which the Minister will have the power to respond and forward as she or he sees fit.

With regard to direct response to victims, a first priority for this agency should be the development of a national services development plan. The first task under that plan should be the development of a national strategic domestic violence accommodation plan which addresses deficits in short-term emergency accommodation for victims and develops longer term accommodation solutions for survivors. Such a plan will need a robust and fully co-designed approach which examines all aspects of survivor-victim response, both general and targeted, as they relate to safety, well-being, welfare and finance for all cohorts. Responding to domestic violence housing issues, specifically, requires a national, integrated perspective which is nonetheless locally flexible and supported.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms McDermott. I call Dr. Saidléar from the Rape Crisis Network Ireland.

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

I thank the committee for its invitation. Rape Crisis Network Ireland is enthusiastic about a dedicated domestic, sexual and gender-based violence agency and its potential transformative impact. We are mindful of the legislation for this agency, which must give it both the scope and specificity to meet expectations to ensure gaps do not open up in expectations, purpose or capacity, such has been our experience with the previous transition to the Child and Family Agency. I will focus on two key points in this regard but I am also happy to speak more broadly.

The first is the nature of the agency. We welcome, as some of my colleagues have touched on already, that this Bill recognises the need for the Minister for Justice and the whole of government to remain responsible for and active in policy and progress in the area of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. However, we see risks in this Bill in how the functions and powers of this agency may be shaped and confined, such as to make this legislative process effectively meaningless. There are critical points at which the Minister directs the agency and the board’s business throughout the Bill, under heads 15, 27, 28 and 29, which some already referenced. While many of these provisions are sound and practical, we wonder what strategic role the agency and board have, if any. As currently constructed, the board appears confined to oversight, control and accountability of good governance. If the board has little or no strategic role, the agency cannot be said to have a policy leadership role or independence. At the other end of the spectrum are the relationship and functions of the agency vis-à-vis the domestic, sexual and gender-based violence sector, in which it is possible to interpret the same utilitarianism. In our written submission, we raised concerns about the language used in head 14(1), as did many others, around service providers. We are concerned that the Bill does not explicitly recognise the broad work of any service provider beyond direct instances of measurable service provision. These other functions include listening, learning and engaging in order to evidence and effect change; in short, any organisation’s advocacy and agency. In between is how the agency develops and leads on policy. We suggest consideration of a re-balancing throughout the Bill to recognise and protect agency appropriately.

Second, I wish to talk about head 5 on public service information sharing. This does not appear to offer any addition to the existing data protection law, which should be of concern. It appears that this head has attempted to solve a problem that it does not specify, notwithstanding reference to head 4. We are aware that barriers to timely and in-depth cooperation based on real or perceived limitations in powers to share information can often frustrate insight, progress and implementation. Head 5(1) is great but is effectively powerless in terms of expediting these points of negotiation across government. Bearing in mind that many of these limitations exist for the protection of survivors’ rights, upholding of their safety and dignity and indeed, at times, their protection from the State itself, if there are specific information-sharing requirements for the agency’s functions, which there may well be, they should be stated specifically and transparently and be subject to scrutiny before passing into law.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank all of the witnesses. That concludes the opening remarks from the organisations represented today. We will now move to a round of questions and answers. I invite members in the order in which they have indicated to engage.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank all of the witnesses for their opening statements and submissions.

We are all conscious we are here because so many women in our society in particular, albeit men too, have suffered for so long and have been the victims of femicide. The case of Ashling Murphy galvanised everybody in the country. We are all here because we want things to change given, clearly, they have not been working properly, and that is the first thing we have to recognise. When legislation such as this is brought forward, we know it is not going to be perfect on the first draft, and the Government and everybody else have to recognise that. We have to try to find a means by which we can make it better. The various submissions outlined many of the points on which we need to focus. I was struck in particular by the point made by Safe Ireland, echoed in many of the other contributions, regarding the issue of rebalancing and recognising the depth of knowledge that exists in the non-governmental sector. That sector has been carrying the burden in this context for generations, if we are honest about it, and I assume the departmental staff who are attending the meeting will recognise that. There is a bit of work to be done on that and we need to bring it into focus.

One of the primary issues I have found is that when women come forward in a position of crisis, in most of the cases I have dealt with, one of the main problems they have is that there are very few places for them to seek refuge and then there are very few places for them to get long-term housing that will be appropriate to their needs. That is one of the key problems we face. Often, they are in a relationship with somebody and jointly own a house, which means they are not entitled sole access to it, and there are all sorts of problems in respect of that. It would be useful to hear comments about what needs to be done to ensure that knot is sorted out.

Ms Mary McDermott

I am happy to take that. There was a perfect storm between our obligations under the Istanbul Convention to meet those refuge requirements; Covid, which put domestic violence on the map; and the development of the national plan. A series of issues made this all come to a crisis point. The roll-out of refuge, in a general sense, is only one strand of the many housing paths that are needed for domestic violence victims, some of whom may never leave their homes or may leave a crisis-driven home and return to it. For example, Safe Ireland is initiating a safe-at-home pilot project. It is very important, as we set out in our opening statement and my colleagues will attest, that a set of pathways be provided. There is no single answer. Furthermore, that is also the case as represented by other issues in this context. There is no one-size-fits-all and we need a nuanced, flexible response.

Deputy Martin Kenny

This is probably an even greater issue for women in a migrant situation, who might not have the support base of family or community that others might have.

Ms Mary McDermott

Yes.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Another issue relates to the expertise that already exists and how that can be brought to bear on the board. What level of oversight will the board have and how will its members be selected?

Ms Orla O'Connor

I might come in there. The composition of the board is a very important issue and we feel the way it is worded in the draft is not strong enough. It does not acknowledge the expertise that is there. We want the board to be reflective of that expertise. As currently worded, it could be very limited. It needs to have people from the sector who have worked on gender-based violence and the entire board needs to have knowledge and expertise in the area. That will have to involve training as well given that, presumably, other people will be brought on in respect of governance issues. This needs to be stated in the legislation but it is currently very weak. I fully support the Deputy raising the issue. We certainly want the wording to be amended.

Dr. Salome Mbugua Henry

That was one of our key points. It is important that the board and staff of this agency reflect the diversity of today's Ireland, and that links to the point about the lived experiences of women in Ireland. There was a reference to refuges. The challenges migrant women face are much greater because they are unlikely to have extended family and so on here, but there is also the challenge arising from the fact there is no women-only shelter for women who have been trafficked. It is important that people from diverse communities and backgrounds form part of the agency. We have suggested using nested quotas, that is, quotas within quotas, to ensure Travellers and people from all sorts of diverse communities are included. Even if they are not engaged directly, perhaps subgroups can help inform the board. In any event, it is important for these communities to be part and parcel of the agency.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank our guests for their presentations. This is a troubling area that we have to grapple with, and the Government and the Oireachtas have been trying to catch up following probably generations of under-emphasis of it. There was the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Equality and we have been speaking about changes at this committee. Clearly, there have been recent controversies relating to the Defence Forces and toxic cultures there, and I am sure that if we were to conduct reviews into power imbalances in other State agencies we might find similar cultural issues. Within all this, what really troubles me is that somebody such as Andrew Tate will be an awful lot more powerful in the minds of young men than the likes of anything said here by any politician. We live in a country where women are being killed by men. Some people have difficulty getting their head around that and get very defensive in response to it, and they emphasise this idea it is "not all men" and all the rest of it. At least we are having a positive, constructive conversation as to how best we can grapple with this, and our guests are the people who deal with it every day.

They dealt with the refuge issue, but I am interested in what they were saying about the diversity issue within refuges, which we might touch on a little more. The board is going to be the key to the success or otherwise of the agency, to whether people trust and have faith in it or otherwise, and to whether it will last and enjoy robust engagement over a prolonged period. If the wording is problematic within the current draft, what kind of phraseology or changes to the draft would our guests be able to stand over, which we could then work with? That is what we are here to try to improve on.

Mr. Colm Kelly

We concur with our colleagues who have made this point. Head 18(2)(a) requires revision. It refers to two members “having sufficient experience and expertise relating to the functions of the Agency”. That does not necessarily mean they will understand the complexities of what circumstances are like on the ground. This is where we all agree. Irrespective of which agency we come from, we are all informing the committee that that wording needs revision. The recommendation we made to the committee in our written submission outlines that this provision needs to be revised to include the experiences of service providers and those in service delivery to victims of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.

Including the third sector, such as non-profits and NGOs, will depoliticise this a little bit. We are neutral, and while we are funded by the Government, it will create a broader buy-in and sense of collective effort and different viewpoints that, for so long, have been ignored in the seats of power such as the Oireachtas. It is important that there is that type of inclusion at board level.

Moreover, although we did not state this in our written submission, we should also take into account the wonderful work done by the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. It provided clear recommendations to us all on how equal and inclusive our boards, public bodies and publicly funded organisations should be.

They provide very clear recommendations to us all on how equal and inclusive our boards, public bodies and publicly funded organisations should be. Those are the starting points, namely, the amendment of head 18(2)(a) and consideration of what was presented by experts and decided on by the citizens at the assembly. We can talk about toxic masculinity at a later stage.

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

I am in agreement with what everyone has said about diversity and representation. I wish to take a step back. We can do all of that. If, however, we bring people to that table and then do not give them any power, that would be deeply problematic.

We have to first consider what the board has been asked to do. So far, it has been asked to do very little. It does not have much by way of strategic room and is not independent. There is a veneer of independence, but it has not been given the task of strategically steering this agency in any way. It is doing governance, accountability and transparency and is effectively doing auditing. That needs to be looked at very seriously, or else we need a different structure which is doing the work. Another submission talks about the different Departments being at the table. What are we asking the board to do will dictate what energy we put into the board in terms of the point at which we are bringing people into the conversation.

Ms Lee Martin

I second that by saying it is the experience of the trans community that gatekeeping is a huge issue when we are talking about disempowering people. We can afford all of this to people, but if the person standing at the door has a different type of view, everything stops for the trans person and they are dealt with in a different way. I understand where others are coming from and I agree.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for the contributions.

Deputy Pa Daly

It is clear that since Istanbul, the State has to up its game. I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. Over the past couple of years, the gathering of data has been crucial to this committee. The statistics available in the UK, for example, are light years ahead of what we have here. As was mentioned by few of the witnesses, research is key.

Generation of policy was mentioned by a number of witnesses as being important. It was also mentioned that is it important that there is an inter-agency for housing, for example. Some of the witnesses attended a conference at the weekend which examined issues such as resourcing, funding, the lack of funding and other agencies such as community development and the groups dealing with those who are victims of violence which are very much underfunded. Do any witnesses want to comment on that?

I spoke to a local person who was dealing with refuges in Athlone. There are nine counties in the State that do not have any safe accommodation. The person said there had been a mass exodus from of lawyers from family law courts, resulting in many women not being represented. There are huge delays in accessing legal representation and often women come to court and feel there is no equality of arms when they get there. Do the witnesses have any comments on that?

Difficulties accessing the courts have been mentioned. What lessons can we learn from what happened in the UK in terms of the maintenance agencies which were established in order to take cases away from the courts? Have we taken learnings from the UK? How can things be improved in our planning for the future?

The deficit in safe accommodation was something that came up. While I respect that is important, women in particular should be able to stay in their own homes as much as possible.

Ms Caroline Counihan

I will come back to the Deputy on the legal aspects. I wish to pick up on a couple of points he made. Women suffering domestic violence continue to experience shortages of skilled family lawyers in the District Court in particular. The Legal Aid Board is making strenuous efforts in this regard. I am glad to report that things have improved in a few areas.

As a result of the fact that I am in regular contact with services all around the country, I am aware there are some black spots. Unfortunately, Athlone is one of them. I would also like to acknowledge that strenuous efforts are being made on the Government side with the family justice strategy. It is something that will be tackled.

When it comes to increasing the number of family lawyers, many things need to happen. First, the court system, including family courts, needs to be improved. As we know, the civil legal aid review is going on. The legislation needs to be amended to improve the reach of legal aid for women experiencing domestic violence. It is not enough that it is confined to family law; legal aid is needed in other vital areas. Representation is needed for rent tribunals, to give one example. There are systemic issues and problems with the low level of pay that private practitioners are able to access as payment from the Legal Aid Board, which has no power to pay higher amounts.

As I said, there are problems with the system. As we know, what is happening in the family law courts, especially in the District Court, is that the system is very overburdened. Therefore, cases take a long time to be determined because on any particular family law day outside Dublin - as we know, Dublin has a dedicated court - it can take ages for a matter to be resolved. People have to keep coming back and matters are adjourned repeatedly at huge cost emotionally to the participants, in particular women who may be in a very difficult family law situation, but also the children involved. It is not an equivalent pain, but it is also very difficult for people working in the system. Judges are very overloaded.

We need more judges. We need fixed appointments and expertise within the courts. Our cohort of family solicitors has to be properly trained, remunerated and supported. All of these things are possible, and all of them must accompany the overhaul of the system and transformation that will come with the Family Courts Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

We are almost out of time. Dr. Saidléar and Ms O'Connor are offering.

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

In terms of children specifically and the Bill, a small clause recognises the transfer of the parties of DSGBV. It was never as a whole in Tusla, but we are transferring it to a new agency. What is left behind in the agency for the first time is including children in DSGBV. We need to be careful that we fully acknowledge Tusla's continued role in children's lives in this process around sexual and domestic violence. We cannot uncouple the two.

An Cathaoirleach

I will allow a little bit of latitude in this round because it is good to hear all views.

Ms Orla O'Connor

The Deputy mentioned the Istanbul Convention. In the current proposal, we are suggesting that instead of a Short Title there be a Long Title that would put the agency in the context of our international and European obligations. We should have a Long Title that includes reference to the Istanbul Convention. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre also recommended that. That is a way of putting it in a wider context.

The Deputy mentioned a number of issues.

Another issue we have been trying to grapple with with regard to what we put in our submission was how we increase the powers of this agency from the current Bill into an obligation for agencies and Departments to fulfil their commitments under the strategy. We know we have an ambitious strategy but we also know that many strategies have not been delivered on. There need to be increased powers for the agency to oblige Departments and public bodies to do that. We are not exactly sure of the legal language for that, but that is something we are raising. It links to the wider point that Dr. Clíona Saidléar was making about how this agency has to have teeth. Otherwise, it will just be a service delivery issue and we will have a strategy that might sit on a shelf.

Mx. Daire Dempsey

Echoing what everybody has been saying, there are many really useful points. One of the issues mentioned was funding for organisations within the community sector. A matter which is relevant here is violence prevention, particularly among young men and boys, and how masculinity functions in many ways in society, and how we can strengthen that through this agency and process. For us as TENI, we have a big concern with how transphobia functions in Irish society and how it is used against trans people in partnerships and in relationships within the home. That prevention piece with regard to how we or the agency will hopefully be able to work with community organisations is crucial.

Ms Alannah Owens

Linking with the Deputy's point on the lack of female representation among family lawyers, we see not only that as a problem, but also the lack of ethnic minority representation. That extends to services more generally. It really emphasises the importance of culturally appropriate services that need to be made available so that when women get to engage with qualified family lawyers, they can proceed with and take their cases forward, rather than finding themselves at cultural and language impasses that may mean they do not take their cases forward to the courts or that when they are in the court, they receive an experience that is not conducive to them being able to put themselves forward and make their cases clearly in a sensitive way.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we move onto the next question, the point about the difficulty of getting family lawyers into the District Court goes back to the system of civil legal aid. It is a topic that the committee intends to examine over the course of this year. There are a number of anomalies in the current system with regard to how lawyers, particularly in the District Court and Family Court, are remunerated. We will have to look at that.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank everybody for their contributions today. It has been interesting. The discussion so far about what the committee and the board will do when it is established has been interesting. It is clear, to my mind, that as set up in the legislation here, it will unfortunately not achieve its aims. It would be good if suggestions from the committee and the witnesses' contributions were taken on board and the legislation was widened to allow it to give a real sense of what the board should be. We will have that discussion further later on. If we have time, I want to ask two specific questions.

A rise in sexual assault among children nationally has been reported, with a 50% increase in victims under the age of 16 in Donegal last year alone. It has been reported that there has been a rise of cases where physical violence accompanies sexual violence and of cases with more than one perpetrator too. Due to the significant rise in cases of victims under the age of 16, the Donegal Rape Crisis Centre reduced the age of those who can access its services to 12. It was only able to do this following a successful funding application to the "Late Late Toy Show", which is reflective enough of what we are talking about here. Has the Rape Crisis Network Ireland seen an increase in cases of children under 16? I think the cases of multiple perpetrators is worrying and scary. What are the Rape Crisis Network Ireland's views on that?

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

Tomorrow, the Central Statistics Office will launch the first sexual violence survey, so we will have our first prevalence study for a very long time in Ireland. We will know precisely what our baseline is at this time tomorrow. That will be incredibly helpful. Without that baseline, we are picking numbers from the people who come to us, the people who become visible to us and the people who speak out. It is important that we know the prevalence to put a shape on and understand what we are looking at. We will know much more. If I can return to the Deputy, I will be able to answer his question much better tomorrow once that is visible. The CSO is very professional in keeping its data close to the chest until the day.

The second thing I would like to pick up on is the question about funding and need. One of the first jobs of this agency is to set up the national service development plan. This is not to be mistaken for a national needs assessment. It is important that we have not yet got to the place where we are planning on a national needs assessment. On the back of a needs assessment, once we understand the prevalence and once we have properly gone out and understood the need, then we need criteria for funding that are transparent. We should be able to say that 12-year-olds should be seen in rape crisis centres and that every rape crisis centre has access to funding to provide that service because that is a needed service. We should be in that space but we are not. We are still handing out bits and bobs of funding when people ask, almost as grace and favour, in a non-transparent and non-coherent way. It is important that this agency does that work.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

As it is currently set up in the legislation, will it be able to do that?

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

There is not a needs assessment built into this at the moment. It is a tough one to crack. The prevalence study is really the first step. Understanding how one measures needs assessment across the board, nationally, is a big job that this agency should be given as a matter of priority. It is not yet on the agenda. Regarding whether it can distribute the funding transparently and in a coherent, fair, equitable way, it is possibly covered in the general scheme but needs to be held onto, because that is not what we have had to date.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank Dr. Saidléar. I have a question for the Men's Development Network. There have been numerous reports suggesting that digital misogyny is on the rise. I agree with the stakeholders today that the agency should have a particular focus on engaging men and boys. That is vitally important because they are the perpetrators of these acts. I believe there should also be a specific focus on how patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes are being spread via social media. Can the Men's Development Network speak to the rise in digital misogyny among young men in particular? Has it any suggestions of how the agency can play a role in combating this?

Mr. Colm Kelly

First and foremost, we need to be clear and say the root cause of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls is gender norms, inclusive of patriarchy, attitudes, norms and behaviours. It is primarily violence against women and it is primarily perpetrated by men. That is our starting point. One thing that we have placed in our submission to the committee for consideration relates to taking gender-responsive and gender-inclusive approaches when it comes to this work. If we want to address the root cause, we have to go to the source. We cannot put plasters on things anymore. It is not good for the climate or for the environment. We need to go to the root cause, which is unfortunately, too often, men's attitudes and perceptions of what is acceptable behaviour. I agree with the Deputy about that.

In our submission, we have recommended looking at head 14(1)(e)(i) of the general scheme. As it stands, this needs to reflect, at legislation level, the need to engage with men and boys. This needs to be within the remit of the agency and needs to be specified. This is in accordance with the Istanbul Convention and with our national strategy. We know ourselves that when an agency is established and set up, the terms of reference for the wonderful people who go in with good hearts and good spirits are the legislation. Specific reference to engaging men and boys under the prevention pillar needs to be included, named and stated. As our friends and colleagues said, we cannot have another strategy where nothing changes. We have to go and we have to engage with men and boys. That needs to be named.

This aligns with goals 1.1.1, 1.1.6 and 1.1.8 of the implementation plan of the zero-tolerance third national strategy, namely, that engaging with men and boys is at the heart of prevention. We need to engage with everyone of all gender identities, but there has to be a specific focus and approach in respect of men and boys in accordance with best national and international practice.

I would point towards chapter 3 of the Istanbul Convention of the Council of Europe on prevention. The article on general obligations notes that state parties are required "to encourage all members of society, especially men and boys, to contribute actively to preventing all forms of violence". The absence of specific reference to men and boys runs the risk of the agency failing to effect change or address the root cause of the issue. Furthermore, recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, on gender-based violence against women notes that states' preventative work must address the underlying causes of gender-based violence, including patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes and gender-related factors such as men's entitlement, privilege and social norms regarding masculinity.

In short, the answer is "Yes". We need to include in this head of the Bill engaging men and boys on prevention. We believe that this is what needs to take place to make a zero-tolerance approach happen.

Mx. Daire Dempsey

The point made about the online aspect and the social media factor was salient. We have seen the rise of online misogyny and transphobia. Targeted attacks are happening on various social media platforms. The eventual legislation and the prevention work need to be relevant, particularly for young people who are seeing this kind of discourse online. We need to reach them where it is happening. As with cultural specificity, if we are not reaching people in a way that is relevant and speaks to their experiences and the discourse they are seeing online, it will not have an impact on them. The question of how we reach young people in particular is important.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his hospitality in allowing me to contribute. It is wonderful to see the witnesses back in the Oireachtas. The more they are here, the better we will drive the message home that DSGBV by anyone against anyone is no longer tolerable in any shape or form.

I believe it was Ms Counihan who mentioned Athlone. That issue comes across my desk regularly – my constituency is Longford-Westmeath – and I was glad to hear what Ms Counihan said.

I wish to ask Dr. Saidléar about the service development plan versus the needs assessment that has to be carried out. My understanding is that there are services the length and breadth of the country that have grown almost organically in recent decades. Without a needs assessment and a coherent strategy for investing where need arises, though, is there not a risk that services that are already established will receive additional funding while areas where there are no services will be left with none?

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

Precisely. The risk is that we will end up measuring what is already there and then adding to it. This means that the places that are underserved become even more underserved while the places that are served may finally reach a level where they have enough. No one has enough at the moment-----

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Agreed.

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

-----so it is not a question of anyone getting too much money. The risk is that we will see what has been articulated before as a service need and will not see anything new. This relates to many of the conversations we have had in the Oireachtas about how to engage and involve the NGO sector and communities to ensure that we see the thing we need to see in total and not just add on to what is already there.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I am unsure as to who is best placed to answer my next question. Independent oversight of any agency is necessary, but particularly this new one. Is there international best practice that we should be emulating? Has any other country done this work and put in place an independent oversight mechanism to ensure that not only does funding go where it needs to, but that key targets are being reached by the agency during its life?

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

I will speak again. I will elaborate on some of my opening statement. We have Article 10 of the Istanbul Convention, and the agency is Ireland's answer to that. The convention does country reports and Ireland is under review by the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO, committee. Every now and then, it writes considerations of how countries have implemented the various articles and says whether their interpretations are wrong. Luckily for us, the GREVIO committee wrote a consideration on Article 10 in 2016 and was clear that a single agency to meet the need of Article 10 would not cut it. The committee wrote about how monitoring needed to be independent from implementation. Under the model Ireland has gone for, one agency will do the job and the agency will be controlled by or linked to the Minister. That means there will not be an independent element.

We can go in two directions. There are probably three or four options, actually, but I can only think of two right now. We can make the agency more independent and push it away from the Government. There are many good reasons for this agency to have such clout and coherence and for it to link to the Government, in that a clause in the legislation – "The Minister shall" – attaches the Government to the issue of DSGBV and will not allow the Minister to walk away from it in future. However, if that is our approach, then we need to build in something independent that handles monitoring. That does not exist in the current thought process, though, and there are no plans for it at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach

Would Ms O'Connor like to comment?

Ms Orla O'Connor

Yes. This is an important issue in terms of independence and accountability. When many organisations and members of the National Women's Council were making submissions on the strategy, there were recommendations about having external accountability through ombudsmen, a victims commissioner or even an Oireachtas committee. We have examined a number of ways of achieving that increased layer. While the Government did not go with that at the time of the strategy, it is the National Women's Council view that it remains necessary, so we are still campaigning for it. That extra piece is missing.

An Cathaoirleach

Did Deputy Costello indicate?

Deputy Patrick Costello

Yes. I would like to drill into our attempt to set up an independent monitoring body. Ms O'Connor spoke about ombudsmen. Will the witnesses elaborate on how they see that working? What would it need to look like to work effectively? I am conscious that, when we try to create an independent monitoring body, it is often cheapest, quickest or easiest, if not necessarily right, to use an existing body. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, is constantly being given new issues to monitor without necessarily the resources to do so. If we are to set up external accountability and make the Government and the agency answer effectively to an independent outsider for their decisions and the consequences of same, what will that look like? Are we talking about yet another agency? Would it be an NGO alliance? Will the witnesses give us more detail about how such a body would be effective, bearing in mind that other countries have done this?

Dr. Clíona Saidléar

We would like there to be a conversation. Right now, we would not like to say what the body would look like exactly. It has to mirror how the agency takes shape, as that will dictate the monitoring relationship. One of the Council of Europe's criticisms of implementation was that countries were just tagging on another job to existing agencies and that that continual adding on was itself problematic.

If we look at what we have already in Ireland in terms of different types of monitoring mechanisms, our ombudsmen all do different things. They are set up in different ways. We have had a rapporteur system for children that has been effective in many ways but we really need to pay attention to the criticisms that Professor Conor O'Mahony laid out. One of those was that there was no statutory basis for the rapporteur. There was a whole load of stuff that the rapporteur could not access, particularly around family law and the in camera rule and in research and really understanding the critical issues that the child rapporteur needed to look at. Without a statutory basis this could not be done. We need to think about the enabling mechanisms to a statute that a monitoring oversight body needs. It might also include the capacity to protect and hold data as well so that it knows what it is looking at.

Ms Mary McDermott

We have to have something to monitor. The heads of Bill is looking at what we are setting up to monitor. It needs all the powers that Dr. Saidléar has mentioned. Two things seem to be sitting in the room for me. The first is a question about the nature of this agency and what its reach and remit will be. The other issue that is recurring is about the content of the work of the agency. We see this a lot. This goes to issues like diversity and needs analysis. We are very hopeful that we will have a future-facing agency that is not designing what we call the "Stepford Wives" version of what domestic violence is. We want an agency that is future-facing for all the imaginable forms of misogyny and sexism, and how all this violence and abuse is happening now across real and virtual platforms, to all ages, young and old, parents or not. That is where we want to go regarding the content. Safe Ireland's frame of analysis is that sex, gender and sexuality-based coercion and violence is the axis of power for this type of abuse and it needs to be identified as a section in itself in intersectional analysis for a very clear reason. Domestic violence does not sit or map clearly on top of the traditional social exclusion categories. Poverty has a very complex relationship on the list of marginalised groups, yes, but it also affects all other groups. We need analyses and frameworks that match that and we need an agency that can do that. As Ms O'Connor and others have said we need an agency where the members are trained in the nature of domestic violence. We need an agency that is future-facing and has the reach and remit to generate its own policy, and do primary research to generate data that will feed into an evidentiary feedback loop with the services, survivors, families and communities that this affects. In terms of a service development plan, a needs analysis is the first thing I would imagine anyone would do when developing a plan. Unless something completely out of date was going to be implemented that would be normal procedure. We really need the agency to have the power and the reach. All of us here want that.

Mr. Colm Kelly Ryan

I agree with Deputy Costello that this could be delegated to IHREC under the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014. The Government can task IHREC with additional responsibilities. It is framed to that effect. It is very broad and it is also in line with the Paris Principles that underpin the functioning of a national human rights institution such as IHREC. I do not want to delegate additional work to IHREC but the necessary resources, both human and financial, to allow for that would have to be in place. That would be the most direct way to allow for monitoring so that we can get past the governance and cut to the chase of zero tolerance actually happening. That would be an effective way and it is within existing statute and European law as to how best to do it.

Senator Tom Clonan

I just came in to listen and to meet some my colleagues and friends here. On the matter of independent monitoring and oversight, the independent review group, which published its report on sexual violence in the Defence Forces showed that 23 years after the publication of my own research in that area, the situation has deteriorated significantly. That will be further quantified by a tribunal of inquiry, but the deterioration happened while there was an ombudsman in place and while there was a series of independent monitoring groups which were suspended in 2017 or 2018. Whatever monitoring we have needs to be independent and it has to have teeth. I listened very carefully to the interview Ms Pauline Marrinan Quinn, SC, gave on RTE about her time as ombudsman. She asked for extra powers to be able to independently investigate concerns that were raised about sexual violence. She got no response to that request. Shortly thereafter she was replaced as ombudsman by a retired military judge. We have to be really careful that whatever monitoring group is set up has powers that are meaningful. It needs not only to be independent but widely perceived to be independent. Otherwise, history might repeat itself.

The immediate aftermath of the publication of the independent review group report speaks to the idea of consulting men and boys. I was struck by the amount of pushback on the findings of the report. This pushback is really significant and I find that deeply troubling. It is coming from a number of very high-profile sources. It seems we have a persistent and profound problem with this problem of violence, not just domestically but in the most powerful institutions of the State. It is an extraordinary situation. An organisation that is charged to defend and protect its citizens is not a safe place for 51% of the population, or for people who are different by way of ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. What an extraordinary state of affairs. I apologise. I only came in to listen but I commend the committee on its work and I hope it can persuade the Government to adopt the changes in the amendments that are necessary.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Senator Clonan for his work in that area. The Defence Forces issues are subject to a different committee, but certainly they are relevant. An independent inquiry is about to commence so we welcome that. We have been around to all the members and we have had good engagement. Would the representatives from the Department of Justice like to make any remarks?

Ms Layla de Cogan Chin

I thank everyone for their contributions. It has been incredibly enlightening. A number of people mentioned the importance of bringing in sectoral expertise and we agree with that. We will give it very careful consideration. I know the Minister is absolutely committed to the principle of codesign. The functions of the agency resulted from a codesign process. The Minister envisages that the agency will have a very strong collaborative relationship with the DSGBV sector in fulfilling its functions. Obviously we need that level of expertise across the various elements of the sector to make the agency work. Deputy Daly and a few others mentioned data gathering and we know the importance of that also. We know that we need the information in the form of aggregated data. That is why there is a dedicated research function envisaged for the agency because we need a strong evidence base for any policy making, or decision making so that is reflected in the scheme and it is something we take very seriously.

A number of people mentioned violence prevention and it was in a couple of the submissions as well. The awareness raising function in the agency will play a part in this regard. Quite a lot of work has been done on that already and it has been quite successful. We need to grow it but obviously violence prevention goes beyond awareness raising. The third national strategy prioritises prevention and reduction of the incidence of DSGBV.

The third national strategy prioritises prevention and reduction of the incidence of domestic, sexual and gender based violence so we are open to consideration and working with parliamentary counsel to see how we can better reflect that prevention element in the wording of the legislation.

Yes, we also want the agency to be future-facing. That was a nice way of putting it. We are also keen to make sure that the agency has the mandate it needs, not only to deal with the issues we have at present but also emerging problems which we cannot see around corners. As the Senator mentioned, who would have thought 20 years from his report that the situation is worse? Things develop. We need the agency not to be limited in its mandate or its funding capacity. We need it to be able to deal with emerging issues.

We have heard the committee and will take what it has said very seriously. We will consider it all. We are very grateful for the opportunity to hear all the different perspectives and we are very much looking forward to the report of the committee. If the committee needs to clarify any points, we are happy to respond in writing if it helps it in the compiling of its report.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Department and Ms de Cogan Chin. That concludes our discussion. Does Mr. Cooke want to have the last word?

Mr. Seán Cooke

Is the Chair closing the meeting?

An Cathaoirleach

Effectively, yes. We have the opening statements and then we have interaction from the members. There is a possibility of a second round for members if they wish to indicate. No one had indicated but if a member wants to do so they may. Does Deputy Pringle want to kick it off and Mr. Cooke can reply to him?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I was quietly waiting for the second round to start before I indicated. I know that nobody here has the answer to this question, but one of the things that worries me about the legislation is that once you need to deal with two Departments, the legislation falls down and collapses straight away and if you have to deal with five or six Departments, you may forget about it. Do the witnesses have an indication or ideas as to how to make the legislation strong enough that it will actually cross departmental bodies and how that could work?

Ms Mary McDermott

We really believe that this new agency needs innovative methodologies about everything. The politics of representation which we referred to in our opening statement is really complex. Look at the cumbersome nature of the monitoring committee prior to this. There is no one in the room who would deny how difficult that was. This issue of how representation, presence and decision making itself needs a bit of work but we think that can be done. It is not a simple replication of what has been done before and new methodologies need to be brought in here; everything from departmental right down to survivor, family and community engagement and everything we have been discussing.

Mr. Seán Cooke

It is interesting to hear Senator Clonan talk. It does set off the alarm bells for us all to think of what has gone before. We talk about the agency not having any teeth. Some of the recommendations we have all made are manifested in people asking what the representation is on the committee itself and the strategy board as we go forward. That is clearly a manifestation of the fact that it would not have the teeth necessary to do the work that it has to do.

We talk about people like Andrew Tate and engagement with men and boys. An area of our work is around a particular methodology of engagement. We have to avoid the backlash which Senator Clonan spoke about, whether it is State agencies, individuals or wherever it may be. The invitation to engage men and boys needs to be done in a particular kind of way that it does not create that kind of backlash to the work.

Finally, I would raise something that has not come up today but is in our submission. We are one of the few organisations in the country that works with both perpetrators and victims and survivors of domestic abuse. It is one of the things that is not recognised at all in the heads of Bill. Early last year, the Council of Europe held a conference in Dublin under the Minister for Justice of the day. It agreed a Dublin declaration. It included working with perpetrators at the heart of working against domestic violence. The heads of the Bill should reflect that. Our experience over the years in working with both perpetrators and victims and survivors has given us a much broader understanding of the complex nature of the work. They do not happen in isolation. We know that domestic violence is a spectrum from victim to perpetrator. It is something that needs to be engaged with and included in the heads of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Cooke. We have heard from everybody and it has been a really good engagement. The committee will have another meeting among ourselves and discuss the points that were raised at this meeting, document them and produce a report. As stakeholders and valued contributors to the meeting, our witnesses will be invited to the next engagement. We will launch a report and so forth. It is a very valuable exercise. We will publish all the opening statements on the committee website. The report will summarise all the contributions and our own findings. I thank everyone for their involvement and participation today. That concludes our consideration of this legislation. I thank everyone for their very valued inputs.

I ask the members to remain for a few minutes as we have some housekeeping to do.

Sitting suspended at 4.37 p.m. and resumed in private session at 4.41 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.53 p.m. until 3.30 p.m on Tuesday, 16 May 2023.