I welcome the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, back to the House. The combined opening speeches of the proposer and seconder shall not exceed 16 minutes. All other Senators have six minutes, the Minister has 15 minutes and the proposer has five minutes to reply. The Minister can come in at any stage once the proposer and seconder have finished. If she wants to come in directly after that is fine, or it is equally fine if she wants to await further contributions.
Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2024: Second Stage
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire inniu go dtí an seomra dlí don Dara Léamh ar mo Bhille, ar a dtugtar an Bille um Fhoréigean Baile (Leasú), 2024. Ag an bpointe seo, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le mo chomh-Sheanadóirí a thacaigh leis an mBille, ina measc an t-iarSheanadóir, David Norris. Faoi láthair, má sháraíonn duine ordú cosanta i dtaca le foréigean teaghlaigh, ní féidir é a chúiseamh ach i mbealach achomair agus dá bharr sin, níl i ndán don té atá cúisithe ach bannaí nach bhfuil ródhian. Má ghlactar le mo Bhille, beidh an deis ann an té a chúiseamh ar díotáil.
As well as thanking the co-sponsors of this cross-party Bill, I also put on the record that Senators Wall, Seery Kearney and O'Loughlin came forward to support it after it was submitted. The context and need for legislative change proposed in this area is important. This context was succinctly pointed out today by solicitor, Keith Walsh, senior counsel, and co-author with Sonya Dixon BL, of the upcoming book Domestic Violence: Law and Practice in Ireland. He informed legislators that in 2022 more than 10,000 domestic violence protective orders were made. Some 5,000 of these orders were breached, but we currently have a one size fits all approach. My Bill proposes a hybrid approach to this important area of concern. I also note there were only 500 convictions on foot of breaches of protective orders. Last year there were 54,000 domestic violence-related Garda callouts.
Sarah Benson, CEO of Women's Aid, spoke to legislators from both Houses today and reminded us that there are situations of multiple breaches of these orders. To summarise, a person who is currently charged with breaching a domestic violence protective order of any kind can only be prosecuted in summary fashion. As such a breach can have potentially serious consequences for the victim of the breach, my proposed legislative changes seek to extend the discretion of the prosecution to bring, when appropriate, an indictable charge, which of course is a more serious charge.
Given the nature of these crimes, a victim can also be at risk pending trial because bail, crucially, can only be refused in quite limited circumstances in summary cases. If appropriate, the court would have greater power to refuse bail to a person charged with an indictable offence, and take other charges against the accused into account. An offence contrary to section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 - breach of domestic order - currently attracts a maximum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.
It is a summary offence only and therefore the current lawful objection to bail in respect of an offence or offences under section 33 is pursuant to the well-known dicta laid down in the case of the AG v. O'Callaghan 1966, which inter alia deals with the interference alleged within the course of justice. There were two limbs to the objections that could be raised. The first was the likelihood of interfering with prosecution witnesses or evidence, and the other was the likelihood of absconding or evasion. However, section 2 of the Bail Act 1997, which was introduced after a constitutional referendum was carried, permits the court to refuse bail in certain additional circumstances to prevent the commission of serious offences by the accused. In considering an objection pursuant to section 2 of the Bail Act 1997, the court may have regard to other offences in respect to which the accused person is charged and awaiting trial. Section 1(1) of the Bail Act 1997 states that a serious offence is an offence specified in the Schedule for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years, or by a more severe penalty.
It is not enough that an offence may attract a penalty of five years or more if the offence is not listed in the Schedule to the Bail Act, as bail cannot be refused unless it is in that Schedule of 1997. My Bill proposes to do that. It would extend grounds for refusing bail to include preventing a person from committing further offences - the likelihood to reoffend while free on bail.
Commonly prosecuted offences before the District Court routinely attract objections from An Garda Síochána pursuant to section 2 of the Bail Act 1997. These include theft - section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001; possession of knives - section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990; and criminal damage - section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991.
At present, such objections do not extend or apply to a person who is charged with breaching a domestic violence protective order. The present position is that an incident occurs prompting a person to apply for a domestic order. Separately, An Garda Síochána arrests and charges the perpetrator. However, as there may be no domestic order originally in place, the accused is usually granted station bail or brought before the District Court for a bail application in respect of the offence. Having regard to the important presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of bail, the accused is usually granted bail, almost invariably subject to conditions which may or may not include a provision to stay away from the injured party. The domestic court order is then served on the offender by An Garda Síochána. Habitually, some offenders persistently breach the domestic order after that, and accumulate further charges. When charged with breaching a domestic order, the current legal position is that the only lawful objection that can be made in such cases is restricted to concerning the likelihood of evading justice or a likelihood of interfering with prosecution witnesses or evidence, and not in respect of any domestic breach or offence that the accused person has already been charged with and for which they are awaiting trial. That would be deemed inadmissible evidence.
Ordinarily, many domestic violence perpetrators tend not to have significant histories of previous convictions or bench warrants. Thus, the first limb set out in the O'Callaghan bail test is often inapplicable. In those circumstances, An Garda Síochána or the DPP are forced to call victims of domestic abuse or complainants to give evidence in the bail application. The evidence of complainants routinely fails to meet the necessary applicable threshold as laid down in the current applicable legal precedent, AG v. O'Callaghan. Under current legislation, there is no such discretion afforded for breaches of domestic violence orders. Most significantly, the objections made in a court bail application will be strengthened if this Bill is enacted, by providing for the possibility of preventative detention being made permissible on the grounds of fear of further serious offending.
The most significant influence on the Domestic Violence Act 2018 is the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Ireland signed the convention on 5 November 2015 and ratified it on 8 March 2019, following the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The Istanbul Convention and the Domestic Violence Act 2018 reflected a welcome sea change in the attitude towards domestic violence, which up to then may have been considered by some as less serious. The convention mandates the Irish State, under Article 1(a), to "protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence". I should point out that of course, not all victims of domestic violence are female. That is a reality and people should know that.
The range of behaviour which may cause a breach of a domestic violence order under the Domestic Violence Act 2018 may vary. Therefore, while it is appropriate to have and retain a scope for a lesser breach to be prosecuted summarily, and we are not abolishing that scope and option, provision should also be made for a serious breach to be prosecuted when appropriate on indictment, carrying the penalty of five years' imprisonment. In circumstances where a victim of domestic violence obtains an order protecting him or her from domestic violence and this order is breached, under current law it cannot be considered what we in law call a serious offence. This informs the victim that the breach of the domestic violence order is not serious and only has minor consequences for the offending party in the criminal justice system. It also undermines the victim's confidence in the entire domestic violence legislative process if domestic violence orders can be breached on numerous occasions or in a dangerous manner. Yet, it never constitutes the categorisation of it being a serious offence. Moreover, unlike other offences, people who breach a domestic violence order have already been ordered by the court not do again that which they have done already. I believe any such repeated breaches of a court order should be admissible in the evidence that can be adduced in court as a right. The failure to afford victims of serious breaches of domestic violence orders the protection afforded to victims of other serious crimes is in breach of the spirit and specific sections of the Istanbul Convention. It fails the victims of domestic violence and their children, who suffer further abuse, fear, violence or worse.
I am opposed to the current one-size-fits-all regime. That approach is out of time and outdated. Considering the data we have on how serious this issue is, which I highlighted at the outset, there is a need for latitude, discretion and for a more modern, meaningful and legally impactful legislative regime. I am hoping that the Minister, who is a reforming Minister and has a good track record in legislation, gives this due consideration. I will now refer to my Green Party colleague to finish our allotted time and to formally second the motion.
I thank the Minister for her time. It is good to see her in the House. I thank her for all the work she has done already on domestic violence and other issues through her portfolio. I will keep this contribution short.
Under the convention, protection for victims-----
Sorry, did the Senator formally second the motion?
I second the motion. I will keep this very simple. There were 54,000 call-outs to Garda stations last year for domestic violence. There were 10,000 barring orders, restricting movement, obtained in domestic violence cases, 5,000 of which were breached, and only 500 convictions were secured. We have a huge issue. The Minister is probably well aware of this, so I will not preach to the converted. This legislation will do three things. I will quote the great woman we had in today from Women's Aid, Sarah Benson. She said it will increase protection for victims and it will help victims on this harrowing journey that they have to go through when it comes to dealing with domestic violence. Victims are stuck in a place and they feel there is no way out. If they have made that amazingly brave step to make the call in the first place or get a barring order, we need to show them that the courts take this seriously. There should be a higher penalty than there is at the moment, of up to five years' imprisonment at the discretion of the District Court or the DPP. It is hugely important for me, as a woman. The rate of domestic violence against men is increasing, but we know that the majority of the violence is against women. If we are looking for equality in society in 2024, this Bill should be passed as soon as possible. It will send a clear message to the women of Ireland to not be afraid, to get the help they need and to put their hand up. It will send a clear message that there are better options out there and we support them in that. We would like to see this Bill passed. We want to see the people who breach barring orders being dealt with more seriously. Currently, the breach rate is 50%, which means that the offenders are not influenced by the outcomes of breaching barring orders. We need to change that.
Would the Minister like to come in now?
Yes. My sincere apologies.
Other people's contributions might be influenced by what the Minister has to say.
I am pleased to be here today to speak on Second Stage of the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2024. As the Senators have set out, this is a short Bill that seeks to amend section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 to make provision for an indictable offence under that section. It will make the breach of an order a hybrid offence which could be triable either summarily or on indictment, with a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment. This change will enable an offence under section 33 of the Act to be added to the Schedule of the Bail Act 1997.
Section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act provides for an offence for breach of any civil domestic order that can be imposed under that Act. These are safety orders, barring orders, protection orders, interim barring orders and emergency barring orders. As we know, the penalty for the offence is a class B fine currently set at a maximum of €4,000, one year imprisonment, or both, on summary conviction.
Section 2, as Senator Martin outlined, permits a court to refuse bail to a person charged with a serious offence in certain circumstances in order to prevent the commission of a serious offence by the accused person. As such, this offence, under the Domestic Violence Act, does not come under the definition of a serious offence in the Bail Act 1997 because it does not have punishment by a term of imprisonment for a term of five years or more, or a more severe penalty. I fully agree that breach of any type of domestic violence order is a very serious offence and needs to be treated as such. As Senator Martin stated, these changes would give the DPP and the courts discretion and latitude in prosecuting the section 33 offence on indictment for particularly serious conduct or persistent offenders.
We are not opposing the Bill. Senator Martin outlined the merits for extending section 33 to a hybrid offence. The offence approach would make provision for more serious conduct to be addressed with corresponding bail restrictions and a strengthened protection regime would be put in place. However, as Members are aware, I must outline the challenges that have been raised and brought to my attention. These are challenges that have arisen before, particularly when the Domestic Violence Act was being put in place. This is not the first time the issue has been looked at. However, I am supportive of what the Senator is trying to achieve. I am outlining the challenges so that we can work together to see how we can work around them or find a way to make it work.
There are some concerns. The main concern is that there may be adverse consequences for the availability of domestic violence orders if the offence of breaching an order is made triable on indictment and with an increased punishment. Particular concerns relate to the barring orders, emergency barring orders and protection orders, those which can be granted ex-parte, namely, where only one applicant has to be there or heard in court and outside the usual court sittings.
Section 33 covers a breach of multiple different types of domestic violence orders, namely, safety orders, barring orders and, as I mentioned, interim emergency protection orders. These orders are very different and very detailed and finely balanced statutory provisions govern how they are granted at present. Making a breach of all domestic violence orders a possible serious offence means that it might become harder to successfully persuade a court to grant any of them. Respondents would be expected to contest the case in a more vigorous manner. In the interests of justice the court might, in certain circumstances, be less inclined to grant orders, in particular those ex-parte orders where only one person is present. Of course, the whole point of getting a domestic violence or barring order at weekends or quickly or perhaps with only the victim there is that it can be accessed as quickly as possible. By putting a higher bar here there is potential - I am not saying it would be the case - that it might not be granted because the person who is being accused should be given a right potentially to defend themselves in a way they would not at the moment.
The case law of the Supreme Court has set the threshold of severity for respondents' conduct to be considered in the making of a domestic violence order. Given the potential criminal consequences of breaching at such a threshold would possibly be raised further if section 33 was made a serious offence, this is making sure we do not do something which would potentially make it more difficult for victims of domestic violence to obtain these civil law protection orders. Like many others here, I am well aware that these orders are not working for all victims. That is not to say they do not work for some but the issue has been brought to my attention time and again, particularly with repeat offenders, when victims feel the system is not working for them. I believe we should do something to try to improve it.
In addition, sometimes it may be difficult to establish when and how precisely such orders are breached. This could potentially give rise to problems both for An Garda Síochána and the persons who are subject just such orders. They could be subject to increased penalties in situations where they are not fully aware that a breach has occurred. These issues have been considered before, as I mentioned, particularly in drafting the passage of the 2018 Act and earlier in the 2013 report of the Law Reform Commission, LRC, which reported on aspects of domestic violence. It considered the specific question of whether, when a person is charged with the offence of breaching a domestic violence order, it should be made possible to refuse bail on the basis that the person might commit another offence while on bail. The report recommended that the offence of breach of a domestic violence order should not be changed into an offence that could carry five years' imprisonment on conviction. Among the reasons for this was that any such change may not be in keeping with the general purpose of the Domestic Violence Act, to ensure a person can get access to effective protection through barring orders and safety orders as quickly as possible. The LRC expressed concern that making breach of domestic violence order a serious offence could potentially lead the courts to conclude that ex-parte orders, that is orders with only one party present, should no longer be permissible and that this would undermine the efficacy of the legislation.
We also need to be cognisant that the offence of breaching a domestic violence order does not replace the other criminal offence. If an offence of assault or criminal damage is committed by a person acting in breach of an order, that other offence should be prosecuted as an additional charge. If conduct that breaches the domestic violence order is in itself a serious offence, such as an assault causing harm or criminal damage, the person can be charged with that offence and bail can be refused under section 2 of the Bail Act where necessary.
Aside from the Bail Act is the power to refuse bail for any offence, including section 33, where the court is satisfied that the accused person is likely to interfere with the witness. The possibility that the accused person could commit further acts of violence against the victim would constitute a likelihood of interfering with witnesses, and bail could be refused on that basis. The law on bail also allows the court to impose conditions that prohibit a person from making contact with the person who has applied for a barring order or safety order. If the accused person breaks any such condition, bail can be revoked.
I outlined these issues because they have come up time and again and the law has not changed. In saying that, I believe there is a problem here. I absolutely believe that some people are not being protected by the structures and systems that are there. That is not to say that people, either in our courts or in our legal professions, are not following the laws and applying them in the way that they should. However, I believe that some victims are not being protected in the way that they should be. That is why I am not opposing the Bill.
Also, we cannot predict whether the concerns highlighted would ever be realised. Sometimes, therefore, we have to be brave and take a chance. If the concerns are realised then obviously we respond to that as quickly as we can. At the same time, as policymakers, we have to be cautious and make sure that victims are not unintentionally disadvantaged by decisions we take.
As Members know, I will have to leave now, unfortunately. I am committed, as is every person in this House, to tackling domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. In the Seanad and the Dáil, we have worked constructively on Government, Opposition and multi-party proposals and on Private Members' Bills and Government legislation. There have been changes to the law in recent years. I look forward to working constructively with the Senators on this to try to find a way forward in which we can provide more protection to victims while making sure the law is on their side and supports them and that it does not in any way disadvantage them. These are concerns that have been raised by some. I look forward to working with the Senators on this Bill and I thank them for bringing it forward.
Before I address the Bill, I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the increase in number of people applying for An Garda Síochána. Some people made light of the fact there were older candidates. I believe they bring life experience to the role. It is a good news story and the Minister deserves recognition for that. That initiative was swiftly acted on and pushed through. Obviously, the success of it is evident in the increase in the number. I congratulate the Minister and the Department on that.
I am proud to support Senator Martin on this initiative. Before we get into the substance of the Bill, the statistics on violence in the home - domestic violence - are stark. I was going through the numbers provided by Women's Aid. Essentially, on the hour, every hour, in Ireland, 24-7, 365 days a year, a woman is assaulted in the home. Of the women assaulted at that level, 20 are subjected to physical assaults in the home, with between ten and 15 women being sexually assaulted on a daily basis in the family home. It is an extraordinary phenomenon.
My familiarity with gender-based violence flowed from research I undertook into the Defence Forces some 25 years ago. I would not have been aware of the level of violence against women and children in the home. I know that men are also victims of domestic violence but women are, by a huge factor, more greatly impacted in this way. I was struck by the number of violent deaths of women. Since 1996, 265 women died violently in Ireland.
Of those, 166 were murdered in their own homes, in the sanctity of the home. When we consider the upcoming referendums on the definition of the home and household and women's place in the home, it has to be said that the home is not a safe place for thousands of Irish women. It is an extraordinarily stark picture.
I commend Senator Martin on bringing forward this Bill. I thank him and the Minister for the briefing in the audiovisual room today. As a layperson, it was very interesting to hear from the senior counsel he brought in and Sarah Benson about the practicalities, the practical application and the benefit this amendment would bring to the legislation. I look forward to hearing Senator Ward's contribution. I know he is well versed in criminal law. I may have to go to him for advice at some point; I am not sure.
The Senator might have to declare an interest.
I am talking about traffic convictions. The Bill is to be welcomed. It is very commendable. I am delighted to see cross-party support. I am particularly pleased to hear the Minister say the Government will not oppose this legislation and will work on progressing matters and having it enacted as soon as possible.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, to the House.
Senator O'Loughlin and I will share time.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Fianna Fáil welcomes this Bill. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, back to the House. It is important we acknowledge domestic violence is a significant concern among a certain cohort of people. People often do not know it is happening. It is silent and hidden. I am not going to go into an in-depth technical analysis of the Bill as Senators Martin and Garvey and the Minister's response dealt with that, or the potential unintended consequences or difficulties with the legislation as it is currently drafted. I sense a feeling from the proposer and seconder of the Bill, the Minister, Senator Clonan and others that we are all on the same path with the same objective.
It is a pity we have to have such legislation in the first place because there is so much domestic violence in our society. It is important that, over time, we educate and convince people to have a society where it is just not tolerated. It is not tolerated now but it is happening. It must be the case from the day we are born that we just do not allow this kind of culture, behaviour and acceptance that it is okay to treat other people, especially partners and spouses, in such a way. Most people consider their homes to be their safe space where they can get away from work, society and crime. It is really frightening that people possibly feel more vulnerable and under pressure in their own homes, whether it be due to coercive control, physical violence, intimidation, sexual violence or whatever it happens to be. Senator Clonan shared figures that it happens every hour of every day. It is shocking that it happens to any human being - any woman, primarily, but there are cases involving men as well - that there is a culture of misogyny or just believing it is okay to be harmful, destructive and damaging to your partner, a person you wanted at one point, at least, to spend the rest of your life with. It is the real job of society and the people in this House to just not tolerate those actions and that behaviour and culture. We all need to work on that.
It is not just domestic violence but violence on our streets, in our towns and on public transport. All of it has to be zero tolerance, but particularly for violence against women and in the home. That is my takeaway from this matter. We have to change people's thinking so that this behaviour does not happen. Then we will not need to deal with the victims because there will not be any. In the interim, we must provide support and protection for victims. This is a good Bill. I think everybody is on the same side. I do not want to delay it any further. It is important we support the Bill. We will not oppose it as a party. I am supportive of what the Bill is trying to do while acknowledging the concerns of the Minister and the Department as it is currently drafted. I will hand over to my colleague, Senator O'Loughlin.
I commend my county colleague, Senator Martin, on drafting this Bill and bringing it together. With his legal expertise and political experience, we have no doubt about the robustness of the Bill. It is important to have this debate and speak about domestic violence, which is a scourge not just in this country but across Europe and the world. As we know from statistics, during and after Covid, the numbers went completely sky-high. We must do everything we can do to increase the protection of victims and help them on their journey. The Istanbul Convention is important in that regard, which states that we should invest time and money in four areas - prevention, protection, prosecution and policy co-ordination. We must support all of our domestic violence refuges. They are havens for those who need them, many of whom bring children. I mention again Teach Tearmainn in Kildare, which does an absolutely wonderful job.
Violence against women, unfortunately, happens in many forms. The scale, as we know, is extensive. Organisations like Women's Aid and Safe Ireland do an excellent job in supporting victims. Unfortunately, there is a cultural issue in that some men believe women should be controlled by them, should be submissive to them and that violence and coercive control are acceptable ways of achieving those aims. We have to do everything we can to change that through education and many different ways and having the conversation with men and boys. We need a dramatic change in the views of those men, what they see as acceptable and what their sons may then see as acceptable. We see this perpetuating itself. As a party, Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. We are also working with external stakeholders to see how we can bring about that change from all different angles, how we can change the culture of misogyny to respect, what improvements are needed across the legal system to support victims and their families and ensure access to justice, and perhaps to look at unexplored avenues to better support women in the workplace, in their homes and communities, and online. When a woman or indeed a man suffers domestic violence, it takes a huge toll on every single aspect of their lives. Navigating the judicial and legal system is very difficult. We need to do everything we can. I fully support this Bill. I look forward to the next Stage of the domestic violence register legislation, which I have brought to Second Stage. We need to bring it to the next Stage. I look forward to when the Minister can come in and we can debate that.
On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I am very happy to welcome this Bill. It sets out some important issues we need to discuss in this Chamber. At the outset, I acknowledge the work the Minister, Deputy McEntee, my party colleague, has done in the area. As Minister for Justice, she has put particular emphasis on the resolution of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, which all Members have mentioned and is very important. Legislation passed in recent years in this Chamber has shown how much of a priority it is for the Government and Members of this Chamber.
Domestic violence orders are an important tool in enforcing the law regarding domestic violence.
It is important to understand that while a breach of an order is a criminal matter, the reality is that for a garda or any other person seeking an order, there is a relatively low bar to obtaining that order. What they are doing in that circumstance is setting up a situation where the perpetrator or potential perpetrator, as the case may be, is put in a situation where they are told very clearly that they cannot do X, Y or Z. That then sets up a situation whereby if they breach the order, it is a criminal matter. This very effectively brings it into the realm of criminal law the very behaviour we should be criminalising. It is the kind of thing that has been spoken about in this debate. It is pervasive and exists in every town, village and community, unfortunately, and it needs to be tackled. These orders are key parts of the mechanism the law puts together to equip gardaí and other people with the tools they need to stamp out this behaviour and to put in place a criminal sanction where somebody is behaving in a particular way.
It is also important to acknowledge just how difficult it is for the victim of domestic violence to obtain one of these orders. I am not talking about process; I am referring to taking the step of going and asking for an order. It is no small matter for an individual to go before a court, outline what has been happening to them and ask the court to order another person not to do something. That takes enormous courage, which is why it is so important that these orders mean something. That is why what is suggested in this Bill is really important. What the Bill does is move that from being a minor matter, a summary only matter that would only be dealt with in the District Court, to something that can be a much more serious offence and an indictable matter. Then it will be an offence that can also impact on bail considerations. It is really important that where there are instances of breaches of an order that there are consequences for the person who breaches that order. I regret to say that, at the moment, that appears not to be the case.
We know there are lots of prosecutions, although still far too few, for breaches of orders. The number of breaches has gone up in recent years. The number of charges and prosecutions has gone down, albeit very slightly. I am aware of a paper written by my colleague at the Bar, Emer Ní Chúagáin, barrister, who identified the fact that 82% of prosecutions for breaches of orders in the District Court in Dublin did not result in convictions. That is a staggering figure for any offence. It is incredible that this many prosecutions are not succeeding. The figure nationally is much lower, but it is still 34%.
A large number of people are being prosecuted for breaching orders. These are serious matters where they are putting somebody in fear for their safety and of their lives. Gardaí are aware of this and taking the action they need to take with the assent of the DPP, as the prosecutorial authority. Now, however, there is a situation where nothing is happening. Of course, there are cases where there is good reason why there is not a conviction and why there is an acquittal where a decision is made by a District Court judge. It is appropriate there should be a certain number of acquittals, but not 82%. That is a staggeringly high figure. If we are to respect these orders, they must mean something and breaches of them must mean something for the people who breach them in particular, but, most importantly, for the people in respect of whom they are breached.
I acknowledge people who have worked with the Green Party in bringing forward this Bill. I also acknowledge what Senator Martin and others have said about it.
The idea of giving the DPP greater discretion is a good thing. I have some questions about the legislation. It seems to be on one level perverse that a breach of a domestic violence order can never but be a small thing. That is how it seems to be in the law at the moment in terms of being only a summary matter. In some instances, it must be a serious matter. That is not provided for in law at the moment. I welcome the fact that the Bill does that. What are the circumstances that make it serious, however? What are the circumstances that move it form a summary only matter to an indictable matter and tried in the Circuit Court before a judge and jury? Which of those circumstances would not be covered by a more serious offence, such as assault causing harm, assault causing serious harm or worse than that? Conscious of what the Law Reform Commission has said about this, are we in danger of straying into a territory where it would be more difficult to get these orders in the first place when we should be maintaining the level at which they can be obtained? For example, if we are dealing with a situation where the court making the order is actually making an order of much greater import because of the possible criminal consequences further down the line, is it the case that by passing this legislation we are going to make it more difficult for the very courageous people I mentioned at the outset to get the orders they need in the first place?
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I thank Senator Martin for drafting this Bill down and asking me to cosign it. Unfortunately, technology, I believe, got in the way of that happening. However, I am happy to speak in support of the Bill. That this is the second time Senator Martin has brought a Bill of this nature before the House. Obviously, and as other Members have said, indications are that domestic violence is on the rise. In 2022 there was an 8% increase in domestic abuse incidents. As has been said already almost 54,000 incidents were attended by gardaí last year compared with approximately 50,000 in the previous year and 44,500 in the year prior to that. Unfortunately, as has been said, many of the services are being overwhelmed. That has been the case for some time. In 2020, for example, Safe Ireland reported that it could not meet 808 requests for refuge due to a lack of available spaces. Men's Aid missed 630 calls to its helpline in 2021 due to resource constraints. Women's Aid's annual report for 2022 showed an increase in contacts for their support of 16% on the previous year and the highest in its almost 50-year history. These figures are obviously very stark, which the Minister has acknowledged. That makes the changes that Senator Martin is seeking in this Bill all the more important.
As I have done on previous occasions, I pay tribute to Teach Termainn in my own area and pay tribute for the vital work it does on domestic violence in my county of Kildare. Alongside emotional and information supports it offers refuge to women who are escaping horrific and traumatising situations in their own homes. The work it does is really commendable. Unfortunately, the services it provides are crucial for the people I deal with. I have had reason to ring Teach Termainn on more than one occasion. We need more organisations like Teach Termainn and we need to support them.
As I said the last time I spoke on this matter in the house, the Labour Party has long called for an increase in the number of women's refuges across Ireland. Recent media reports on domestic violence indicate that there are still nine counties that do not have women's refuges. That is completely unacceptable. Essentially, there is a postcode lottery in terms of access to necessary supports for victims of domestic abuse. When the figures are released each month, we are all devastated to see the number of people who are homeless. We know from numerous studies that domestic violence is one of the leading causes, if not the leading cause, of homelessness among women and children. This is a matter that needs to be addresses. Women's refuges offer an incredible support to victims, and often their children, but there is simply not enough capacity. At the very least, we need one in every county. Ideally, we should have a lot more. From the figures that have been quoted tonight, since 1996, 87% of the women violently killed in Ireland knew their killers, according to data form Women's Aid. More than half of them were killed by a current or former partner. That is a really important fact for us all to reflect. We cannot just reflect on it; we need to act on it, as Senator Martin has done in bringing forward this Bill.
Having read the briefing note supplied by Senator Martin along with his request to cosign the Bill, I was taken by the last couple of lines in particular. It states that the failure to afford victims of serious breaches of the domestic violence orders the same protection afforded to victims of other serious crimes is in breach of both the spirit and specific sections of the Istanbul Convention. It further stated that it fails the victims of domestic violence and their children who may have suffered further abuse, fear, violence and worse.
We in the Labour Party support the Bill. We wish Senator Martin the very best with steering it through the House. We look forward to working with the Minister for Justice on the Bill.
First, I welcome Senator Martin's Bill. Even today, I am working with a woman who is going through domestic violence and needs access to services. In March 2020, before I was nominated to the Seanad, I was supporting a woman with five children who was living on the streets of Dublin to seek refuge and because she had fled her home country and was at no major risk from her abuser, she was denied access to a woman's refuge. That led her into addiction and criminality, and her kids have now been taken away from her.
That was a failure by the State, unfortunately, in not having services that are fit for purpose for women in this country. While I agree with Senator Martin's Bill and I support it there should be stronger sanctions for people who break barring orders.
I wish to put on the record that domestic violence has no part and does not have a place in Traveller culture or the Traveller way of life. I have seen this through first-hand experience a lot of the time when, even back in the 1990s, if one was to call the Garda and get the abuser removed from the home in a lot of cases within the Traveller community we are told "This is part of your culture". While we are looking at sanctions for breaking barring orders we also need to train people around this. It is no fault to the Garda because gardaí need to be trained. We all need to be trained on this because sometimes we can make assumptions. I am not bad mouthing or talking negatively about the Garda. We need gardaí to help women, and men, to escape domestic violence in this country.
We need to focus on services. Since I have been in this House this is my fourth time to speak about domestic violence and to debate Bills on domestic violence, and yet the root problem is around services and supporting those services so that women and men have wraparound support, be it counselling, or help with addiction issues, or whatever may be needed. There are a lot of underlying problems and issues behind why domestic violence happens in some families and in some communities. Unfortunately it can be the case of "monkey see, monkey do". It is about breaking that vicious cycle of domestic violence within some homes.
One of my friends works in a women's refuge. She is the first to say that the refuge is not fit for purpose because there is not the wraparound support women and children need. Some 54,000 phone calls were made last year to the Garda around domestic violence. We should have an ethnic identifier to know which communities are being affected. It would not make a big difference but women in minority groups and Traveller women need that extra bit of support to get away. I have worked with numerous women in this area and, unfortunately, from the Traveller community in some cases. I worked with one woman 15 years ago who was told she was barred from a refuge because two of her children had ADHD with behaviour issues. That is no way to treat women who are going through abuse especially if they have to go back into that situation.
My colleagues have spoken on the fact that we do not consider the women and men affected by domestic violence who also end up on our streets as homeless. There is a cost to this homelessness from domestic violence. That should be in the records also. There should be a section that records, for example, that 100 women are homeless due to domestic violence. That status should be categorised every year or whenever the data is made available to us.
Nine counties in this country do not have a domestic violence service. I understand that the Senator's Bill is focused on the barring order and breaches of the barring order, which I welcome and especially for Traveller women. It should be the one law for everybody and not that it is okay for some men to be abusers if it is seen to be part of their culture. It is not. The debate today gives me this opportunity to highlight some of the gaps within our domestic violence services. I am aware that the Minister, Deputy McEntee, is doing everything in her power and, as other Senators have rightly said, the Minister has brought in some really good legislation around coercive control. There is, however, a bigger conversation we need to have around investing in domestic violence refuges for women and for men.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I thank Senator Martin for bringing this Bill before the Seanad. Sinn Féin was pleased to sign it and add our names to it. There is a consensus across all political parties that we need to do more in relation to domestic violence in the State. We in this House are quite good at bringing forward legislation and having Members from different political parties cosign it. I have taken note of the Minister's concerns. In the briefing today we heard that the law reform review is nearly ten years old. We have also had the coercive control legislation since then, which treats barring orders in the same way. I take on board the Minister's concern but I hope we can expedite this legislation. In one sense it is similar to the Sinn Féin Bill that was previously before this House that sought to remove HAP as a means of income for those seeking civil legal aid. If it was enacted this legislation would actually have tangible benefits for those who are suffering from domestic violence.
Domestic violence has reached unprecedented levels in this country. The numbers have been stated - 265 women have died violently in this State. Of the women killed, 63% were killed in their own homes, 55% were killed by a partner or an ex, and almost nine out of ten women knew their killer. I am repeating these numbers but they are stark statistics that should make everybody sit up and pay attention.
Other surveys have also been conducted that reflect the impact of domestic violence on children, including the violent killing of children. Most, if not all, of these surveys arise out of violence that happens within the home. Domestic violence is carried out by men on women in the vast number of cases. It is also men on men violence. Women on men violence also takes place. It is quite clear that for many women and for many families the home is not a safe place. It is where the terror reigns for them and it is not a sanctuary. It takes an enormous amount of courage for someone living this nightmare to go to the family courts to seek a protection order from someone with whom they had been in an intimate relationship. It is a very personal thing for the person to go into the courts and put forward all of that and put it out there. It is an adversarial system and it is time consuming for the person who is seeking the order.
It is right to acknowledge recent positive developments in the laws around domestic violence. The Minister has personally taken this as an issue where she wants to see reform. It must be acknowledged that there have been reforms but the one area that has failed to keep pace with those legislative reforms is the area of protection orders. This proposed legislation makes the breach of a protection order a serious offence. It increases the penalties associated with such a breach and it would make it an indictable offence with a sentence of a maximum of five years. The briefing today by senior counsel Keith Walsh and Sarah Benson, CEO of Women's Aid, was really excellent. From what they were telling us it is very clear that the current system is not working. The Minister has acknowledged herself this is an area where we know there has to be change. Mr. Walsh spoke on the stark statistics around protection orders. He said that 10,000 protection orders were granted in 2022 and there were over 5,000 reported incidences of breaches of those protection orders but only 500 convictions. There is a problem in the system. Sarah Benson also highlighted that when Women's Aid did a review of the legislation they found a very high level of dissatisfaction with the current system. Many felt the sanction for breaches was too low and that bail was granted despite the abuser already proving through the breach that they were a threat to that individual.
This legislation needs to be brought in. While it may not be in this current format certainly something needs to happen soon to protect people. We need to have a change in the culture in some areas in the Garda. Again, there has been huge progress in that regard but cultural changes still need to happen. Gardaí need to know that a breach of a protection order is a serious offence and needs to be taken seriously. This is part of what this legislation would do as well.
It is welcome that the Minister will not oppose the Bill and that she has accepted it is an area that needs reform. All of us who have co-signed it look forward to working together to ensure that protection orders do what they are supposed to do, which is to protect the victims of domestic violence.
I welcome the Minister and thank her for coming back to the House. I know this is an important issue to her. She is committed to it. She has indicated before that she is focused on domestic violence. I thank her for that and the time, focus and priority that she has given to it. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Vincent P. Martin, for drafting this legislation. I acknowledge the co-signatories of this, Senators Garvey, Norris, Clonan, Boylan, Gavan, Warfield and McGreehan. It is welcome that we are having this focus and debate. We talked about domestic violence earlier and it is important that we use this opportunity. It is a simple enough Bill but it is profound and important. It will impact people and hopefully assist and protect people. There are only three sections to the Bill but, as I say, it is an important Bill and I thank the Minister for agreeing not to oppose it. There may be additions and a need to address other issues, but it is positive.
When we have this opportunity, we need to focus on domestic violence. It is too simplistic to say that it is adult versus child or vice versa. Domestic violence could be a woman versus another woman or a man versus another man. It is a very personal thing. Many people do not want to talk about it in an open way. They feel they cannot talk about it. In many cases, victims feel they have contributed to this issue. It is difficult and there are a number of complexities around domestic violence.
My experience with An Garda Síochána has been a good one when people have come to me or reported to the gardaí. They are under pressure and are down the resources. They sometimes find it difficult. To arrive at any Garda station in any part of the State is quite an intimidating thing for some people. The first thing they will be confronted with is plate glass. The next will be a bell. Next thing is that one will press the bell and wait a certain amount of time because of the pressures the gardaí are under. I know people who have run away from a Garda station. They do not see that privacy. One can explain to them that they can make an appointment by telephone. There are huge issues around it. We need to continue to support An Garda Síochána in how it addresses and deals with the issues. There may very well be a need for supplementary or additional staff who are not front-of-house gardaí but who assist in that. I may not be fully aware of all the issues around that. I ask the Minister to keep that in focus in her interaction with the Garda Commissioner when considering whether we are fully meeting the needs of people who ultimately have to report at some stage. My experience, and reports back from people who have engaged with gardaí about this, where they can get them and an appropriate time, is that the gardaí are sensitive and supportive, but there is an issue with resources.
The issue of women's refuges has been talked about. I have a somewhat different view. I do not want to see a building that says, "Women's refuge". I will not the mention the location of one but it is not too far from here. Many of the victims say they have to come out of there and sometimes confront their abuser or they meet their abuser at the national school of their child. People who have families in communities want to stay in the community. It is important to say that people who are victims of abuse want to stay in their community. They do not want to interrupt schooling, childcare supports and other supports they have. That is an issue we have to address. I like the idea of designated safe homes in our community for people rather than institutional buildings that are broad and deal with many complexities of other people. Family units, even if they are diminished or smaller because of this, have to be kept together, kept close, and supported through education and our school systems. I know the INTO in particular has done a lot of work and in-house training on this.
I acknowledge how Senator Vincent P. Martin engaged with external stakeholders. That was important. He did not just look within the bubble. He engaged widely with external stakeholders, which is to his credit. I was not able to go to his briefing but I heard many positive reports and thank him for the invitation to it in the audiovisual room today. I think he lined up very significant contributors to that. One can clearly see that most people have referred to the Senator's briefing today, so that was clearly an important aspect.
The Minister has a strong record in doing something about this. Let us move forward and be conscious that we have obligations and responsibilities. We have obligations under the Istanbul Convention, which the Minister is fully aware of. It is important that we move forward and that, at all times, we keep the focus on the victims of domestic violence, particularly children who are vulnerable. In many cases, their lives are shattered, as are the people who are subjected to domestic violence. It is a lonely, hard road when one has to go out and share one's grief, pain and fragmented family as a result of domestic violence. I congratulate Senator Vincent P. Martin on pushing this legislation. I thank the Minister for giving it such a good reception and a commitment to support it all the way.
I thank all the Senators for supporting this. It has been an excellent debate. I thank them for their encouraging, kind, dedicated commitment to this. People who signed it or wanted to sign it come from every grouping in the Seanad. I hope the Minister takes that on board. We can disagree in this House but there is something about this Bill and what it is trying to protect which goes beyond party politics. That is why I have chosen a collaborative, cross-party approach, because it is beyond party politics.
I thank the Minister for her presence and for coming back to join the debate. She is respected and has a track record in this field. There is a golden opportunity for the Minister, because she is a reforming legislative Minister, to go for it with this one. I welcome her encouraging remarks tonight, but we have to accept that the current system is broken. Some victims are in grave danger. The legislation is currently one size fits all. There are summary offences. It is a conveyor belt and swinging door. People will almost invariably get bail. We said there were 10,000 orders and 5,000 breaches of those orders. To not legislate for the serious end of that spectrum is in dereliction of our duty as legislators.
I appreciate the Minister flagging concerns. I would not expect anything less. That is what we are here to do in a legislative Chamber. I commend the Minister on looking around the corner and anticipating possible pitfalls. All I would say is that the current system is broken.
A distinguished former Taoiseach who was famous for having very long Cabinet meetings, after thrashing out whether it worked in practice, asked the question of whether it worked in theory. Does this work in theory? We can tie ourselves up in knots and paralyse progress on this by looking at the theoretical possibilities. I suggest the Minister trust judges. In our system, we have a right to appeal to a second judge. We have a very high standard of membership of the Judiciary. I would suggest that we trust the Director of Public Prosecutions to do the right thing, otherwise we will be in a state of debilitating paralysis.
A legitimate concern was pointed out tonight that there would be a serious charge anyway which is indictable and would go to a Circuit Court jury trial. That is correct, but if the most serious charge is assault, by the time a book of evidence is prepared, that is much later. This happens very fast and it needs a response. One size does not fit all. Those who are worried about the unintended consequences, such as the victims maybe not going to seek protection in the first place, should ask victims and survivors whether they think this is a good idea or if it is one size fits all for the 10,000 orders made last year in this country.
Anecdotally, I have been told that judges are frustrated there is certain evidence that is inadmissible because it is always a summary offence. Every single breach is currently treated as a summary matter. Summary has a major role to play going forward, as has the District Court, which is the court of first instance, but we must have the option in these serious matters.
I once again thank the Minister. We are talking about increasing the sentence for the offence of coercive control. It is currently a sentence of up to five years. This is one aspect of tonight's Bill. The other aspect is to put this into the bail schedule. I would like to sit down with the Minister in this regard. I will not press on until we have her on board fully to ensure we take the next steps together and we bring everyone together. I am going to stick at this topic. I thank the Minister for her preliminary response, which is encouraging. I look forward to working with her and her senior expert officials to ensure we get this over the line.
For instance, the ex parte point is a good one. If we do not want to trust the judges and the DPP, then maybe this is a wrinkle in the legislation, but it will be sorted out when it takes its journey through the legislative process. This is no reason not to start the journey and to progress it. I thank all the Senators for their incredible support. This cross-party support is much appreciated and it could be a catalyst to get this done. It is Seanad Éireann coming together to protect some of the most vulnerable people. They go home after a bail application, and are then back in the privacy of that vulnerable situation where they might have failed in their opposition to that bail application. This is a terrifying prospect for anyone. People in this situation were terrified initially, and then they are going home to be terrified more. We have to do better, we will do better and I trust the Minister will. I thank her for her remarks.
I apologise for cutting the Senator short but there is a vote in the Dáil that I know the Minster will have to attend. The contributions have now been completed. I welcome Andrew Jensen from Dakota Dunes in South Dakota, who works for Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. He is most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I thank him for coming here late and for watching this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20 February 2024.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 9.30 a.m. tomorrow.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 8.13 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m., Déardaoin, an 15 Feabhra 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.13 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 February 2024.