It is some time since I studied the details of marriage law. I am not practicing. I am sure the general public, and probably even some members of this very well informed committee, might be very interested to know what exactly is meant by "jactitation of marriage". What is the Minister abolishing under this section?
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill".
I was afraid somebody would ask me that question. I remember reading about this years ago. It is very odd. Proceedings by way of jactitation of marriage are designed to prevent unwarrantable assertions that a marriage exists between the petitioner and the respondent, that is, to restrain a person from falsely claiming to be married to a particular person. The provision in the Bill takes account of the Law Reform Commission's report on jacitation of marriage and declarations of marital status in 1983. That report recommended the abolition of the action which had fallen into disuse. In line with this report, section 29 of the Bill is restating in modern form the law relating to declarations as to marital status, recognition of foreign divorces and so on. It was an ancient remedy which has fallen into complete disuse and hence is being abolished.
I thank the Minister because I looked this up in the Oxford Dictionary and I was very pleased to find out that it was not as painful as it sounded.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 29, before section 35, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:
35.—The provisions of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1981 and the Family Law (Protection of Spouses and Children) Act, 1981 in relation to barring orders shall be extended to ensure that—
(a) cohabitees shall be enabled to apply for barring orders, and
(b) in specified circumstances barring orders shall apply to adult children.".
It was with mixed feelings that I read in my copy of The Irish Times today that:
The Government has approved the drafting of legislation to protect the victims of domestic violence and powers are to be extended to allow the courts to grant barring orders to cohabiting couples. Announcing the legislation yesterday, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Taylor, pointed out that the existing law in relation to barring orders only covers spouses. In future couples who live together will be able to seek barring orders subject to conditions. District Courts will also be able to increase the maximum duration of barring orders.
We are told that under the new Family Law (Protection of Persons) Bill, a protection order will be available as a remedy in its own right.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has apparently taken such a decision. I made the point this morning that I would have preferred if such an announcement had been made to this committee. The Minister made that announcement yesterday in the full knowledge that the committee was meeting today and that there was an amendment to this effect before it. It would have helped this committee — and the Dáil because if the Dáil ordered the committee to consider this Bill — if the Minister had waited just a few hours to come to the committee and make the announcement, even if he felt for some reason that he could not accept my amendment, considering whence it came. Democracy is not helped by announcements made outside the House and its committees when they could well have been made there. Unless the Minister has some exceptional reason to explain why it was necessary to make this announcement outside the House then the committee should voice its concern on this matter.
I welcome that the Minister is prepared to accept — if not the amendment — the argument behind it. I notice he has not made an announcement about the second part of the amendment, "in specified circumstances barring orders shall apply to adult children", unless, of course, in my hurry through the papers I missed an announcement. I apologise to the Minister if I have missed that, but I hope that he will accept the force of argument behind this part of the amendment.
Violence is becoming even more common in cohabitee unions than in ordinary marriages. Violence inflicted by adult children on parents is becoming quite common. I know of cases in my constituency and I have had complaints at constituency advice centres about the violence by adult children against their parents — most commonly against the mother but increasingly against the father. In some cases parents are living in terror of adult children. I became aware of a case only last week where a lout — I would use no other term to describe him — who is not contributing a penny to the household dictates to it. He expects the House to be run according to his desires; he will sleep all day, when he gets up he threatens the parents and they cannot say a word. This is now happening far too often. I do not think that the phrase "a reign of terror" inflicted on parents is too strong to use in some cases. The barring orders should be extended to include such cases. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
The amendment is welcome. I did not read The Irish Times but I welcome the Minister’s announcement, whether it is made here or elsewhere. We all welcome the principle that cohabitees can get a barring order. Unfortunately, violence in society is increasing and it is good that the provision will be brought in.
I agree with Deputy Currie in that I have been approached by a number of people about adult children using violence against their parents. I have not heard of it against a father but I am aware of it against mothers and it is outrageous. It is often highlighted by the general practitioner. People live in fear in their own homes and it can be very disturbing. It is loutish behaviour for children to hang around the house intimidating their mother — widows in many of the cases of which I am aware — and there is nothing they can do. The provision is worthwhile whether in this or in other legislation. Unfortunately, as Deputy Currie said, violence seems to be increasing in our society.
Like Deputy Ryan I am happy to concentrate on the message rather than the means of transmission. I am pleased that the Minister has made the announcement in relation to cohabitees. I will not repeat what colleagues said in relation to adult children but there is a case to be made. Many people have told me they are terrorised by their adult children — frequently children who have an income and who are well over the age of 18 years. These children have, in most cases, no legal right to be in the property in the first place and in law that is a perfectly sustainable reason for saying that one should not be entitled to a barring order.
Unfortunately, parents frequently find it impossible without the force of law behind them to tell the children they must leave because in many cases they will not. Whether barring orders or other proceedings are the most appropriate way of going about it I do not know. The barring order remedy should be extended to cases where the person against whom the order is sought has a clear legal right to be there. In some cases that may apply to an elderly brother and sister, for example, where the brother is using violence against the sister, where they own a house jointly and both have a legal entitlement to be present in the house. A barring order procedure would be appropriate in such circumstances, or in circumstances where people who are not related jointly own or are joint tenants in a property. It is almost certainly not appropriate in this legislation but it should be looked at.
I support the amendment. The change in legislation relating to domestic violence has been promised for quite some time; it formed part of the Government's joint programme and has been referred to at various stages over the last 18 months. The Minister announced specific, welcome changes yesterday. However, I am concerned about the delay in dealing with this problem and that the date for publication is towards the end of the year.
I want to be careful about what I say about domestic violence; there is no hard evidence that it is on the increase — I have a certain amount of experience in the matter as I have run a refuge for 15 years. The problem is that we do not know whether it is on the increase as no hard research has been carried out into it. That indicates the low priority the issue gets, as does the fact that we will have to wait until the end of the year for the legislation.
It may be that domestic violence is on the increase, but from ancedotal experience I believe that more people are not willing to take it any more, which is good. The problem is that when a women decides she is not going to take any more domestic violence, her options are extremely limited. The number of refuges is quite small and legal options are also limited. The possibilities of escaping the violence are restricted as are the powers of gardaí to intervene.
District Judge Gillian Hussey said recently in a court case that if a woman is prepared to put up with violence, she can do nothing. That was her judgment in relation to a case where a man was beating up his wife in the street and frightening children. We are leaving it to victims to cope with this. That is totally wrong.
I do not know whether it is possible to accept this amendment. I am afraid that the Minister, even if he was able to accept it, would, because of his caution and fear of doing anything radical, simply kick for touch and tell us that he will have to wait for the legislation. If the Minister can accept this amendment I urge him to do so because there are many women who have no recourse to the law. There are co-habitees, mothers, grandmothers, sisters and, very occasionally, men who need to go to court. If they are not married to the person attacking or abusing them there is no remedy available to them. That is the reality at the moment.
If the Minister can do something now to help these people and stop, in effect, blaming the victim for what is happening, I would urge him to do so even if it is an usual step or out of character for him because there are many women depending on it.
I support both parts of this amendment for all the reasons stated. On the radio this morning a woman who is running one of the refuges in Dublin said that up to 50 per cent of the women now seeking refuge are co-habitees. While there may not be exact figures available, the need for co-habitees to be able to apply for barring orders is becoming an urgent problem. It was always urgent but has now been highlighted by the number of co-habitees involved.
I did not see a press release about this new legislation. I regret that, because it is an issue we have discussed during the Minister's Question Time. It had been promised and we are waiting for it with a growing sense of impatience. As a courtesy to members of the Opposition, the very least we could get is a press release if we do not hear about it in advance. This is at least as much as a member of the media gets.
I do not see any good reason why both parts of the amendment could not be accepted. The Minister is well aware of the reasons the amendment should be accepted. I agree that he would be taking a little risk in accepting them. However, the circumstances certainly warrant any risk the Minister might take when one considers the risk that women endure. I ask the Minister, even if he does not accept the amendment as framed, to come back and give us the benefit of the experience of his officials and something containing the desired provisions.
There is all-party support for the spirit of Deputy Currie's amendment. The Minister must at this stage be able to give us fairly clear answers as to what he intends to do. The amendment is divided into two parts and deals with the entitlement of co-habitees to apply for barring orders. A strong case has been for the acceptance of the amendment. I gather that the Minister has accepted the spirit of this amendment if his press release is correct. I presume the Minister will tell us that he must go to the parliamentary draftsman and he will give us a variety of technical reasons as to why the amendment cannot be included at this point.
If the Minister does not accept Deputy Currie's amendment on co-habitees, how long will it take the Minister to address the problem in another way? There are serious situations throughout the country where barring orders are necessary. There are people, particularly women, who are suffering violence week after week who have to be given relief. I ask the Minister for an indication of the time scale involved.
There are two aspects to the question of adult children. Some adult children might have a right in the house, perhaps under intestacy. On the other hand, the Minister might say that in other cases they have no right in the house and the parent is entitled to get an injunction and therefore, the question of a barring order does not arise. I would anticipate that response from the Minister by saying to him that for many people the prospect of going to the Circuit Court to obtain an injunction is beyond them financially. I seek the Minister's acceptance of the spirit of Deputy Currie's point about adult children and, if he does not accept the amendment, his view as to how it could be best implemented.
Lest the Minister is feeling happy having heard two of his colleagues say that he was right to announce the new legislation as long as it was good news, I want to balance that by telling him that he should not have announced it in anticipation of today's meeting. We deserve a certain amount of respect from Ministers which we may not get from the public some of whom think we are having a great time here discussing various issues. The Minister should at least honour the committee. Ministers have a habit of making announcements when it suits the political scene.
At least the Minister turned up today.
Some of those who were complaining last week did not turn up today.
I presume from the announcement that the first part of the amendment has been accepted. I hope the Minister will accept the second part of the amendment which concerns adult children who are guilty of violence in the house.
As a nation we are going soft where violence is concerned. There are television programmes showing at present which have generated much comment. The argument has been justifiably made that it is as well that the public know what is happening. People who do not know what an unhappy home is might be living in their own little world. On the other hand, I am not sure people should be given the impression that it is a normal occurrence for members of a family to be beaten up. I find it difficult to watch violence, in fact, I am not a regular television viewer. Some of what are regarded as serious and normal television programmes contain scenes where human beings are kicked to death on the ground, being treated as if they were rubber dolls.
We must take a stand against violence. I gather from the Minister's smile that he is going to say there is some other remedy. We are discussing domestic violence. No 19 or 20 year old who is acting like a thug in the house should get the impression from us that we think there is anything defensible in that action. I hope the Minister will give a positive reply.
It is not a question of accepting the spirit of Deputy Currie's amendment. The introduction of new legislation along these lines was indicated in the Programme for a Partnership Government so it is not something which was thought of by Deputy Currie. I already indicated to the Dáil that this legislation was at an advanced stage of preparation; it was announced to the Dáil on more than one occasion. Yesterday's announcement was coincidental and was not intended to upstage Deputy Currie, which is the last thing I wish to do. The announcement was made because, coincidentally, the matter was addressed at a Government meeting yesterday. I would not have been in a position to advise on this had it arisen last week; it simply worked out that way.
The question of accepting Deputy Currie's amendments today do not arise as they fall far short of the kind of comprehensive legislation required to bring these measures into operation. However, I am sure that all Deputies on the committee, including, perhaps, even Deputy McManus, will be pleased to learn that the legislation will include the provision of barring orders in so far as adult children are concerned.
That was not in the Ministr's press release.
I had to leave some opening for begrudgery.
I did not complain.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The status of the committee has risen.
I am pleased to note that the Minister would be concerned with any suggestion that he was upstaging me. However, that was not my concern, which was that the Minister was not giving the proper focus to the committee. The Minister could have done much for the committee by making the announcement here. This raises the general point regarding the terrible practice of making important announcements outside the House which could easily be made in the House. It is not in the interests of any of us that the Dáil or the committees be downgraded, and I make this point in defence of our democratic institutions.
I am pleased with the Minister's announcement. While he denies that he has accepted the spirit of the amendment, the Minister has announced to the committee today that barring orders will be extended to adult children. It is something which will be widely welcomed and hopefully it will help to reduce domestic violence in those houses where it is occurring. In this respect, the threat of a barring order in itself is important and could be effective. It is important for a parent who is in difficulty to be able to threaten and adult child in the house with a barring order if that child continues to misbehave.
Deputy McManus is not aware if incidents of domestic violence are increasing or decreasing, and none of us has figures on this issue available to us. However, there may be some reason for suspecting that the numbers have increased. For example, the traditional respect for gardaí, clergy and teachers generally does not exist today. Given that parents are in the same category, there is some reason for believing that the incidence of violence in the home has probably increased. While there is a high probability that this violence is directed towards women and mothers in the family, there is also no doubt that in certain instances it is directed against the father. In the specific complaint made to me, to which I referred, the violence was directed against both parents, especially against the father. Such was not the case a few years ago. I am pleased that my amendment has elicited a response from the Minister that he intends to introduce this legislation, and I especially welcome the fact that the announcement has been made to the committee.
Regarding the point I made about the increase or otherwise in domestic violence, such violence may be increasing. However, my point was that domestic violence has been a feature of Irish life. It is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that it is now out in the open more than it used to be, in the same way that child abuse is now in the public arena. We should not confuse the fact that this issue is out in the open with the idea that it is a newly developing phenomenon in our society, because the necessary research has not been undertaken in this respect.
Regarding the announcement made yesterday, the Dáil is the more appropriate place for the Minister to make an announcement of this kind. I do not complain, and have not complained when the Minister does not make such an announcement in the Dáil. However, it is difficult for us to do our job properly if we have to depend on press releases and what we read in the paper, and are then asked to comment.
This is the first time the Minister has made the welcome announcement that adult children will be included in the legislation, and it illustrates the lack of professionalism that takes place when major legislation is dealt with in the form of a press release. There is a formality that the Dáil is the venue where these announcements should be made, not out of any great respect for us, because I understand the political processes and the way in which Ministers have to get their pound of flesh, but in order to keep the record accurate to enable us to comment and undertake our job to the best of our ability.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.