As I mentioned on Second Stage, I welcome the fact that this Bill has progressed as speedily as it has. I have commended the Minister and his officials on prioritising what is a singular piece of legislation. It is a huge testimony to the family of Jennifer Poole, particularly Jason, because they have convinced the entirety of political opinion in this House of the merits of this measure. That is a phenomenal achievement on their part. I want to say to them that they have done Jennifer proud by being able to do so much. The Minister mentioned that the great thing about legislation is that once it is introduced, it can be amended at a later stage. However, he will know that the process in this regard is not simple. The key is always that when we have got to the point where legislation with such widespread political support has been introduced, we need to get it right. Amendments Nos. 9 10 and 12 are in my name. Amendment No. 9 proposes the following: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”. The reason for this amendment is that there is a genuine concern that the ambit of the legislation is too narrow and will not capture the bulk of domestic violence offences. As has been mentioned, Women's Aid has warned that many domestic violence-related offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act are prosecuted summarily in the District Court and, therefore, would not be captured by the proposed register. We also know that many domestic charges are reduced to lesser offences through plea bargaining. I refer, for example, to a section 3 offence being reduced to a section 2 assault. This was the situation in one very high-profile case recently. Under the Bill, where a section 2 assault is committed against an intimate partner, it would result in that person not being included on the register when, in fact, we know that the offence is, most likely, part of a pattern of domestic violence and abuse. I again appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment and create an offence under section 2 where a crime is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person living in an intimate relationship in order that we might get to the core of this. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I ask him to provide assurances, insofar as it is possible, that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, will take into account the fact that any plea bargaining reducing a section 3 charge to a section 2 charge in a case of domestic violence would allow an offender to evade inclusion on the domestic violence register. This should be a caveat for the DPP in his or her consideration of plea bargains that might not have been in place heretofore. Amendment No. 10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them. For what I consider logical reasons, this should also be added to the list of offences. Amendment No. 12 states: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”. This amendment adds a breach of a domestic violence order, as the Minister said, to the list of offences that will lead to people being included on the domestic violence register. This makes absolute sense. It will be a real omission if it is not included, particularly if we genuinely want this to be a domestic violence judgment register. One of the fears relating to this legislation, which has been mentioned here and in the Seanad, is that somebody might seek to look at the register. If somebody is going to look at this register, it means that there are concerns. If they look and see that somebody's name is not on it, that might give them a sense of unfounded relief. The Minister was at pains, and rightly so, to say that this is what it is and that it should not be taken as an absolute guarantee of anything. However, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence offences, either summarily or in the context of a section 3 conviction, and is not included in the register, then the truth of the matter is that the register is not going to be as fulsome as it should be. This is the crucial point. We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court. The vast majority of cases involving sexual or gender-based violence or domestic abuse will never actually come before a court. When they do, even the most minor of offences are generally just the tip of the iceberg. If somebody is the subject of a summary conviction for domestic violence abuse, in the majority of, not all, cases, that is just a small signal of a pattern of abuse. Margaret Loftus made this point very passionately when she spoke at the justice committee's launch of the report on gender-based violence last week. She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered. It is usually after a prolonged period of abuse that somebody will get the wherewithal, the courage and the support necessary to bring that to the attention of the Garda. When somebody has managed to get to the point where they are making a complaint to the Garda and if the gardaí looking at the evidence see the merit of bringing a charge against the individual and they bring that to court and it results in a conviction, then absolutely there should be no question but that should be recorded in this register. I again appeal to the Minister. Let us get this right. Let us not depend on a future Minister or a future Oireachtas to fix this at a later stage. Let us actually ensure that we live up to the spirit of this legislation, which has come about from the campaign and work of Jason and the Poole family, by ensuring it is as comprehensive as possible. I again ask the Minister to consider these amendments even at this late stage.

Sentiment score: -0.18

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are in my own name and I also record my support for amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gannon. Amendment No. 2 may appear to be technical and inserts “and (4A)” after subsection (4). Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert in page 4, between lines 7 and 8, the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”. To give the logic for these amendments, Safe Ireland has argued for the provisions in amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to be included in this legislation. These amendments are about ensuring victims are properly protected when deciding whether a judgment should be included on the register. We know a conviction does not always bring an end to abuse. Many victims continue to experience intimidation, harassment and coercive control long after court proceedings have been concluded. Therefore, victims should also have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before publication of this register and that decision should be fully respected. The objective is simple. It is to ensure that victims can make fully informed decisions in a way that prioritises their safety and well-being at all times. That is a sentiment that is widely shared. Deputy Gannon's amendment essentially puts in a provision that in the event of somebody being deceased the family should be consulted and I fully support that.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

Sentiment score: 0.19

I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”. All of these amendments are linked and are the critical amendments that we will be discussing this evening. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are fairly simple in their wording. They are to substitute the words "5 years" where "3 years" is currently in place. Amendment No. 8 inserts the following section 9A on page 5: Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to— (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and (b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.". Amendment No. 8 is the second option for the Minister if he is of a mind to reject amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Bearing in mind that, as a result of the Government's position on the previous amendments, the bar to be included on this register is incredibly high under the Bill as it stands, somebody who is on the register that we are discussing has committed offences of a very serious nature. For all of the reasons I outlined earlier, I believe that the vast majority of abusers will never see their names published on this register. Therefore, to have such a high bar and then to allow a three-year mechanism whereby a person who has reached that bar and ended up on the register can apply to have his or her name removed from it is far too short. When you consider that, to be on the register, the crimes are way beyond what any reasonable person would want any of their loved ones to be exposed to in a relationship, certainly without them knowing. The key part of this is that being included on the domestic violence register is not actually an additional punishment. We talked about early convictions. If somebody has been convicted of a public order offence at the age of 19, 20, 21 or whatever, depending on the profile of the situation, if he or she happened to be in a local District or Circuit Court and the local newspaper was in place, everybody can find that information out very quickly, because it is going to be googlable forever. There is a right to be forgotten and all of that, but generally speaking, that will be common knowledge forever. It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others. If we agree with that premise, which I think was the central point of the Deputy opposite, Paul McAuliffe, regarding the rationale for the approach that has been taken, then there is no rationale for allowing people to have themselves removed after only three years following a prosecution. This is the amendment, above all, that I appeal to the Minister to accept because the logic stands. There is an argument that five years is too short, but I table it with regard to the legislation and understanding that this is just an application. Amendment No. 8 is a secondary position that seeks to allow a longer period for removal in some instances. That should be considered with regard to offences at the most serious end of the spectrum, obviously including murder, manslaughter and rape. People would be surprised to learn - after all the effort that has gone into this and the campaigning by the Poole family with the Minister and his Department - that we would have a situation where there is a register in place, narrow as it is, but after three years, somebody on the register can apply to be taken off it. In my mind, that is far too short. Five years is much more reasonable. Above all, my appeal to the Minister is to accept amendment No. 5.

Sentiment score: -0.06

I will make a couple of ripostes. In terms of the bar being set high and the logic behind using that phrase, I am sure the Minister will accept, and he probably knows this better than anybody in the Chamber, that it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of cases of abuse are never reported. That has been well-documented. The vast majority of reported abuses never result in court cases at all. The majority that result in court cases do not subsequently result in a conviction for one of the 17 offences the Minister has outlined. When I say that the bar is high, it is not to suggest that it is incredibly narrow but it is a high bar. I hope the Minister will take that on board. In respect of the point around rehabilitation, the aforementioned young fella or young woman who had a public order offence and happened to end up in a court when their local journalist was in attendance are statistically much more likely to have rehabilitated themselves than someone who has committed a sexual offence but they are in the local paper. It is published. They can do nothing about it. That is just the outworkings of justice happening publicly. I understand the Minister's rationale for saying that there has to be a point of appeal or a legal mechanism by which somebody can ask for their name to be withdrawn. I have very little sympathy for them, to be quite frank, and I hope that any court in which such an application comes before it will have very little sympathy but the point is around when that avenue should become available. Three years after such a conviction is far too short. From speaking to campaigners on this issue, this is a position that is held. That is why I would make the argument strongly that five years - arguably too short in itself - is much more reasonable.

Sentiment score: 0.06