Yesterday I thanked the Minister for using the Seanad route to get this legislation through so it could be passed before the summer recess. That confirms the Minister's own acknowledgement of the urgency of getting this legislation passed. There is a balance between the urgency of getting something passed, but also the urgency of getting something passed that is going to impact as well as it could. That is why I support amendment No. 1 and the other suite of amendments because we are not going far enough. In essence, we need to challenge and push things out. If something needs to be tweaked afterwards, that is the better option rather than being very conservative starting out. If we look at the District Court situation, for example in terms of summary convictions, we are talking about convictions of up to 12 months. If I was a woman or if it was my daughter or any family member, and I found out that someone had a conviction of up to 12 months for violently assaulting someone, giving them a black eye or damaging their eye socket, I would want to know about it. These types of incidents start very incrementally. They start off with one thing. It gradually escalates. The violence becomes the norm. The coercive control is brought into it. It is not usually a situation where someone starts off in a controlling relationship as the essence of extreme violence. It works up to that situation. Therefore, you do have to nip it in the bud, so to speak. I am not a legal expert on this but I have been raising issues on the related in camera rule and the need to remove it, because that is going to act as a chilling effect on people reporting cases in the first place. However, anything that encourages reporting has to be welcomed. If we look at where violations of court orders happen, they happen in the District Courts above and beyond. Regarding the type of domestic violence incidences, the vast majority of them are within the District Court as well. We can move beyond that and say we will start off with the most serious cases but the most serious cases are arising because people go away with the less serious cases. These are often people with multiple, sometimes different, convictions in multiple relationships. We are talking about individuals whose violence is not confined to a single relationship. They always blame their partner at the time but these are people with a propensity for violence and that violence is acted out not just on partners but on other people in society as well. If it is not dealt with it right from the outset it is going to create more problems. I see there are some issues in relation to, for example, starting with the District Court cases in that there might be a risk of retaliation because people know their name is going to be listed. I acknowledge this is a risk. We are having a different level of argument about the three-year process and the right to have their name removed from the register; that is a later discussion, and I believe five years would be more sufficient. At any stage, if they behave themselves, people will have their names taken off the register. However, the types of offences that should go onto the register in the first place should be violent assaults such as giving a partner a black eye. To me, that is sufficient to show that person cannot be trusted. If a relationship breaks up and there is a new partner, they have an absolute right to know about that because next time it could be a broken eye socket or the use of a weapon. We have to deal with it there and then rather than let someone get away with it. Another point is that in a lot of the convictions in the court people do not serve anywhere near the actual sentence they are given. They are out and about, with no real consequences and then they feel a sense of impunity. We have to nip it in the bud. There will be a lot of legal opposition to various aspects of this legislation in any event, so let us just throw the whole lot in - unless what the Minister is really saying is that there is resourcing issues in terms of the District Court's capacity. That is a valid concern as well, but at some stage we have to draw the line and say this is the sort of offence that is not acceptable in any civilised society. You are not allowed to violently attack your partner. We can have nuances and definitions but whacking your partner violently to me is the line we draw. If that is in the remit of the District Court, so be it. It needs to be put on the record to protect the partner and to protect future people.

Sentiment score: -0.16