I thank the Deputy for his amendment. The legislation we are discussing today is proposing to insert a new section into the Domestic Violence Act 2018. This will be the section referred to as the domestic violence register of judgments. That means this part of the legislation has to be consistent with the Domestic Violence Act 2018 in general. That Act already refers to relevant persons in the offence of coercive control and in specifying the circumstances in which a relationship should be treated as an aggravating factor in offending. In both cases, the Oireachtas deliberately confined the definition to a current or former spouse or intimate partner. I have deliberately adopted this language in the provisions in this part of the legislation in order to ensure consistency within the legislation as this definition is now being embedded in case law, operational guidance and front-line practice. If I were to accept Deputy Gannon's amendment, which would introduce a broader definition into the Bill, it would undermine the coherence of existing provisions. It would mean that the same term appearing within the same legislative framework would carry two different meanings in two different areas. That is not good practice and would risk confusion. That is why I think it important that we maintain a single, stable definition of relevant person across the Domestic Violence Act and legislation. I know Deputy Gannon's concern is in respect of children of people who are victims of domestic violence. However, for the purpose of the operation of the 2018 Act as a whole and for this new provision, it is important to limit it as we have in the legislation, which is to intimate partner, spouse or civil partner.

Sentiment score: -0.24

There will be a post-enactment review after one year under Dáil Standing Orders and the Standing Orders of the Seanad. That will be done. I am conscious people will be raising the issue here with me. I will not accept the amendment but there will be a requirement for me to come back to produce a post-enactment report within 12 months.

Sentiment score: -0.04

Deputy Carthy makes a very important point. It is important that people do not assume that someone has no domestic violence convictions simply because their name does not appear on the register of judgments. That is a point that has to be emphasised. While I cannot accept the amendment, this is because the level of operational detail proposed is not suitable for primary legislation. Embedding such granular requirements in statute could actually limit flexibility and create unnecessary constraints as the system develops. However, in this context, in light of Deputy Carthy's amendment and other concerns, officials in my Department and the Courts Service have already discussed the provision of warnings, explanatory notes and clear signposting to domestic violence support services. I assure Deputies that this information will be prominently displayed for anyone accessing the register. The effect of what Deputy Carthy seeks to do will be embedded in the register when it is up and running in the Courts Service.

Sentiment score: -0.01

Again, it is an important point that Deputy Carthy makes but it is also important to note that the court will have discretion to decide whether a judgment should be included in the register. Those factors that are set out in Deputy Carthy's amendment will certainly be given consideration by a judge in exercising that discretion. Any judge exercising that discretion will access all of the circumstances of the case, including the situation of the offender, the victim and any child connected to the matter. Issues of safety and welfare will be central to that assessment. Domestic violence cases often involve ongoing risks and complex dynamics. The court's responsibility is to ensure that victims and children are protected from further harm. In fairness, judges do this on a daily basis. They routinely evaluate risks and the courts are aware of the sensitivities involved in domestic violence cases. The judicial studies committee delivers specialised workshops on topics such as this in order to train judges on how they should exercise their discretion. For these reasons, notwithstanding the point it makes, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.

Sentiment score: -0.08

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad. I thank colleagues in this House for their support on this legislation. I thank officials in my Department for their tireless work in respect of ensuring that we navigate this legislation through the Houses and get the drafts as appropriately as possible to ensure that they balance all the conflicting rights we have spoken about. I thank Jason Poole and the Poole family and commend them on their resilience and determination in wanting to leave a permanent memorial to their beloved Jennie. That memorial is very evident in this legislation, which will be on our Statute Book for very many years. I commend them on and thank them for their great public service in advocating for this law.

Sentiment score: 0.51