It is quite phenomenal that we are dealing with such a number of amendments from the Seanad. I reiterate a point I have made on every Stage of this Bill. Before the Minister gets overly sensitive, I absolutely accept that miscellaneous Bills have their place, particularly when we are dealing with minor technical matters or matters that are in some way related. There are important provisions in this legislation that I welcome. The extensive range of unrelated issues dealt with, without what I consider to be appropriate levels of scrutiny ,has done a huge disservice to many of the good aspects being dealt with in the legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are good provisions in this Bill that just did not get the level of scrutiny warranted. When this legislation is made law, major aspects of it will not have been dealt with during pre-legislative scrutiny and were only touched upon on Committee and Report Stages. A great deal of the debate on this Bill was taken up by the issue of counselling notes. It has been proven by that debate that this issue should have been a stand-alone matter. It rightly consumed most of the discussion on Committee and Report Stages. Yet we still did not have enough time to tease out amendments to improve what the Minister has in this Bill, including the more serious concern that these provisions will allow the practice of the defence of an alleged offender in sexual violence trials to continue to be able to seek the disclosure of counselling notes under the provision of the interests of justice. It is appropriate that we commend all those victims and survivors who engaged with us throughout the consideration of this Bill and who laid out in stark terms the impact of this practice. We will see in practice how curtailed it becomes as a result, but it has to be said that the manner in which this issue has been dealt with has compounded some of the trauma outlined. I know that many people had hoped that the Minister would, even at a later stage, introduce a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister is right that, in reality, when it comes to the practice of the courts, we will actually see a fundamental change in their approach in dealing with this matter. In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Minister refusing to allow the justice committee to deal with this legislation in an appropriate way. I know the Minister is eager and anxious to get laws passed, and, in one way, that is commendable. I do, however, have a fundamental problem with the whole notion of scrutiny having been thrown out. I must say that the additions in respect of aid to the civil power remain the most inexplicable, because this is a defence matter. It necessitated a change to the Title of the Bill, never mind anything else. It also necessitated the Minister for Defence appearing before the justice committee. I do not know how the said Minister deals with things in her own sectoral committee, but I have never seen a more ill-prepared Minister in the justice committee, or a Minister unable to answer what should have been basic questions that were put to her.

Sentiment score: 0.24

The questions put to her on that day at the justice committee still have not been answered. We still do not know the rationale for the changes, the way they were brought about and the urgency with which they were brought about. I just do not think it is appropriate that such new matters were brought into the Bill on every Stage, including during the Stages in the committee and in the Dáil. I hope the Minister will reflect on all of that over the summer. It is for these reasons that I have opposed the Bill at every stage. It was primarily because of the approach taken to counselling notes, but also the approach taken to the Bill as a whole. This is the reason why I will be voting against the final passage of the legislation. I just want to put that on the record because, notwithstanding that, there are some extremely important legislative changes in this Bill that I do support. Had the Minister taken a different approach, I think he would have had unanimous support in these Houses on every Stage, which should have been the way of doing things when we are dealing with issues that, in many cases, have been long campaigned for. I am thinking of the issue of the retrospective disregarding of convictions for gay men, and other extremely important issues that have come about as a result of decades of campaigning. They should not have been put into a Bill that has become divisive as a result of the political decisions made concerning how this legislation would be pushed through the House.

Sentiment score: 0.19

I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment on character references in trials. Unfortunately, we did not get to the amendment on Committee Stage. Reading back on the report, if I had been eating cornflakes, I would have nearly choked on them, such was my surprise that the Minister had accepted my amendment. I thank him for and commend him on doing so because it is a significant change to the law. It is a simple change, but will be helpful to victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. The use of character references on sentencing in Irish courts has long been controversial and, in some cases, it has compounded the trauma of victims and their families. There has been an ongoing debate about the weight given to character references. Some judges have argued that they do not carry huge weight in determining the outcome of sentencing. That is debatable and certainly not an excuse for allowing what was a flawed system to continue. I have spoken to many people who were devastated as character references came out. Particularly where guilty pleas apply, as someone pleads guilty the whole details of the case might not be divulged to the court and might not be made public. Then a character reference is read out at a sentencing hearing in public talking about how great the individual might have been. There have been serious questions about the accuracy of some of the character references given in public. I have also heard about a case - this was particularly concerning - where people supplied character references but did not realise that they were for a court case, or knew it was for a court case but did not know what crimes applied. Then there were questions around the veracity because they were written documents. An important and welcome change was introduced in respect of sexual offences cases. In such cases, in recent years, references have had to be given on oath or under affidavit and, crucially, can be cross-examined in court. It made sense that this be the case for all indictable offences. It made little sense to have a higher standard in respect of character references in some cases than in others, particularly when they can relate to very serious crimes, including unlawful killings. I was clear. My impetus for tabling this amendment came from dealing with people who had been in a court that was dealing with the unlawful killing of their loved one and, at the end of the case, someone said this individual was a great person. The sense those families had was that the character references played a role in downplaying the seriousness of the offence or the impact on the victim because they focused on the offender's reputation. I met one victim in respect of whom a sentence for coercive control had been secured. The conviction was welcome and difficult, as can be imagined, and then an employer talked about how great the convicted person was at showing up to work on time, always left the place tidy and got on well with all their colleagues. None of that could possibly have had any implication in whether a person was engaged in coercively controlling their partner behind closed doors. I do not know. In fairness, the sentence in that case was reflective of the seriousness of the crime, but at the same time, it was difficult for the victim to hear that being read out. It transpired in that case - it was one of the cases I mentioned, as I contacted the employer involved - that the employer had no idea what the charge being dealt with was and the employer was subsequently embarrassed about it. In that instance, if people know that they are providing a reference they have to give under oath or by affidavit and that they could be cross-examined, we can be damn sure that employers would make sure they knew what they were giving a reference for beforehand. I am pleased that will now change as a result of the Minister accepting this amendment. I support the Seanad amendment. It is set out in a clear way how this will apply. It is a major step forward for fairness and accountability in our courts and for victims who have been traumatised by the existing system, so I thank the Minister.

Sentiment score: 0.08