I will deal with two of the amendments in a moment, but first I add my voice to those who have already made the point about the modus operandi of how this Bill was developed and evolved with the adding of extra issues again and again. The last night, on the counselling notes issue, every Opposition party recognised it should have been dealt with as a separate issue because of its importance to survivors and because it was the Minister's first Bill on court processes. He has introduced other legislation, including Jennie's law and the law about the children of victims of femicide or murder, which I welcome. However, the way survivors were treated needs to be raised again. The last night we were here, we had approximately 40 minutes for the entire debate and, because we worked together, we at least maximised that time. However, survivors left here upset that night. They continued and followed the Bill to the Seanad, which was a slightly more positive experience because they at least heard the arguments we had been articulating, which probably got more time there. That made them feel somewhat better. However, particularly that night, they saw that one amendment was voted on and that they were just not listened to. This should not happen again, particularly with an issue of such importance. I will raise two issues. The first is face coverings at protests. I have been at protests where people wore face coverings. During the Covid pandemic, that was obviously a normal thing to do. The Debenhams workers were on strike throughout the pandemic, having been sacked by a multinational. We always encouraged people to wear face coverings, even when outside. However, there are people who wear face coverings not just for religious or cultural reasons, but for medical reasons. I know disabled activists who will not attend any event unless they can wear a mask. The Minister may say they will be protected in that but he knows that things like this can be abused. I am just not sure why he has included this provision in relation to protests. It may need a bit more explanation but here we are on the second last night of the Dáil term. I do not support what the Minister has included. It is something that needs a lot more debate. We all know that some people can cover their faces to intimidate others. I accept that but this is being introduced with 50 other issues in this Bill. I will make a point about character references. I obviously support the amendment but we do have to return to this whole issue of character references in trials. On the one hand, I know the Minister would say that people have a right to a fair trial and that this is part of the very important constitutional right to a fair trial. That is a bit ironic because we also have non-jury courts. How do those things balance each other or even match? We say that the use of counselling notes and character references must be allowed and yet we can have non-jury trials. This is something that should be examined. The upcoming Oireachtas committee may be able to examine it in more detail because these references are a real problem with regard to gender-based violence, given particular dynamics that pertain to gender-based and sexual violence. Most people who are given these references are not experts. A constituent contacted me who was the victim of sexual assault. Their brother was convicted of this but got a suspended sentence. This constituent believes that is because references were read out as the very last word in that trial. This man was convicted but then, all of a sudden, these references were read out. The references were from the father of the wife of the perpetrator. How is this person an expert in the dynamics of child sexual abuse? My constituent believes that this had an impact on the judge. We also know from several studies that men - women can obviously also commit gender-based violence but male violence is mainly the issue - who perpetrate domestic violence, coercive control or sexual violence are arch-manipulators. They are exceptionally skilled at deceiving people. They put one face on in public and another face on in private. There is a real problem with character references in these cases. It really is something that needs to be looked at. It has caused huge offence. There is another thing the Minister could clear up. We were told that the Government had already changed the law so that a person had to be in court and ready to give, under oath-----

Sentiment score: -0.07

That did not happen in the recently reported case involving a former Fianna Fáil TD. He was not called up to testify.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am just asking why it did not happen in that case. Was it because it was about parole? Is there a difference in that case?

Sentiment score: 0.00

It does not seem to have been fully applied. We definitely need to discuss this topic again.

Sentiment score: 0.20