2026-07-15

I extend a welcome to former councillor Walter Lacey who is in the Public Gallery with visitors, friends and family. They are welcome to Leinster House and I hope they enjoy their evening.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, line 37, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 5, line 3, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(9A) 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.”.

I move amendment No. 9: 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;”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (harassment and stalking); (k) an offence under section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020; (l) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) is a dependant, including a child, of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).”. This amendment recognises a simple reality. Domestic abuse often extends beyond an intimate partner to children and other dependants. As drafted, the Bill only protects victims who are the spouse, former spouse or intimate partner of the offender. Women's Aid identified this as a significant gap during pre-legislative scrutiny, noting that convictions for serious offences against a partner's child could fall outside of the register. This amendment addresses that omission by ensuring dependants, including children, are also covered. It better reflects the reality of domestic abuse and strengthens the protection purposes of the register.

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.

I disagree with the Minister completely. I think perpetrators of domestic violence are callous. If someone seriously assaults or abuses their partner's child, that behaviour is highly relevant to whether future partners should know about their history. Without this amendment, those convictions could fall outside the register simply because the victim was a child rather than an adult partner. The Minister is obviously not going to accept the amendment, but his is a flawed approach because I think this information is highly relevant to the type of register we are talking about here.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) The Minister shall, not later than 3 years after the commencement of this section, conduct a review of the operation of the Register and lay a report of that review before each House of the Oireachtas, including anonymised information on the operation of the Register, applications for removal and the offences recorded.”.”. This amendment would introduce a statutory review of the register after three years. The domestic violence judgments register will be a new scheme. It is only right that the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to assess whether it is working as intended. I am looking for a review after three years.

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.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) The Courts Service shall ensure that, when the Register is made available to the public— (a) a statement is included to the effect that the absence of a person’s name from the Register does not indicate that such person does not pose a risk or has not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse, and (b) information is provided directing users to appropriate support services, including national and local domestic violence support services.”.”. This is to ensure that the register is accompanied by clear safeguards to ensure, as has been discussed by a number of Members from across the House, that those who consult the register do not consider absence from the register as meaning an absence of risk. It is also to ensure that the register does not have the effect of giving people who may be at risk a false sense of safety. It is safe to assume that most people who are consulting this register will have a concern for their well-being or somebody else's. Regardless of whether this amendment becomes standard practice or not, I hope it will be a standard practice that when the register is consulted, clear guidance toward support services will be provided. We have a lot of organisations that do incredible work with victims of domestic violence. They are overwhelmed and need more resources, but they want to help people who need help. In some instances, the number of people who do not know the level of support available to them is phenomenal. This would be an appropriate avenue to which to direct people who might benefit from such support services.

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.

Is Deputy Carthy pressing the amendment?

I welcome that statement from the Minister and on that basis I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to— (a) the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, and (b) the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person.”.”. Again, this is just to insert subsection (14) in page 6. It provides that in deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to the safety and well-being of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, as well as the safety and welfare of any children or dependants connected to the victim or the convicted person. The amendment simply seeks to place victim safety at the heart of the court's decision-making, requiring consideration of any risk of intimidation or further harm, as well as the welfare of the affected children and dependants to be at the heart of it. It is certainly at the heart of the rationale for this legislation. I just want to suggest that it be included.

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.

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.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.