Ms Sarah Benson:

I will use the opportunity to refer specifically to the question from Senator Higgins on coercive control. I affirm everything my colleagues said regarding data being good. We are not scared of the data. I ask that we have it. Coercive control has been legislated for. Cases have been taken and there has been progress. We welcome that the initial cases that came to court, including at least one brought to trial where there was a jury, did so in conjunction with additional charges, usually for quite extreme physical and-or sexual violence. We were watching for stand-alone coercive control cases without those additional aggravating factors, notwithstanding decisions in such cases all have to be based on each individual crime. We have started to see cases and convictions proceeding, including against even serving members of the Garda. We commend the Garda on pushing forward on those.

Our legislation on coercive control has a focus on the impact on victims, which will possibly be problematic in the future. In Scotland, for example, the actual behaviour is defined as the criminal act. The impact on victims can differ, depending on their resilience, support networks and other intersecting factors. That is something we should watch for but we see progress being made in that regard and we welcome it. It is a game changer for the legislative system because it is based on a multifaceted pattern of events rather than a single action. Even psychologically, that is something the courts need to take on board in understanding it so having that law is great.

The Deputy raised many issues. To clarify, with respect to temporary orders, only two are limited to eight days, which are the interim barring order and the emergency barring order. That is because of the legislative requirement that if somebody is going to be taken out of his or her home, that person has a right to be represented and say his or her piece. In those instances, a hearing will be convened in that timeframe for either a safety order or a full barring order. It does not create a gap in that sense. A person would be issued a protective order, which does not require somebody to leave the premises, but that will last until the hearing for the full order, whether that is for a safety order or barring order. It is possible the Deputy's contact specifically related to an emergency barring order or an interim barring order.

The Garda can already apply for an emergency barring order. We are not aware of almost any cases of that happening. We have already fed into some of the different Garda structures, including the inspectorate and the Policing Authority, particularly the inspectorate, around how Garda members are made aware of this right and what they can do. They can apply for an emergency barring order out of hours and they can contact a judge. Again, it is a very finite solution. It also offers a solution if there is an imbalance, such as an applicant not having the right to a tenancy. In effect, it is an exercise in buying the applicant time to find an alternative place to go because if the person does not have the property rights to have somebody removed, he or she has to find somewhere else. The other circumstance relates to hospitals. For many years now, social workers can also make an application on behalf of somebody, for example, an individual who is hospitalised. Medical social workers tend to be aware that they can make applications, but there is no consistency. Those rights and possibilities are already there.

With respect to the Garda, courts and who has the jurisdiction, the Garda do not have legal jurisdiction to issue orders. That is probably something that would be-----