Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, many provisions of which are very welcome and progressive. They shine a light on the experience of domestic violence in this country. I hope if we get it through, some of the measures will allow women and children affected by domestic violence to navigate the courts and find protective measures a bit more easily. I hope such people will be able to achieve some form of protection from an abuser in an easier way.

Over the years I campaigned for women's rights, looked over the reports and have been involved with women's refuges, but I am still taken aback by the scale and prevalence of violence against women and domestic violence in general in this society. The SAFE Ireland report of 2014 suggests that if we extrapolate from the almost 9,500 women who reported abuse, it would represent between 8% and 12% of the total number of women suffering abuse at the hands of partners in communities around Ireland. The scale of non-reporting is very worrying and it is reckoned that 79% of all women never disclose serious physical or sexual violence by a partner to anyone. One in four women experience physical and sexual violence from a male partner.

The scale of non-reporting is quite scary and there are many reasons for it. Most women are led to believe that somehow it is their fault that they are abused or that they asked for it. Sometimes they are told this by others, such as relatives, but society also sends messages indicating they have made their bed and now must lie on it. The biggest problem that women or anybody has in an abusive relationship, particularly where children are involved, is that there is nowhere else to go. I have a very close friend who recently retired from working with Women's Aid over the past 25 years and she spent every day of her working life accompanying mainly women into the courts to help them stand up for themselves and apply for barring orders. She retired early because she could no longer bear the increasing frequency of having to take women through the court process before sending them back to the arms of their abusers.

The simple reason for this is the housing crisis and the lack of alternative facilities for women and children in this society. There was a time when organisations like Sonas could provide alternative homes for victims of abuse, but that is no longer the case. That organisation is now extraordinarily frustrated by its inability to rehouse victims of abuse, many of whom are children. There are material conditions prevalent in this society that are feeding into the problem and not allowing us to escape from it. Along with this Bill, we must seriously consider alternative provisions for victims of abuse. I particularly emphasise the provision of alternative housing.

The Tusla report indicates domestic violence services helped almost 25,000 victims last year and that Irish women are among the least likely in Europe to seek support when suffering domestic abuse. Last year, Women's Aid reported almost 17,000 disclosures by women, with 11,000 of those being incidents of emotional abuse. This relates to a very important part of what we must achieve with this Bill.

It is to ensure that emotional and coercive abuse becomes a crime. There are so many ways to scare, threaten and manipulate another human being, especially when the relationship is close and involves dependency. There is no doubt that would be very difficult to prove but even being able to say that a person suffers from emotional, coercive and mental crime would be a major step forward in empowering those who suffer from the abuse.

I recognise the progressive elements of the Bill but I wish to address the scale of domestic violence, why it is so pervasive and why violence - particularly against women - is something we cannot get away from in our society. On one level it is quite straightforward; what is a woman who is in an abusive relationship and wants to escape from it to do? As we are aware, the State is not in a position to provide alternative supports and it is very difficult for a woman to leave her home and access any other sort of accommodation to provide for her and her children's needs. Many women have to stay in abusive relationships because of economics. This is why the prevalence of the violence continues.

During the recession we saw the previous Government first pick what they called - and what the Minister clearly named at the time - the low-hanging fruit. Cuts were made to funding for services such as Women's Aid and refuges around the State were closed. The cuts that ensued from the bank bailout were directed at the most vulnerable, not just at people who suffered from domestic violence. There were many others who suffered from the cuts but I focus on this because of the Bill and the debate. I am not sure if any of the cuts or low-hanging fruit picking that happened during the crisis have been reinstated or brought back in full or if the direct financial abuse by the Government has ended. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us in that regard.

I have referred to the housing crisis. This also denies women and anybody suffering abuse any sense of independence by not being able to seek another place to live. This also points to the class nature of many of these issues. I know of women of all ages who have been abused in relationships by very wealthy men - extraordinarily wealthy men in some cases - and I know of men who have been abused by extraordinarily wealthy men. By and large, however, the statistics bear out the fact that the lower economic classes suffer the most through the excesses of domestic violence. Those who need the access and the supports the most are the people who will not get it. The impact of domestic violence on the most vulnerable women needs to be taken into account.

The recent advertisement campaign that urges people to not turn a blind eye to domestic violence is important in making us all think about the issue. One very brave woman showed - on YouTube - the reality of her life. That video received millions of hits, which was very good for encouraging other victims of domestic abuse to come forward. It is, however, not enough if we do not put in place the supports, funding and provisions to empower women and other to be able to leave abusive relationships.

I asked the question about the scale of the problem. I believe it is part of a systemic nature of sexism in our society. Pervasive sexism is deeply ingrained in the way we live with the allotted roles of how we are supposed to behave, how we are supposed to work, how we are supposed to think and slot in to a gender-based society. Part of this gives us the answer to why all of this domestic violence happens. This sort of gender-based role playing does not just apply to women who are supposed to be feminine, quiet, accepting, to say nothing, to be loving and to make sure everybody is all right, to keep the peace, to shut their face and not to be too bold about things. While such expectations are being broken by women on a large scale, this does not mean it is not still pervasive in our society. I believe it still is. Society uses women's bodies and their nature to sell all sorts of commodities from cars to clothes to drink. Society eulogises a woman's body - and to a lesser degree a man's body - to sell products. This has a profoundly damaging impact on our perception of one other as human beings. It really goes to the heart of what alienation from our society is about. The behaviour of men and women that allows them to put themselves into these gender roles is very much determined by the type of society we put them into, including putting family at the heart of society.

We all know that Christmas is supposed to be a wonderful experience and a time of joy and happiness for the family. However, we also know that from now until the end of January there will be a spike in the incidence of domestic abuse and violence precisely because families and relationships that are not working are being coerced by the idea that this is how they should be perceived. The happy-clappy nuclear family is supposed to be at the heart of who and what we are. It is the norm of every society. I have no doubt that the recession placed a huge strain on this model. Sonas and others conducted studies in 2011 on the strain the recession had placed on that image of the family. When finances are stretched, it is usually the man who is expected to play the strong, breadwinning, caregiving role. The idea is that nobody need worry about anything once the man is there to provide. It is usually the man who falls foul of that image of self and who becomes frustrated and angry with society. However, he does not articulate that as "I am pissed off with society", he articulates it as "I am angry with you and the kids and everything in my life". All these factors have an impact. We have to question our image of self and the image imposed on women in particular but also on men. Not bringing home the bacon makes a man feel worthless. That should not be the case and it should not be the sort of pressure that leads to a breakdown in a family and to violence but it does.

The commercial pressure to buy things at this time of year has an impact on families. The moneylenders are probably rubbing their hands in some of the poorest areas of this city. Domestic violence will peak at this time of year.

Sonas said in 2010 that almost three times more women and children became homeless because of domestic violence. It recorded an astounding 163% increase in the numbers it supported. That was a result of austerity, the recession and unemployment. Economic pressure and homelessness have an impact on the level of abuse. We cannot, however, escape the fact that, whether a person is suffering financial disempowerment or, indeed, empowerment, which often makes very wealthy men abusers of their wives, it is prevalent, deep and rotten in our society. It is true that this Bill sets out to address the issue by empowering women to report domestic abuse, to get barring orders more easily and to have more say in court.

From my experience of dealing with Women's Aid, we should require judges, maybe through an amendment to the Bill, to undergo further training in family relationships and the culture of domestic violence. They are very good at family law and know it to the letter but training can be delivered to help them understand, for example, the need, where requested, to talk to children through video link. Sometimes they reject that as not being their role, saying they are not social workers. We should encourage the judges to take up that training and consider the cultural impact of domestic violence, not just the legal impact, to give them a more rounded judgment of how to deliver the necessary protection for women. The protection is not good enough. I and, I am sure, many others are approached by women who are terrified of their partners. Their partners may not have hit them but they threaten to, keeps them scared and prevent them from expressing and defending themselves or getting away from the relationship. The psychology of a twisted human being adjusts to thinking the woman is getting snotty, getting more power or becoming too confident and he ups the ante in terms of his violent and threatening behaviour. A lot of supports need to be put in place. While I welcome the Bill, I think this society has to look very hard again at the homelessness crisis because more women and children will be driven into homelessness during the happy-clappy period we are about to enter precisely because we have nowhere to put them when they suffer from extreme violence at home.

See this speech in context