Joe O'Toole (Independent)

We have managed to create a very macho world, in which value is placed on being macho. I mentioned some examples that we see in everyday life. I find it appalling and embarrassing at this stage of sophistication in our society that there are still men who are prepared to spend large amounts of money on legal fees in order to prevent women from becoming members of a golf club. This reflects an unacceptable attitude in society. Obviously people must have access to the courts in a democracy, but it seems an extraordinary waste of the courts' time that we should be trivialising their business in this way. It gives credence to the idea of inequality. I thought the equality debate was long over and the issue we were talking about today was to do with violence, on the basis that everybody is equal. However, there is still much inequality and discrimination towards women in Irish society. It must reflect in men who hold those attitudes a lack of personal self-confidence as well as of education. It is certainly indicative of a lack of sophistication and civilisation in society.

I mentioned earlier that the kind of violence being perpetrated in our society is becoming worse. That two 14 year olds in different parts of the country were involved in brutal rape cases over the last week leads us to wonder where we are going as a society and what is happening to us. A change in attitudes is required. Normally this follows legal change, but in this case we have changed the law without changing people's attitudes. That is one of the difficulties faced by our society today.

The points outlined by previous speakers as to the levels of support that should be available to victims of domestic violence go without saying. We should certainly be supportive of such provision. It is interesting how victims of violence respond in a particular way to violence which I do not believe is rooted in gender. At the weekend, I read how Stephen Hawking was clearly the victim of domestic violence. However, he has reacted in a way that we associate with other victims, mainly women. People do not want to share their particular problem. The reason for this is dealt with in the Women's Aid literature. People, although they are the victims, feel in some way that society holds them responsible. This is due to society's attitudes which create a vicious circle because we are back to the age of the cave man at that point. No words appropriately reflect the disdain and contempt we should have towards the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Much of the debate has centred around the victims of domestic violence, as it should. However, we should focus on the perpetrators too. If we do not deal with the perpetrators we will never solve the problem. Dealing with the perpetrators requires us to make changes to the laws, such as making counselling and related activities compulsory for those found guilty of domestic violence. They should be forced to confront the consequences of their actions and be submitted to proper areas of rehabilitation. This should be part of the outcome in any of these cases. It is not good enough for them to only pay the price to society and continue on with such attitudes. The perpetrators must recognise what they are doing is wrong and be prepared not just to be contrite but to change their attitudes. There should also be a follow-up in such cases.

The question of child custody also arises in this debate. Everyone agrees that it should be focused on the child and, in this case, the victim. In child custody cases in the courts we have failed to address the issue that the child's home should always be the fulcrum of the decision. The idea of shared parenting, guardianship or access to a child is fine in theory. However, I have always maintained that it should not be the children who are moved out for the weekend to meet their father or mother, but the parent who should leave to allow the other parent in and the child to stay. This idea of playing musical chairs with children because of parents splitting up is unacceptable. The courts should take a stronger view on those issues. I know how difficult such a scheme may be for parents but that is the way it should be done.

I am not for one moment suggesting that perpetrators of domestic violence should be allowed free access to the family home. I wanted to introduce the general question of child custody. However, somebody who has committed violence against his or her partner should not have genuine or open access to the family home.

There are two issues with barring orders. First, they are not implemented half the time. Time and again we see cases of people being in breach of a barring order 100 times, yet they are still freely walking around. This brings the entire process into disrepute. I have heard it said that the way people can gain barring orders is not properly investigated either. Barring orders are there in law but are not being implemented in the way we want them to be. They should be available to people under threat. The minute they are put in place, people who are supposed to be protected by them should be so protected. Anyone who breaches a barring order should go straight to jail, no two ways about it.

It is appropriate that we are discussing these issues in the House. I appreciate the opportunity to have participated despite my breakdown under all the noise from the fire alarms.