David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support amendment No. 1 in addition to amendment No. 52 in my name as well as the names of other Senators. It is rather difficult to provide a completely exhaustive list of behaviours. I have had a communication about a situation in which a woman was being coerced, controlled and intimidated by her husband, outlining the methods he used. These included putting on the hot water system and consistently leaving the taps running in order that enormous bills would mount up. There was also telephone and other abuse. It is rather difficult to produce a completely exhaustive list. However, the absence of any kind of definition causes a problem and it might lead to a conclusion that domestic violence is the only thing that is contemplated by the Bill. I have the highest regard for Barnardos as an agency and it has given us strong indications that it would support this Bill.

I point out that I think there is a typographical error in paragraph (c)(i), which reads "threatening (including threating suicide)", which I think should be "threatening suicide".

The situation in terms of women is very worrying indeed. The numbers that are being supplied to me are quite horrifying. In 2015, just two years ago, 9,712 women and 3,383 children got support from a domestic violence service. That is astonishing. Some 1,471 women and 2,093 children stayed in a refuge. That is a very interesting figure. It shows a shift in balance from the first figures. The figure of 9,712 women and 3,383 children shows a complete preponderance of women and a considerably lower number of children. When it comes to staying in a refuge, the situation is reversed, where it is a smaller number of women and a considerably larger number of children. That shows the vulnerability of children in these situations of domestic violence.

What is more worrying is that 4,796 requests for refuge could not be met.On one day in 2015, 502 women and 269 children sought and received support from a domestic violence service. Some 112 women and 147 children were accommodated in refuge but - and here is the real stinker - 18 women could not be accommodated in refuge. In the past week or two we have been very concerned about a small number of homeless families who were not accommodated and slept in their cars but this is much worse. It is one thing to be homeless and uncomfortable in a car but these people are exposed to the danger of violence and the danger of harm being visited upon them.

We would not be alone in introducing definitions of controlling and coercive behaviour. In the United Kingdom, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 defines controlling behaviour as a range of acts designed to make persons subordinate and-or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour. Coercive behaviour is defined in a far more extensive way and includes threats to a child, threats to hurt a child, threats to publish private information, denying people access to transport, isolating them from friends and family, depriving them and monitoring their time and their bank accounts. In British Columbia in Canada, the Family Law Act, chapter 25, part 1, defines family violence as, "physical abuse of a family member, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm". It also includes sexual abuse of a family member, attempts to physically or psychologically abuse a family member and the exposure of a child to the threat of physical violence.

My amendment shows the significance of the previous amendment because it refers directly to controlling or coercive behaviour and states what is required to establish that an offence has been committed. In the absence of a definition, this is substantially more difficult so it is important to have one. The definition goes with amendment No. 52 and proposes that a person commits an offence if he or she repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person that is controlling or coercive. It is assumed by the Minister that everybody knows what controlling or coercive behaviour is but it is no harm to have a definition. It exempts a parent because a parent has a right and an obligation to control the behaviour of a child and if a child is behaving inappropriately it would be part of his or her learning process. There follows a series of definitions relating to when people are members of the same family, etc. I will support amendment No. 1, which gives the definition and leads into amendment No. 52.

I have no difficulty in supporting amendment No. 53, although I am not as strongly in favour of it as I am in favour of amendment No. 1 and my own amendment No. 52.