Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join others in expressing my disappointment. Due to the Minister for Justice and Equality's, and indeed the outgoing Minister's, work and background in this area, I had expected that we would be hearing variations from the Government in terms of the proposals on how this should be dealt with. I am very surprised to hear a message which seems to say that things are working fine, we should not worry and there is already enough scope and discretion. That discretion is exactly what was described by my colleague, Senator Colette Kelleher, when she spoke about the radically different outcomes we see from similar circumstances in different cases. We do not even need to look to the patterns of judgements, sometimes coming from particular judges, which seem to be contrary to what we might understand of domestic violence.

These proposals give guidance and clarity and ensure certain things are considered. It does not introduce a criminal burden of proof. In this particular section we are talking about applications for orders. It is not true or accurate to suggest there will somehow be a huge and prolonged debate in this area. We will not have a situation where certain judges may give a very narrow definition of safety and welfare. They may simply look to whether an applicant's life is in danger and whether the welfare involved is purely financial or whether it is physical, while neglecting that wider definition. These are very useful proposals.

As I said, there is support right across this House. Everyone has put forward proposals on this. There is also a generosity in this House. For example, we are happy to concede that the version which has been put forward by Senator Bacik is an improvement on our version and is a better version. We are happy to work with that. If the Minister of State were to come to the House with a proposal which was meaningful and which substantially engaged with these issues, I believe he would find this House willing to work with him. Instead, he is putting forward the frankly unacceptable position that a very wide and broad interpretation of safety and welfare, which is subject to the views of whichever judge may be sitting in the chair that day, is sufficient. Looking to these very concrete proposals around repeated patterns of behaviours, the particular vulnerabilities of a victim and how they might be exploited, and the particular factors of vulnerability which have been mentioned, these really concrete, positive proposals will help any judge in making decisions.

I expected the Minister of State to come in with an amendment, a promise or an intention towards an amendment which would put forward his proposal, and if it was a better proposal, this House would have worked with him. If he is saying that the status quomight work as it is or that it is working, we know that is factually not true. We know it is not working and that it is not adequate. I ask the Minister of State to do better in his response to us in this House.