Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for joining us in the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important omnibus Bill. I begin by commending the Ministers, Deputy Harris and Deputy McEntee, on the hard work they have undertaken on addressing domestic, sexual and gender-based violence in Ireland, elements of which are tackled within certain sections of this Bill. While I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, I have some concerns and will take some time to briefly outline those concerns.

I welcome the fact the Bill will create a stand-alone offence of stalking and harassment, replacing the existing offence of harassment contained in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. Providing for these stand-alone offences will assist Ireland in achieving the full ratification of the 2019 Istanbul Convention. The standards of conduct set out for the proposed offence of stalking are quite clear in the Bill but I feel the standard of conduct set out in respect of the offence of harassment could benefit from a more robust and explicit provision, and I would welcome any input the Minister might be able to offer in this respect. The Istanbul Convention stresses, at Article 33, the importance of specifically criminalising the impairment of a person's psychological integrity through violence, coercion or threat. I would ask the Minister why an explicit reference to the potential psychological impacts of stalking and harassment was not included in the Bill. Perhaps it is the case that references in section 23 to alarm, distress and harm may provide sufficient legislative protection but I ask the Minister to clarify the rationale behind this.

I note also the concerns expressed by certain domestic violence groups about the inclusion of the qualifier of the harm caused by stalking as harassment having a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities. The focus in instances of stalking and harassment should be on the conduct of the perpetrator of these offences, not on the adverse impact of this behaviour on the victim, which may be difficult to prove in many instances. This could, for example, cause issues in terms of timely reporting of stalking and harassment to the Garda if victims feel they cannot prove the harm caused to them, which risks further harm. Additionally, it could work against victims who actively choose not to alter their day-to-day activities in an attempt to demonstrate their resilience.

It is important to acknowledge that the introduction of these new offences will not necessarily be enough to restrict the offending behaviour in and of itself. This demonstrates the importance of the development of education campaigns and the provision of specialist support services to target problematic behaviours, such as stalking and harassment. As my understanding of these types of behaviours is that they can be quite complex to address, I invite the Minister to outline some of the other work the Government intends to undertake to support people to desist from stalking, harassment and non-fatal strangulation or suffocation.

I understand from following the Bill through its passage in the Dáil that there was some discussion about the potential for the inclusion of a provision within the Bill that would address spiking, wherein it would become a stand-alone offence, separate from the law that prohibits the poisoning of a person. An amendment was tabled by Deputy Ó Ríordáin to address this matter and there was some positive engagement between the Minister and the Deputy on the issue during Report Stage. I hope the Minister might be able to provide an update as to any engagement he has had with the Deputy, his departmental officials and the Garda Commissioner in the interim and to clarify whether he intends to introduce an amendment to address the issue during the Seanad Stages

In addition, the Minister advised during the course of the Dáil debate that he would explore the possibility of introducing additional safeguards for victims of stalking and harassment who are required to give evidence in court. Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 provides a certain level of protection, in that it facilitates the delivery of evidence through video link but I know the Minister mooted the idea of providing additional protection against cross-examination and an anonymity provision. I would welcome any updates the Minister might be able to provide in respect of these considerations.

Before I conclude, I would like to touch briefly on the proposed increase to the maximum sentence for conspiracy to murder. I want to highlight the fact that increasing the sentence length does not necessarily provide a greater deterrent to individuals and, accordingly, does not necessarily make people safer. The Law Reform Commission in its 2013 report on mandatory sentencing observed that it is unclear to what extent, if any, mandatory or presumptive sentences actually deter offending behaviour. In its 2020 report on suspended sentences, it noted that the deterrence principle has been criticised on the basis that evidence as to its efficacy as a crime desistance strategy is unconvincing.

I do not know if the Minister has ever read Albert Camus but his book, Reflections on the Guillotine, is very important when considering this issue. Even public execution did not reduce murder; the death penalty does not reduce murder. We have to be very clear when we are talking about why we are extending sentences for particular things in terms of mandatory sentencing or maximum sentencing. Is it for the victim alone in terms of justice or are we saying that the changing of sentences or maximum sentences actually deters crime? I do not think it does and I do not think there is any evidence that has ever suggested it reduces crime.

That loops back to the previous point around what else we are doing to interrupt the behaviour and not only focus on sentences as some sort of solution to crime, murder or conspiracy to murder. If the Minister does not have the answer to some of the questions I have raised, I would appreciate it if he could respond in writing. I would appreciate his comments on some of those concerns because as I will be seeking to amend the Bill, updates on some of those provisions would be helpful before I do.