We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ An tOrd Gnó - Order of Business

Domestic violence services and judicial correspondence

Summary

Mary Lou McDonald cited alarming Safe Ireland figures on domestic violence and unmet refuge demand, asking for extra support ahead of level 5 restrictions; the Taoiseach said funding was available and he would assess the report. Alan Kelly then pressed for fuller judicial correspondence to be published and for advice through the Attorney General, but the Taoiseach said the matter should be handled within the judicial arm and proposed discussing it first with leaders.

Safe Ireland has published new data on first-time contacts with domestic violence services for the first six months of this pandemic and the study's findings are very alarming. Three and a half thousand women and just under 600 children sought support and safety from abuse and coercive control for the first time. Helpline calls to services also increased by 25% between March and August, with nearly 34,000 calls answered across the State. Between March and June, more than 1,343 requests for refuge went unmet because the services were full. In advance of the current level 5 restrictions, the Taoiseach reassured me that additional supports and resources for domestic abuse services would be provided. He told me clearly that money would not be an issue. I subsequently forwarded to him a briefing provided by Safe Ireland. Will he now commit to providing that additional funding and those resources to ensure that victims and their children are supported and kept safe?

Comment on this

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. In advance of moving to level 5, we discussed the issue of domestic violence and the fact that, during the first lockdown, it was reported that there had been a significant increase in reports of domestic violence. Funding is not an issue, and should not be. Significant resources have been made available but I will speak to the Minister again and get an assessment of the report and the need to respond regarding any requirements that have been asked for and are needed.

Comment on this

I am quite conscious of what the Ceann Comhairle said earlier regarding the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Woulfe but this is an issue for all of us, in government and in opposition. It is not an Opposition-versus-Government issue. I welcome the Taoiseach's decision to meet party and group leaders but, having read the letters, I am going to make a request of him in advance of the meeting. It is quite obvious that there is other correspondence between the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Woulfe and that we have only partial publication of correspondence. In fact, Mr. Justice Woulfe says the publication of all correspondence cannot be good for "either of us or for the Court or the public interest". In fairness, the Chief Justice states, "Unfortunately, further serious issues now arise out of both aspects of the transcripts of your interview with Ms Justice Denham and elements of the correspondence between us." We have, therefore, only partial correspondence. Through the Attorney General, can the Taoiseach request that the other correspondence be published? Second, with regard to the redactions of elements of Ms Justice Denham's report, which some would assume refer to politicians, can the politicians referred to be notified? These are my requests of the Taoiseach.

Comment on this

First, the matters that the Deputy refers to are matters to be addressed within the judicial arm.

Comment on this

I asked about a request through the Attorney General.

Comment on this

I know but maybe the wise thing is to meet first and see collectively how we believe we should proceed rather than doing it in a piecemeal way. The facts are that the Attorney General advises the Government and that the Oireachtas has its own legal advice. It would require its own legal advice if it wanted to engage on the issue. I will reflect on what the Deputy has asked, however. I acknowledge what he is saying.

Comment on this