Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: Motion
Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-12
============================================================

Alison Comyn (FF), Nominated by the Taoiseach

I second the motion. I thank the Minister for coming to the House. The conversation we are having is incredibly vital. I welcome the motion and commend Senators O'Loughlin, Rabbitte, and other colleagues on bringing it forward. It is to our shame that we are still talking about this in 2026 and that we still have to legislate, strategise and campaign to protect women and children from this violence, coercion, exploitation and abuse in their own homes, relationships, online and right across society in general.
Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is not just a private or family matter. I spent years as a journalist and there were times when I went to a Garda station only to be told I would not be interested in a particular incident because it was just a domestic dispute. Domestic abuse should not be seen as something that happens behind closed doors and as lesser than any other kind of assault.
The language around it has changed over the years, about which I am glad. The support received from An Garda Síochána, sexual abuse units and Cuan is incredible. We know better now and we must be able to tackle this type of violence at source. That is why I welcome the zero-tolerance strategy and the progress that has been made under it. We should acknowledge that process. As my colleague Senator Rabbitte mentioned, there has been increased funding, legislative reform and a stronger focus on prevention, victim support and safe accommodation. The funding of almost €80 million under budget 2026 is hugely significant.
However, every one of us in this House knows the need is still greater than the provision. We know refuges are under huge pressure, women are still being turned away with their children and children are spending too long in emergency accommodation because there is nowhere else for their mothers to go. We know the moment of leaving can be one of the most dangerous times for a woman experiencing abuse. Refuge spaces are absolutely vital but refuge is not the end of the story. Refuge is a place of emergency safety. It is not intended to be a long-term home. It is not the place for woman and their children to stay and seek to rebuild their lives. The question we must ask is really simple: what happens next and where do these women go after they have had the support of refuge? That is the gap I am hoping we can address through this motion and other measures.
As my colleague mentioned, in Leinster House last Wednesday, I hosted a presentation on proposals for move-on accommodation for women and children leaving domestic support. The proposals were brought forward by Ms Sarah Slazenger, who is managing director of Powerscourt Estate. In attendance were vital stakeholders, including representatives of women's refuges in Bray, Drogheda and Dundalk, Soroptimists Ireland groups, women's sheds, the Irish Countrywomen's Association and a delegation of female ambassadors from right across Europe and the globe. The might of their support is incredible. It was a powerful gathering but, more importantly, we heard about some very practical solutions. The proposal is really simple. Local authorities should be supported to work with property owners to identify vacant, derelict or underused buildings, particularly in town centres, and bring them back into use as supported move-on accommodation for women and children leaving refuge services. They could include former retail businesses, preferably with over-the-shop accommodation, suitable publicly owned properties, including State and HSE buildings, and properties whose owners are willing to work with the State and local authorities to deliver something of real social and community value.
The model is not complicated. A local authority could enter into a long-term lease with a property owner and the building could be refurbished to meet housing, fire safety, child safety and security standards. These are women who are once again becoming fully fledged members of their community. There is no need for high security. This would not be a refuge situation; it is a move-on proposal. The accommodation could be allocated through domestic violence and housing support services to women and children who are ready to move on from refuge but who still need stability and support. It is not intended to replace permanent housing or refuges. Rather, it would fill the gap between the two, which is so evident at the moment, whereby women are falling between two or three stools.
One of the points that struck me most forcefully at the presentation is that women leaving refuge may not always appear in the homelessness figures in the way we might expect. They do not necessarily have priority on housing lists. If they need to move to a local authority in another jurisdiction, they may have to start from scratch. We must ensure these women are not returning to a family home in which, sadly, a perpetrator remains. They could have children in school, medical supports in place and family supports nearby, but they may be forced to move away from all that because there is no safe accommodation locally. That is not right. Women who have done everything they should do and have been brave enough to leave their situation should not be told they are now on their own. Children who have escaped violence and whom we say we want to help rehabilitate must not find themselves taken away from their school, their friends, their community and their stability.
This is why move-on accommodation must become a central part of our overall response. It is why local authorities must be at the heart of that response. They know their towns and its vacant buildings. They know people in the community, where the services are and what buildings could be brought back into use really quickly. However, they cannot be expected to do that alone. As my colleague said, this requires a clear national policy framework. There must be funding, there must be cross-party and cross-department collaboration, including between the Departments of housing and justice, and collaboration with Cuan, Tusla, the HSE, local authorities and, of course, the front-line domestic services that see these issues every day of the week.
There must be a clear pathway for property owners with a vacant or underused building that could be brought back into use to work with their local authority to provide safe supported accommodation for some of the most vulnerable women and children in our society. For those property owners, such arrangements could offer secure long-term rental income and a way to bring vacant buildings back into productive use. We know how important that is for our town centres, in attracting commercial entities and in making the streets safer for everybody. For women and children leaving refuge, it can mean something far more important. It can mean safety, stability and, instead of having to go back, being able to keep moving forward.
The motion also proposes the criminalisation of sex-for-rent practices, which is extremely important. Anyone who seeks to exploit a person's housing vulnerability in exchange for sex is engaging in predatory behaviour. It is coercive, it is abusive and it is simply not acceptable. It must be criminalised.
The motion's support for the reform of how counselling notes are handled in sexual assault trials is also essential. Victims should not be retraumatised by the fear that deeply private therapeutic notes will be routinely disclosed in court.
There is so much to welcome in the motion, including the focus on Valerie's law and the proposal to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing a partner or the fellow parent of their children. The welfare and safety of the child must be paramount. I also welcome Senator Rabbitte's comments regarding the availability of transportation during the vital period when women need to escape. That could be an extra expense that is taken away.
I must mention online pornography and the impact it is having on boys and young men. We cannot ignore that violent pornography is now easily accessible to children. In handing them phones for their first Holy Communion and their Confirmation, we are, unfortunately, handing them the keys to accessing horrendous online abuse. We cannot ignore the normalisation of strangulation, degradation and violence in what many young people are seeing online. Non-fatal strangulation is a major red flag for abusive relationships. We had a presentation in Leinster House not so long ago during which I was shocked to hear that for some girls as young as 12, 13 and 14, their first ever engagement with a boy their own age may include an experience of strangulation. That is not acceptable. We need to be able to legislate for what our children are seeing online.
This motion is wide-ranging because the problem is wide-ranging. Domestic, sexual and gender-based violence does not fit neatly within the remit of one Department. It touches on justice, housing, health, education, children, local government and online safety. We must all work together to address it. I welcome the motion and I support the swift passage of the legislation it references. I urge everyone to place the provision of move-on accommodation at the top of our agenda.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-05-12/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:55+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-12