Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Vol. 1044 No. 5

European Parliament Directive on Victims of Crime: Motion (Resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, supports and protections of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 10th August, 2023.
-(Minister of State at the Department of Justice)

Justice policy is an area where there is increasing harmonisation across member states. Ireland is one of only two common law jurisdictions in the EU, the other being Cyprus. As such, we need to examine proposals in depth given the unique application of the law in this State. While scrutiny of EU legislation is the remit of the justice committee, this debate is important.

Before turning to the new proposals, it is worth outlining what the existing directive does. It establishes minimum standards on the rights of, supports for and protection of victims of crime. It aims to ensure victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection so that they are able to participate in criminal proceedings and that their voices are heard. The directive requires that each country in the European Union shall ensure victims are recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive, tailored, professional and non-discriminatory manner in all contacts with victim support, restorative justice services or the competent authority operating in the context of criminal proceedings. It should be noted that the directive does have some bite because some countries, such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary and Italy among others, have had action taken against them for failing to completely transpose the directive into national law.

In this State the directive was transposed by the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act. As the infovictims website states, the Act provides for a new set of statutory rights for victims of crime. As the Minister of State has outlined, these include the right to be given detailed information about the criminal justice system, the right to be given information on support services, the right to be kept informed on the progress of the investigation and any court proceedings, the right to have protection needs assessed and have measures put in place to stop further victimisation and intimidation, the right to be told of a decision not to prosecute and the right to ask for a review of that decision, and the right to be given information in clear language and have access to interpretation and translation services if needed. I am sure almost every Member of the House regularly meets constituents who are not satisfied with how they have been treated, whether a prosecution has or has not been taken, how that has progressed and what rights are available to them.

Victims need to have fear of the system removed. They need reassurance they will be supported and that they are intrinsic to the system rather than on the periphery. I frequently hear that victims believe it is a waste of time. They need assurance that they are not alone and that everything will be done, while guaranteeing the right to a fair trial at the same time. They need assurance that they will receive the justice they deserve. Victims should know they will be treated with dignity, respect, care and understanding and perpetrators should know their crime will be investigated and prosecuted. There is also wider work to be done in reducing the number of sexual crimes, through public education campaigns on consent and victims' rights. This involves the HSE, An Garda Síochána and others, including central government. A review was conducted by Tom O'Malley on the protection of vulnerable witnesses in the investigation and prosecution of these types of offences.

I am also conscious of the need to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a victim. Presupposing a crime and a victim of that crime prior to a court making any finding has the potential to prejudice justice, certainly when considered in the round and definitely when applied to specific cases. That being said, An Garda Síochána, in meeting the requirements of the directive, uses the following definition, which seems sensible. It defines a victim as a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or an economic loss caused by a criminal offence. There are also family members of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person's death. In recent times the House has heard, and no doubt will hear again, from people who have a deceased member of their family who feel, sometimes decades later, that justice has not been done.

The directive contains a lot of detail about restorative justice services, which it defines as including, for example, victim offender mediation, family group conferencing and sentencing circles. The directive acknowledges, as does Sinn Féin, that such services require safeguards to prevent secondary and repeat victimisation intimidation and retaliation. We in Sinn Féin plan to move legislation related to restorative justice soon. At present, restorative justice is used in limited and inconsistent circumstances. We have what we hope to be good proposals on dealing with restorative justice, from the commencement of a complaint until sentencing.

The Irish Penal Reform Trust recently called for increased use of community-based alternatives to prison, a reversal of plans to increase prison spaces, and amendments to existing legislation to ensure imprisonment is a sanction of last resort. When we have met prison governors they have consistently told us that short sentences are of very limited use to anybody, including victims of crime and the person who is being sentenced. The call to ensure imprisonment is a sanction of last resort was in response to the latest Irish Prison Service annual report and the Probation Service annual report for last year. The Irish Prison Service annual report shows a significant increase in people committed to prison in Ireland in 2022. There was a particular increase in the number of women committed and in the number of committals and sentences of less than 12 months. It is a topic that needs to be explored and the directive offers a way through which Sinn Féin hopes to realise our proposals on restorative justice.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme was mentioned by the Minister of State in his opening statement. I note the review was launched by the Minister in 2021. We hope there will be some progress in this. I remember when I started as an apprentice solicitor, the first case I did on my own was before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, which was still dealing with the 1986 rules. Extending the timeframe is important and updating the limits is also important to give victims the justice they seek.

With regard to the changes, according to the briefing document we have received, the main objectives are to provide a significant improvement in access to information, alignment of protection measures for vulnerable people, improved access to specialist support and more effective participation in criminal proceedings for victims. It also aims to facilitate access to compensation in all cases, including, as I have said, national cross-border cases and with regard to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.

The most significant changes are the establishment of a helpline with an EU-wide telephone number and setting up a comprehensive website that should also allow for chats and emails. Provided this is standardised throughout the EU it has great potential. Perhaps it is to work in a similar way to airline compensation or other consumer-facing initiatives. The measures on the standardisation of protection measures, for example, protection orders or ensuring the presence of law enforcement authorities, are to apply from when the complainant first makes contact with the police. Criminal gangs are becoming increasingly sophisticated and transnational and this element is important.

Providing access to specialised support services for vulnerable victims, such as free psychological support for as long as necessary depending on the victim's individual needs, is important. Wider psychological supports are under threat due to poor Government management of the health service. Victims of crime are vulnerable themselves and it is important, to prevent crime recurring and recidivism, to increase psychological services and counselling services in prisons. Having two Merchants Quay-appointed counsellors for 500 or 600 prisoners in Midlands Prison will not achieve much.

Victims of crime, of course, are vulnerable people themselves, and groups such as the elderly, disabled and people of protected characteristics are frequently victims of crime. Protecting them is important, but resources need to be put in place to ensure this takes place. From the note, I understand there are some challenges to be overcome. There is a serious problem now with accessing legal representation in a District Court, especially in family law cases. People are on waiting lists for months sometimes, and the challenges surrounding the provision of speedy legal advice to vulnerable people need to be addressed. People in refuges and those victims of domestic violence whom we have met have confirmed this.

We also noted on the news this morning the mention of the pervasive and relentless rise of racism in the EU. It was described by Michael O'Flaherty, a director at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, as shameful. Racism and discrimination have no place in our society. In this State, 39% of people described as "black" in news reports have indicated that someone made offensive or threatening comments to their child because of their ethnic or immigrant background. Some 55% of people of African descent here have reported racial discrimination over the last five years. This is up from 46% in 2016. Some 64% of people of African heritage worry about being the victim of a racial attack, which is far higher than the EU average of 35%. Irish people know what it is like to have experienced racism in recent years. Even phrases used by Irish people can be included in this context. I remember hearing gardaí using the phrases "the Paddy wagon" or "that is a bit Irish". They have racial bias too. The abuse that James McClean has experienced at this time of year for the last several years also had some racial undertones. This is unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing and seeing what the outcome of the proposed changes will be and then seeing these transposed into Irish law.

The purpose of this motion is to allow the Government to enter into negotiations with the EU to allow Ireland to opt in to a change to EU directive 2012/29/EU on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The proposal has five main objectives. The first is to improve victims' access to information. The second is to make victim protection align with the needs of victims and to make victims safer. The third is to give better access to specialist victim support. The fourth is to allow victims more effective participation in legal processes. The fifth is to achieve access to compensation for all victims, including in cross-border cases.

The proposed changes are significant and will provide victims with rights they do not currently have in the Irish system. We are very supportive of the objectives of this proposal. There are three areas that could create some issues for Ireland. The first of these is that there will be a change to the existing 2012 directive that moves the responsibility for compensation for victims to governments, and then afterwards let the State recover the money from those liable. This could have a greatly beneficial impact for victims. While there are concerns around the financial impact on the State, this could provide a much-needed impetus to reform victim compensation. It has been pointed out that the implications of changing or blending the relationship between the current civil process and the criminal process in our system will have to be carefully considered. I note these concerns, but I certainly think a solution needs to be found and that this can be done.

The second potential pitfall concerns the provision of a single-access helpline of first resort for all victims. While this is well-intentioned, the concern here is that a single helpline could act as a barrier to people coming forward. It is important that people do not have to keep repeating their stories more than once and that they have immediate access to tailored services for different crimes, especially in cases of rape, domestic violence, human trafficking or even financial crime. We want there to be access to a specialist as soon as possible in the process.

The final challenge is that the proposal will give victims the right to make challenges concerning decisions made about them in criminal cases. While this applies to all crimes and all victims, it is important to acknowledge that, like many societies, dealing with sexual violence remains one of the greatest challenges we face. I hope that it will be in cases of sexual violence that this part of the proposal could have the greatest impact.

We are already moving to amend our system to allow victims to have representation in such cases. The recent collapse of a rape trial after an unrepresented witness broke down is one example of how our system has failed to give equal access to representation and the same protection of the court to the alleged victim as to the accused. I hope this proposal can help us to improve the protections for victims in their engagement with the legal system, which is undoubtedly one of the obstacles for many victims in bringing their cases to court.

As I said, the purpose of this motion is to allow the Government and the Department to proceed and participate in negotiations to bring in these improvements EU-wide. I am glad to see the information from the Department, though, to the effective that it believes the difficulties existing can be resolved through those negotiations. As part of the working group, I commend the Department on the work it has done. There is no doubt about the objectives of this proposal being worthwhile and much needed, not just in a European context but also in an Irish one. I believe there is a clear path to improving the ways victims are treated by our criminal justice system. While, as ever, there will be challenges for the Government and the Oireachtas in implementing the directive, it is very clear that we should support the motion to opt in to the process and we in the Labour Party will be supporting this motion.

The European Commission has proposed changes to this directive to bolster victims' ability to realise their rights. These are rights that should be enhanced to whatever degree required. We are supportive of this endeavour. However, I questioned the weaknesses in the rights directive when it was originally composed and then adapted. I doubt there are many in this Chamber this evening who will oppose adopting this directive, but I wish to record there is a time-sensitive element to opting in. This question must be decided by 26 October. When was it known that this was going to be required? I ask this because this is occurring at quite a late stage in the context of the deadline in this regard.

The directive will mean that the State will incur costs. As of yet, these are not quantifiable because a negotiation phase must be completed. I ask the Minister of State to outline to us the key elements to be negotiated from our perspective. How will the working group work towards this end? Will it provide options papers and are we being proactive in terms of what should be included? It would be useful to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this point.

We are opting in to something we can only gather is a good thing. We know what the outline is, but what are we opting in to apart from the headline issues of the directive? I ask this because the briefing note goes on to state that two primary issues were identified as potentially posing legal challenges for Ireland, namely, the rights of victims to review a decision about them and amendments to the provision of compensation. The legal advice has indicated that these challenges are not insurmountable, and I doubt they are, but I would like to know if they are weighted in favour of the victim. The directive will seek to impose or include safety measures tailored to the specific needs of vulnerable victims, such as children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, victims of hate crimes or victims in detention. Will persons who are victims of human trafficking be covered by this element?

I acknowledge that we have dealt with a great deal of legislation that the Minister of State has brought forward in areas where we have been quite delinquent in terms of not transposing directives and not doing so in a timely way. Indeed, I asked about the failures of the Department to transpose directives in a timely way. It was fined €2 million, following an appeal, for dragging its heels in relation to an EU directive aimed at preventing Ireland's financial sector from being used for money laundering and terrorist financing. This is an example of how this failure to transpose directives has reflected badly on the Government. I know the Minister of State will not disagree with me on this point. However, I acknowledge that he has the wall-planner in this regard. I can imagine that he has one and that this issue is being dealt with. Is this, however, another proposed transposition that we are getting at a very late stage for which it would have been possible to have had ample time to allow a greater level of consideration? I ask the Minister of State to give us his thoughts in this regard.

This directive seeks to ensure that the victims of crime receive the right information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. It has been broadly welcomed as a step forward by various organisations across the EU that campaign for the rights of victims. I also welcome it. I hope this directive can provoke a discussion about how the interests of victims can be served best in the Irish legal system.

Last week, in the Central Criminal Court, the trial of four men accused of various sexual offences against a woman in her home in 2018 collapsed. The case raises issues very relevant for this debate. The first accused person, a 25-year-old man, had pleaded not guilty to oral rape and sexual assault. The second accused person had pleaded not guilty to rape and sexual assault. The third accused person, a 35-year-old, had pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape, one count of oral rape and a sexual assault.

The fourth accused pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape and sexual assault. While the female complainant was in the witness box facing cross-examination, she became upset and asked for permission to take a break. After consultations with the doctor, the State applied to the court to allow the woman to continue her evidence via video link. The application was refused. The following day, the State entered a nolle prosequi on each of the counts faced by each of the four men, meaning that all charges against the men were dropped. This woman had to wait five years for the case to come to trial. As is the case in all such trials, she had no right to legal representation and she had no right to legal advice. She faced the prospect of being cross-examined by four separate legal teams. Each defendant had a solicitor, senior counsel and junior counsel. She had to face an accused person who was known to her. It is not a terrible surprise that this woman was unable to continue with her testimony in court nor was it unreasonable that the State would request that she be allowed to give evidence by video link. It is not unknown to happen in sexual offences cases in Irish courts, but it is very unusual. Video evidence is the exception that proves the rule. In other common law jurisdictions such as England, Wales, Scotland and most states in Australia, the likelihood is that the woman would have been allowed to use video link evidence. It is part of the culture there and increasingly that is the case.

The legal system in this country places a value on a person making an accusation being present in court so that the accused person or persons can see their accuser in the room. I understand that and I see the value in it. Sexual offences trials, however, are not like other trials. A majority of complainants will know the accused and in many cases they will have been very close to them. The legal expert Tom O'Malley has made the point that for this reason any witness can be made vulnerable because of the nature of the case. The complainant can see the person they allege sexually assaulted them. They can maybe even smell the person.

Furthermore, rape crisis centres report that increasing numbers of rapes are gang rapes. In all likelihood this means that an increased number of complainants will have to face off in a courtroom against multiple teams of legal professionals. The horror of this was shown by this trial and was shown most graphically perhaps in the infamous Belfast rape trial. Video link evidence needs to become a far more common feature in sexual offences cases in this State. We live in a capitalist society that is shot through with sexism and misogyny. Historically, and still to this day, this same sexism and misogyny is reflected through the legal system. It is little wonder then that a small minority of rapes are reported and a small minority of reported rapes result in successful prosecution. Victims of rape have been given every reason by the system not to step forward and last week's case will likely compound that problem.

Clearly there are many changes that need to be made to the legal system to improve the rights of victims in sexual offences cases. Among many other things there should be access to free legal advice, there should be compulsory training for all legal and court professionals, all cases should be heard in camera, counselling records and information on sexual history should have no role in such cases, and at an absolute minimum the rape crisis centres insist that when such information is requested the victims and legal aid boards are given adequate notice.

In conclusion, I offer my best wishes and solidarity to the young woman who saw the four men walk free before the case against them could be fully made. The time for video link evidence to become far more common in such cases is now.

Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús go bhfuil Aontú ag díriú isteach le dhá bhliain anuas ar an bhfadhb ollmhór a bhaineann leis an easpa gardaí sa tír seo agus ar na deacrachtaí agus an damáiste atá ag titim amach de bharr na heaspa gardaí. Le linn thréimhse an Aire Dlí agus Cirt, an Teachta McEntee, tá an méid gardaí ag titim bliain i ndiaidh bliana. De bharr sin, táimid ag fáil i bhfad níos mó foréigean i measc an phobail thart timpeall na tíre. Ba mhaith liom a rá freisin go bhfuil an rud céanna ag titim amach ar na bóithre. De bharr go bhfuil líon na ngardaí ag titim bliain i ndiaidh bliana, tá i bhfad níos timpistí ag tarlú agus i bhfad níos mó daoine ag fáil bháis ar na bóithre freisin. Over the last two years Aontú has campaigned solidly around the issue of the lack of gardaí in the State. Ireland is one of the lowest policed states in the whole of the European Union. We have, per capita, one of the lowest numbers of police operating in the State. For the last 14 years this Government has seen a significant fall in the numbers of gardaí. Indeed, since this Minister for Justice took office there has been a fall in the number of gardaí every single year while the population has increased. There is a direct correlation between the lack of gardaí and the significant increase in crime in Ireland. Violent crime, murder, rape, sexual assault, and unprovoked attacks unfortunately are all increasing. Many towns and villages currently are becoming so unsafe that people are not going into those towns and villages at all. There is a significant correlation between the number of gardaí that exist in the State and the number of crimes that are happening. There is also a correlation between the number of gardaí policing the roads and the number of accidents and deaths on the roads. Replies to our parliamentary questions show a 30% decrease in the number of gardaí policing the roads since 2014. This is a shocking and staggering figure. Unfortunately and tragically, we are seeing the results of that on the roads on a weekly basis at the moment.

Much of this is happening because of low Garda morale and low Garda welfare. Gardaí tell me that because there are so few of them, they feel unprotected. We are seeing a massive increase in attacks on gardaí. As a result of this violence directed at gardaí, the number of gardaí who are retiring or resigning is increasing as well. Morale is so low that young people are not joining An Garda Síochána in Templemore in the numbers there should be. This must be dealt with. I believe this Government has been distracted by the culture wars in many ways and has not focused on the bread and butter issues affecting people.

I want to speak directly to this motion. Victims are often forgotten about in the whole process of crime. We need a situation where victims are put front and centre of the criminal justice system. A large number of victims obviously have difficulties in their interaction with An Garda Síochána at the start because of the lack of gardaí numbers, but after the whole process has started they are also being left in the dark with regard to what is actually happening and information around liaison.

I want to raise an issue that has come to light to me in recent times. It involves a small cohort. There are cases where a garda who is dealing with a victim of crime gets accused of a similar crime. There must be some kinds of supports put in place for the victim of that crime. I am aware of a situation where a person suffered significantly. The victim was raped and then heard in the media that the investigating garda was being investigated for an accusation of rape. This is a shocking situation and in those situations we need to make sure there are proper supports for the victim as well.

I understand that I am not alone in my next point and I am sure many Deputies have experienced this before. I refer to the secrecy that often surrounds the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and investigations by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. The DPP and GSOC need to have integrity for sure, and need to be allowed to do their jobs, but the rationale behind DPP decisions, the lack of decisions or wait times also needs to be provided to victims so they can understand exactly what is happening to their particular cases.

My last point is that the criminal justice system is so slow in this country that it is actually putting further damage onto victims. Victims are suffering for the lack of justice. In other countries, victims have their court cases in the space of a year and they achieve justice within a year. That does not happen in this country, unfortunately.

I am glad to get the opportunity to say a few words on this very important topic and I will refer to a case I had this week. When their house is broken into, people can feel very upset and they are even afraid to go back into their house after something like this happens.

It is so hard to bring the criminal or perpetrator to justice. They have so many avenues. What is terrible is the system whereby free legal aid continues to be made available to people who commit crimes continuously. There has to be some crackdown on that. People feel very hurt and betrayed over it because these people appear in court, get a suspended sentence and they have the best legal aid and solicitors or what have you and the next thing they are caught again a few months later doing something similar and they get free legal aid again. That has to stop. It is the victims of the crime who are always suffering because of this and the criminal or perpetrator does not seem to suffer at all.

The other thing is that people looking for asylum here commit serious crime. Instead of wasting time with them when they came here in the first place seeking asylum, when they commit a serious assault or something we should not be wasting our time or money bringing them before the courts because nothing is going to happen to them anyway. If something does, they will be deported-----

I ask the Deputy to be careful about identifying a particular group.

I did not identify any group. I said asylum seekers.

Yes. They come here for asylum and if they commit a serious crime, like with a knife or whatever, we should do one thing with them - put them on a boat and send them back to wherever they came from. That is all I am asking; not to be wasting the taxpayer's money here, there and everywhere and giving them free legal aid because that is not right.

I am going to interrupt the Deputy again.

I know you will.

I do it reluctantly. He is identifying a particular group and he is attributing-----

They are from all over the world, different ones. I am saying-----

I gently ask the Deputy, once again, to reflect on his words and the way he is using them.

I have no other way of doing it only telling the truth. Free legal aid is being abused all over the country and it has to be curtailed and reined in. I am asking the Minister of State to do that now. I am talking about the victims of crime and the people who have been robbed. I know of a case where the person whose money was taken went into the Garda station to identify the people and he asked had the person the change or the money he took or had he money left. The answer was that he had but it was being kept until later. That is absolutely ridiculous. More or less, it was being kept to pay for cigarettes for the person who was apprehended. God almighty. I do not know. It seems to me that the victims of crime are not looked after properly. They do not get the attention they deserve even after assaults. It seems to me, and to a lot of people, that it is the perpetrators who are looked after by way of free legal aid and every other chance they can get even if they are continuous offenders.

I am very happy to say a few words on this important legislation, the amended directive on the rights, supports and protection of victims of crime, which I believe will improve the 2012 directive that is already in place. It will respond in a more targeted and comprehensive way to victims of crime seeking to have their rights vindicated, particularly in another member state. This includes procedural rights and the right to receive a decision on compensation from the offender at the end of criminal proceedings. This is what I would call underpinning legislation in that it underpins one of the four freedoms; namely, the freedom of movement. There is no point speaking about freedom of movement for people to travel for work, study, retirement or leisure unless those people can rely on the protection of the laws of the country they are now living in or visiting, and unless they can access public and other services the same as citizens who reside in that country and unless the authorities in that country vindicate their rights as EU citizens. None of that would be possible, and it certainly would not be workable, if we did not have this whole system of what I call EU underpinning legislation. We have a lot of it, from the co-ordination of social security to recognising qualification rights. We have it for the European health insurance card, which allows anyone travelling to access healthcare in another member state, and in this directive we are discussing here today.

We already have a victims' rights directive in place, which lays down rights for all victims of crime, including the right to information and the right to support and protection based on the victim's individual needs. As I said earlier, there is also the right to receive a decision on compensation from the offender at the end of criminal proceedings. However, the directive we are now working with is the 2012 directive. Since its implementation, the European Commission has assessed the impact of that legislation, as it does with a lot of legislation. In doing so, it sees how the legislation is working and if it actually achieves what it sets out to in the directive. By doing this, the Commission often identifies shortcomings and proposes amended legislation. As the Minister of State will be aware, we have thousands of pieces of such legislation at this stage.

In this legislation, the Commission identified a number of shortcomings, particularly with regard to victims not receiving adequate or accessible information and vulnerable victims such as children, older people, people with disabilities, victims of hate crime or victims in detention. The truth is that they do not always benefit from a timely assessment of their needs. There were also some issues around access to compensation and lack of legal advice. This directive sets out to deal with some of those shortcomings, and it also sets out to integrate some other newer pieces of EU legislation since 2012, such as the directive on combating violence against women, the directive on sexual abuse and child pornography, the counter-terrorism directive and a number of other directives. The Commission set out to integrate those pieces of legislation into this newer directive. In other words, it will take cognisance of them.

The legislation itself has been broadly welcomed by many groups. However, there is an issue in that we have a common law system, unlike most other member states. That has implications for our justice system and indeed for our own citizens in our own country. The briefing note we received highlighted three main issues. The first is the issue of compensation and whether this will in some way place an obligatory requirement on the Judiciary to consider compensation. That is not how we do our business here normally and there could be significant cost implications. I believe there will be a nice bit of work required on that. Regarding the provision of helplines, a number of groups that support victims have identified that having just a single helpline could be a significant barrier to those looking for assistance. There is also an issue around the right of victims to review decisions made about them in court processes. Again, that could have significant implications for our legal system. I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say. He has already said that we can largely accommodate those concerns but the detail will be extremely important.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Too often when the topic of crime and justice is discussed, the focus is on the perpetrator and the crime and the pain and trauma of victims and their families is an afterthought. The European Parliament sought to remedy this imbalance by adopting the victims' rights directive in 2012, which laid out a set of rights and entitlements for victims of crime in EU member states. They include the right to information, the right to support and the right to participate in criminal proceedings. The directive also granted recognition to family members of victims of crime. The incorporation of the directive into Irish law ensured Ireland remained on an equal footing with our EU counterparts with respect to victims' rights.

Despite the great strides the directive made in the area of victims' rights, the rapid evolution of technology means it now needs an update. I note the evaluation of the victims' rights directive found significant shortcomings in addressing the needs of victims of online crime. It recommended member states ensure there is a state body tasked with ensuring adequate victim support organisations exist. Considering the recommendation of the directive, will the Government heed the call of the Victims' Rights Alliance and seek to create an ombudsman for victims?

In my final year in college, I volunteered with the Crime Victims Helpline. From that experience, I gained an insight into the vast array of victims and the crimes that have been perpetrated against them. From that experience, I can honestly say that victims' voices matter and for too long these voices have been suppressed or denied.

I thank Deputies for their important contributions on what we will all agree is an important opportunity to opt-into the proposal to strengthen victims' rights and access, discussed in today's motion. I will respond to some of the issues raised.

We always have a tight timeline in these types of opt-in scenarios. Unfortunately, under Article 3, we only have three months from the date of publication in all languages to opt-in. It is important we do so under Article 3, so that we can be part of the discussion to shape the text. Where there is an opt-in clause, Ireland has the right not to opt in, but where we do, we must do so within three months. Unfortunately those tight timelines are set out in legislation.

The importance of protecting victims emphasised in the directive seeks to strengthen the provision of video links by amending Article 17. We will review it to ensure it is workable for our system.

On domestic violence, it is important to note the work under way under the third national strategy, which complements the overall work, including training professionals and extending legal representation to victims of sexual assault when questioned about their history. There have been a number of legislative improvements in this area. The Sexual Offences (Human Trafficking) Bill making its way through the Houses is also being advanced to provide support to victims and includes a revised referral mechanism for identifying victims of trafficking. While victims of trafficking will be covered by the directive, as all victims are, we are also making particular efforts to support victims of human trafficking in national legislation.

On helplines, we have engaged with the Commission to ensure that any ambiguity in the text will be resolved. On compensation, what is being proposed will be different from how our system currently works. The focus will be on ensuring that what is agreed is workable, including for victims, as well as ensuring the State can deliver for victims. We do not want a situation where victims have a paper right that leads to unintended consequences or more stress or trauma for victims trying to get the right to a review. We must ensure any rights for victims are effective and they can benefit from them as a legal right.

On the legal right of victims to review, we must ensure our legal system can accommodate such a review in the best way possible and that there is no delay, that where victims have concerns they can be reviewed and it is done in a timely fashion. There is little benefit to victims if trials are held up for a long time, which would again increase their trauma. We must strike a balance to ensure victims' rights are strengthened and that it is not done in a way that creates more stress and trauma in individual victims' situations. It is important to get this right and that will be key to our negotiations. Any proposal should strengthen victims' rights but do so in such a way that the overall rights of victims are protected in the judicial system.

To demonstrate we are serious about improving our response to supporting victims of crime, the Government has no hesitation in commending the motion to opt-in to the proposal to the House. I am glad to see all Deputies support it. Doing so now under an Article 3 opt-in will ensure we are at the table with our European partners and involved in the detailed discussions. Not opting in would send mixed messages that, on one hand, we are improving our system supports domestically through domestic legislation but on the other would not agree to wider EU targets. We are at the initial stages of discussions on this file. Many issues still need to be teased out. Other member states have raised particular concerns. Officials from my Department will work with their counterparts as the file progresses to ensure the determination and import of this directive is met in such a way that victims' rights are strengthened without retraumatising them.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn