Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

Táim ag iarraidh mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Ó Snodaigh agus Rabbitte. Molaim na Teachtaí Shatter agus O'Flanagan as ucht an Bille caoithiúil seo, An Bille um Chearta Íosparteach 2008, a thógaint os comhair na Dála. Tá athas orm seans a fháil labhairt sa díospóireacht ar an Dara Chéim den Bhille.

This Bill is timely and I compliment Deputies Flanagan and Shatter on bringing it before the House. Last year, I came across a case in my constituency where a woman had been physically assaulted by a stranger with serious consequences for her. It took a long time to get the case to court, where the defendant was convicted and a prison sentence imposed. Subsequently, there was an appeal, but to the best of my recollection the victim had no idea this appeal was taking place. The appeal did not relate to the conviction but to the severity of the sentence. As a result, the defendant, on payment of €2,000, could have the sentence suspended for 18 months. The outcome of the appeal was worse for the victim, who went through very considerable trauma.

The issues that arose in that instances were keeping the victim informed and sentencing. Many people have grave concerns about sentencing. I will not go into recent cases but it is an issue. As a democrat and a legislator I have a major concern because the level of sentencing in some high profile cases undermines people's confidence in the judicial or legal system. We are failing in many instances.

I have listened to the acrimony in the House, but the genesis of this Bill does not matter at the end of the day. Either it is fit for purpose or it is not. It does not matter where it came from. There should be a greater spirit of co-operation here in solving a major problem in society. All this agro does not enhance the view of people who are aware of it and in terms of how committed this Legislature is to making proper provision for many of the issues.

As I said, the Bill is timely. In many ways it is in line with the Labour Party's position. My party holds the view that victims and their needs should be at the heart of the justice system. The rights of victims to information, advice and other appropriate assistance should be met effectively and efficiently. That is covered in this Bill. I read the explanatory memorandum and was impressed with it — I am not a legal person. The Minister raised legal issues and made a statement last week, aspects of which were very welcome. Has the Minister looked at how to get to where we want to be? We want legislation that addresses the problems in this area to go through the Oireachtas and be signed into law by the President. The Minister talked about publishing a Bill in the spring. However, given the Government's record on producing legislation, one would have to be less than confident that this will happen.

Does it matter from where legislation comes? It does not. It may offend the Government's pride that legislation comes from the Opposition benches, but the real issue is to provide for victims and the Bill is a very large forward step in looking after the rights of victims. The agro is wasteful, with people endeavouring to score points off one another. We are here to serve the people. A basic right is security and the State has a responsibility to provide for it. There are too many victims who, rightly, feel they have not been properly treated by the system. We will not rectify all that is wrong overnight, but until we have legislation and we begin to implement and develop it, we are going nowhere.

We must get away from the criminal justice system treating victims of crime as just another potential witness. The Labour Party's position is that the Garda should maintain adequate contact through identified liaison officers with victims of crime and report progress on investigations and prosecutions. There is nothing between the Minister and the proposers of the Fine Gael Bill on these issues. I do not see that much difference here except that there are questions about the genesis of the legislation. It came from another jurisdiction where some aspects of law are quite different. However, let us start getting around these issues rather than arguing about them. It serves no useful purpose for the Government to oppose the Bill. What does it achieve? If the Government, at an early stage, presents superior legislation, as long as we are meeting the needs of victims of crime, as this Bill seeks to do, that is all that matters. That is what we are paid for and why we are elected. Tonight's bickering backwards and forwards does not edify this institution. Let us get on with the job, do what we are elected to do and dispense with the altercations across the floor. Altercations serve no purpose, least of all for the people who elected us.

The Labour Party believes a victims' fund should be established to award compensation to victims of crime outside the loss and expense individuals and businesses are normally insured against. The expenses of the fund would be met by fines paid by offenders. There is much in the Bill that is attractive, pertinent and needs to be brought forward and put into legislation. If there are major additions to what is there, or basic problems, that is fine, but the Minister should not stop it because what is proposed is not repugnant to the interests of victims. That is not where we are — far from it.

The Minister acknowledged where the proposals of this Bill came from and was complimentary about it. However, I return to the point that democracy is not something that maintains itself but must be looked after. In this country, and in many western economies, people are less inclined to cast their vote. They are not coming forward to vote in the numbers they did in the past.

For some time, I have formed the view that we must be clearly seen to be doing what we should be doing in the House and addressing the problems that exist, which do not get any easier. For example, the economy is now in recession. We need to spend much less time hopping off one another in here and get down to dealing with those issues that are really important to the people. In many ways, we saw elements of this in the recent referendum campaign. I firmly believe there was a considerable anti-politician element in the "No" vote and we must work to remedy this.

Much has happened to the reputation of politicians given what has emerged in tribunals and so on. We have an obligation to resurrect the good name of the whole profession of politics. As we know, the vast majority of people in politics and in these Houses are of fine calibre and they come here to look after the interests and concerns of the people who elect them. We need to be clearly seen to address the issues which are important.

I again ask the Government to reconsider its opposition to the Fine Gael Bill because, as I said, it serves no useful purpose. Fine Gael and the two Deputies involved should be complimented on the Bill. They brought it to us and no one can in any way say it is not pertinent and urgent, or that it is not important that these issues are addressed.

The Minister is to bring in his Bill in the spring, if it happens then. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to keep this House, particularly the justice spokespersons, well informed as to what is happening so we all know exactly the position of the Bill and when we can look forward to having a large measure of agreement to get it through the House.

See this speech in context