Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am prepared to accept that the giving of information on some of the issues such as bail conditions and harassment orders is already provided for in a different arena. In that context, we want to strengthen that measure and add it as an extra burden. I am definitely pushing the first group of amendments in this broader category which are more important to us. I think the Minister has made a straw man argument in asking what information would be needed and if we are making it too cumbersome. That is precisely the point we make. Victims are entitled to the information. That is their prerogative and the Bill, in the way it has been designed, specifies that they are entitled to information. We do not say they should be entitled to receive all information. In fact, we have said our preference is that they be entitled to receive all information, but as that is not practical - particularly with reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, some information will have to be confidential - we specifically do not say that. We instead refer to "all relevant information". Confidential information linked with the prosecution would clearly not be relevant in this scenario.

What it is really about is achieving a culture change and putting the rights and interests of victims first, which is what the directive asks us to do. When one is dealing with State bodies which are coming from a closed background where they have not had to justify or provide information on their decision-making, the legislation, as we put it forward, should encourage a process of openness, a right victims have. The Minister says somebody could lean on it and say to the Director of Public Prosecutions that he or she was going to take action against them because the Bill referred to "all relevant information" and that he or she had not received all relevant information. It would then become too cumbersome. One could make that argument based on the fact that the Bill already refers to "information", but we are trying to lessen the challenge to the Director of Public Prosecutions by forcing a culture change in the organisation or assisting of that process by saying it should be opened up to include all relevant information, not just the bare minimum. It would put a greater onus on the Director of Public Prosecutions and, because of the history of that organisation and what it has traditionally been, when we are in a transition period, it is important to insert the words "all relevant". In fact, by inserting the word "relevant", we have met the concerns of the Minister that it would be a free-for-all, that people would receive everything and that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be able to do anything because the needs of victims were being accommodated.

We have to see this for what it is. It is the victims directive and about victims' rights which will put more of an onus on the State bodies that deal with victims, as it should, because that is what we are trying to deal with. Victims have rights, inlcuding a right to be heard and receive information. The last point is that we all know the damage that has been done where, for example, cases have not proceeded because people did not have access to information and the questions and uncertainties surrounding it. That, in some ways, revictimised them because they had been kept in the dark. We are precisely trying to avoid that scenario.

See this speech in context