Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I want to raise the case of the separated mother of two who faces the prospect of having €500,000 in costs pursued against her by the State in respect of a damages action she took over the sexual abuse she suffered while attending primary school. Deputies will recall that the principal of the school concerned was jailed after being found guilty of 21 charges of indecent assault from a sample of 380 counts relating to 21 girls. The State successfully sought to deny liability for the actions of the teacher, even though he was employed by the State. We now have a situation in which the woman, who was described by Mr. Justice de Valera as having suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the unforgivable actions of a teacher, faces the seizure of her only asset, the family home.

This should be contrasted with the issue I raised yesterday with the Taoiseach regarding the more than €1,300 million in compensation paid out by the Government for the abuse of young people in residential institutions. The Taoiseach will recall that the State voluntarily agreed to pick up the charges and costs in cases to which it was not and could not have been a party. When I asked the Taoiseach why this decision was made, he said: "The Irish church does not have those resources." He also said he makes no apology for spending €1,300 million in taxpayers' money on discharging this liability when the State was not a party and could not have been made a party because the church did not have the resources. What about the woman who does not have resources, who was sexually abused and suffered catastrophic injuries and who now faces the seizure of her home to discharge costs of €500,000 because the State will not admit liability? By claiming the teacher was not its agent, the State pleaded successfully that it did not have liability and it is now pursuing the woman for the charges. Should not the same conditions be applied to that woman out of compassion as those applied in respect of the sloppy, secret and negligent deal conducted through Deputy Woods which the Taoiseach tried to justify?

See this speech in context