Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join my colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, in supporting the motion we have tabled on behalf of the survivors of child sexual abuse in primary schools. I have raised this issue in recent years with the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny; the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton. I have met the Minister on several occasions to discuss this specific issue. I acknowledge that previous Governments, of which I was a member, were wrong to pursue Louise O'Keeffe all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. That court vindicated her allegations of having been a victim of child sexual abuse in Dunderrow. That should have been the end of the matter for the Oireachtas and the Government. The judgment dealt with systemic neglect in the 1970s in the absence of a proactive regime which would have protected children in general. The nub of the issue is the very narrow definition and interpretation the Government has taken of the ECHR's judgment in the Louise O'Keeffe case as it applies to other survivors.

We speak in the context of the shock and horror expressed in the House in respect of a range of cases, the most recent of which is the CervicalCheck scandal. The Government correctly decided that it had to quickly to take various steps to help the victims of that scandal. There have been similar situations in respect of mother and baby homes and so on. I find it very difficult to comprehend the absence of genuine compassion for the survivors of child sexual abuse in primary schools.

I have had detailed discussions on the matter with John Allen who has fought this campaign for nearly 17 years. He is an extraordinary, a sensitive and very intelligent gentleman who has steadfastly pursued this case, but, unfortunately, he has not been met with a compassionate response by the State. I have written letters on behalf of several women from County Tipperary who have been affected by this issue and, with Deputy Willie O'Dea, met some gentlemen from Limerick on the matter. The motion is reasonable and quite limited. I met Conor O'Mahony of the child law clinic in University College Cork who has taken up the case of the survivors and written to the independent assessor appointed by the Minister. He makes the key point that the Minister is misrepresenting the basis of liability in the O'Keeffe case by focusing on the issue of prior complaint. In his submission to the independent assessor he states:

The judgment makes reference to matters of which the State “ought” to have been aware. The Minister says that this refers to the complaint. His argument is that because the State had not established a mechanism for handling complaints, it was not aware that a complaint had been made - it did not have actual knowledge of the complaint. Because the State ought to have established a mechanism for handling complaints, it ought to have been aware of the complaint, and therefore it was found to have had constructive knowledge of the complaint. It is on this basis that victims who cannot demonstrate a prior complaint are being excluded from the settlement scheme. The fundamental flaw with this argument is that it entirely misrepresents what the O’Keeffe judgment was referring to when making reference to matters that the State “ought” to have been aware of. First, it should be noted that the Court specifically found that the State had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the complaint made in Dunderrow. Second, the violation was found in respect of the State’s failure to respond not to a specific risk in Dunderrow, but to a systemic risk that arose in the National School system as a whole, and not just in Dunderrow or other schools where a prior complaint had been made. Since the risk in question was systemic in nature, it applied in every National School and implicated every child. The duty that this placed on the State extended beyond reactive measures on foot of complaints and included proactive and preventive measures designed to prevent abuse before it occurred. The judgment in O‘Keeffewas based on a range of failings, including an inadequate inspection regime and a lack of direct State control of teachers. These failings all applied on a systemic level, and applied in the same way whether or not a complaint had actually been made. They were therefore common to all victims of sexual abuse in National Schools in the l960s and l970s ... By imposing a condition of prior complaint on the availability of redress, the State has shifted the onus from itself [to take proactive and preventive measures] to vulnerable children who are victims of sexual abuse [to make disclosures leading to complaints]. Moreover, not only does the onus shift to the victims to report, but to do so contemporaneously [since delayed reports in adulthood will not have been made “prior” to the abuse of other victims] ... This is an unconscionable position that ignores consensus in multiple international research studies that the vast majority of children who are victims of sexual abuse do not disclose that abuse.

Members of the House know that to be true and the Minister's Department has corporate knowledge of it through the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse which I established in 1999 while Minister for Education and Science. The idea of modifying the Statute of Limitations at the time was based on emerging jurisprudence that the victims of traumatic or sexual abuse in childhood could not report such abuse at the time and generally did not do so until many years later. It is extraordinary, cruel, insensitive and contrary to any known research that a prior complaint should be a prerequisite for access to the rather limited redress scheme which has been developed.

Conor O'Mahony further stated:

Those that do usually wait a significant period of time ... before doing so; and even in the minority of cases were the abuse is disclosed, this often does not result in a complaint to the authorities. Thus, “prior” complaints are incredibly unlikely to exist, and indeed, even though there are 360 known victims of sexual abuse in National Schools, a prior complaint has only been established in respect of a single abuser to date. The condition of prior complaint is not designed to limit the scope of liability [and this is the crucial point], it is designed to eliminate it.

That is the purpose of the redress scheme.

Only seven offers of settlements have been made under the scheme the Minister has initiated, all of which relate to prior complaints in respect of that one single abuser, even though we know at least 360 cases arise for consideration. That is a settlement rate of approximately 2% and is clearly not indicative of a sensitive or compassionate approach.

I want to return to what the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, said to me here on 22 May when I raised the issue. He might have been caught unawares or just wanted to say the right thing to me on the morning. I would like the Minister to confirm whether the Taoiseach spoke to him about this because, as Deputy O'Dea pointed out, the Taoiseach stated:

If it is the case, as the Deputy said, that abuse has occurred and there is no doubt about that fact, then that is something we will have to consider. However, people will understand that when it comes to any scheme of compensation or redress scheme, there needs to be some evidence when claims are being made that alleged abuse took place. That was very much the case in previous redress schemes. However, if, as the Deputy said, there is no doubt that abuse has taken place in these cases, certainly that is something we can examine. I will take up the matter with the Minister ...

When I put the case to him, the Taoiseach said there should not be an issue if the evidence is available. This motion is about victims of abuse where the perpetrator has admitted his guilt and is in jail. The State and the Government are saying they will ignore the fact that there were court cases, that there was an admission of guilt and that the people responsible are doing time. They are convicted paedophiles. We know that happened through systemic faults in our system. There are not hundreds or thousands but a number who were convicted. We are asking that in those limited cases the very least we could do is to allow the victims of the perpetrators of that abuse into the redress scheme as some acknowledgement of the pain and hurt they have experienced. They continue to experience enormous trauma, pain and hurt by the lack of acknowledgement and the lack of any decent response from the Government to their plight.

See this speech in context