Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Dea and Fianna Fáil for using their Private Members' time for this motion. Raising this issue is a very good use of Private Members' time. I thank all the Deputies who played a role in raising these cases down the years. I hope that when this motion is passed tomorrow, the Government will recognise the democratic wish of the Dáil and implement the motion. Unfortunately, we know it will not do so, which is thoroughly undemocratic.

Like others, I pay tribute to the survivors, including the survivors in the Public Gallery. I have had the privilege of meeting the Creagh Lane survivors on a number of occasions. It is hard for anyone to campaign for years and years regardless of the issue but this involves people campaigning in a such a way when they have been abused, are suffering all the effects of that abuse in terms of their mental health and personal life, and then face a State that is determined to stand in the way of them getting justice and that is trying to bully them into dropping their case or saying it will pursue them for costs.

To continue despite all of that, to take the case for justice here and to take it to Europe really takes courage. They are responsible for pushing it this far and it is the role of those of us who are supporting this motion to try to push and assist in amplifying their voices to shame the Government into dropping its opposition and allowing them to be included in the scheme.

It is clear to everybody who is here that while this is a very distressing issue, in its facts it is a very simple one. The argument of the Minister, which has been answered by Deputy Funchion, is that while the State makes people go a school, it was not to know there was this abuser in Creagh Lane or the other cases where this applies. The State paid the teacher, however, and that teacher abused those boys in an horrific and repeated way. That man has been convicted so there is no dispute over the facts. Those people face threats and bullying from the State all over again, however, in an effort to have the State avoid owning up to its responsibility.

To come to the meat of the issue, I want to respond to what the Minister has said. It is shameful and it has been shameful for years every time this issue has been raised. I would not think the Minister got involved in politics to say to these people who are victims of horrific abuse by a man who was paid by the State that they should not get justice and should not be included. I am sure the Minister does not want to be doing that but here he is doing it. He has done it previously and he is doing it again this evening. The Government is doing it with its amendment, which has the same effect. I appeal to the Minister not to do it, to do the right thing and to speak out on this issue.

The Minister raised a couple of arguments that were disingenuous and that do him and the Government no service. The Minister said Fianna Fáil's motion calls for some victims to be covered by a scheme but not others. That is not true. The motion calls for some victims to be included, victims in cases where the position is clear and there is no dispute, and where the perpetrators have been caught and convicted. It does not call for anybody not to be included. It calls for these people to be included. What the Minister accuses the motion of is precisely what the Government is doing. By resting on the idea of prior complaint, the Minister is treating some survivors differently than other survivors on the basis of this prior complaint. It is the Minister who is guilty of saying some survivors are entitled to be included and some are not.

The second key argument he makes and has made over the years is to hide behind this exceedingly narrow definition or interpretation of the O'Keeffe case. The Minister made a revealing slip of the tongue earlier when he spoke about people objecting to the European Court of Human Rights ruling, and he then had to correct himself and say they are objecting to the interpretation of the ruling. That is a very important distinction. Louise O'Keeffe's opinion and other opinions do not agree with the excessively narrow interpretation that is being put on this by the Government. It is shameful for the Government to hide behind legalese and to say it does not have to do this.

Even if the Minister's interpretation was correct, so what? It would just mean the Government does not have a legal obligation to include these survivors in the scheme. It would not mean it is barred from including them in the scheme. It would simply mean it is not compelled to do it. Is that what the Minister is waiting for? Is he waiting for the European Court of Human Rights to rule again and to decide that these people have to be included? That is the argument that is being made, namely, that unless the ruling is such that these people have to be included, we are not going to include them. The Minister should forget about that and do the right thing. He should stop abusing survivors all over again. He should do the right thing by survivors tomorrow in terms of the vote and then take action. Exactly as Deputy Funchion said, these are not floodgates. These are people we are talking about, people who were abused where the State has a responsibility. Everybody who is affected in that way should be included. That is not some crazy notion and a Government that is serious about doing the right thing would simply do that.

See this speech in context