David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that this is an important debate and that Fianna Fáil used its Private Members' time to table the motion for debate. I also draw attention to the Government's countermotion, which includes a number of points, of which the final four merit attention. The amendment notes the appointment of an independent assessor to hear the appeals under this scheme, and this has been acknowledged by most speakers. It states the independent assessor is reviewing the legal implications of the European Court of Human Rights judgment and notes that the assessor has called on the Dáil to await the outcome of his considerations. That is an important point. The assessor is reviewing the legal implications of the judgment. Deputy Connolly spoke very well on this issue and asked us to read the judgment. The Government has gone beyond that and asked a former High Court judge to independently review the judgment before reporting back to us. I am told the report will be available by the end of the summer. I call on colleagues to await that report because there is a reason we have courts and independent assessors.

Deputy Thomas Byrne argued that this was not happening. It is happening and I reiterate that the former High Court judge is reviewing the legal implications of the judgment. He has also written to the Minister indicating that he is considering whether the imposition of the condition that requires that there had to be evidence of a prior complaint of child sexual abuse is consistent with and a correct implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Louise O'Keeffe v. Ireland. As the review is ongoing, it would be prudent of the House to wait for the independent assessor to produce his findings. We could then have a further discussion on the matter and move forward from there.

In the Government's amendment, we also agree that the ex gratiascheme should be open to all those to whom the criteria apply, only some of whom may have been abused by the criminally convicted. The Minister made that point earlier. We agreed that all of the services of the State should be applied towards supporting the victims of crime, especially victims of child sexual abuse. We ask the Dáil to call on all persons and institutions who have evidence of complaints of sexual abusers to freely provide that evidence in order that the victims of abuse may secure redress, whether through the ex gratiascheme or civil proceedings against the abusers and-or their employers, as relevant. That is also important. While I know this is in the scheme as currently interpreted, we await Judge O'Neill's findings.

We must never let down our guard in efforts to combat sexual abuse. This is especially true in the case of child sexual abuse. Our child protection system must be continually improved and monitored. I am glad to say that significant improvements have been made in recent years. In this regard, arrangements for Garda vetting of new teaching and non-teaching school staff were introduced in 2006 on a non-statutory basis. Garda vetting was placed on a statutory footing with the commencement of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 and 2016. All registered teachers currently teaching in Irish schools have been vetted. This amounts to approximately 98,500 teachers on the Teaching Council’s register. Under the Children First Act 2015, mandated persons, which include registered teachers, psychologists and other categories of professionals as listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, are required to report child protection concerns over a defined threshold to Tusla.

It is vital that our system has moved forward, complementing other significant areas of social progress in our country. Unfortunately, society was not always so open or progressive. In many cases, we, as a society, tolerated systems, structures and practices which were both aberrant and abhorrent. Tonight we have shone a light into the past and it is not pleasant. As Deputy O'Dea pointed out, it is very ugly. In reflecting on our history, we have to come to terms with it and we will learn from it. We cannot change our past but we must use it to shape a better future.

Those who have been prepared to come forward to seek justice for having been sexually abused, and not only in the school system, are to be wholly commended. Not only have they displayed great courage and forbearance, but they have done society a service by assisting in bringing the perpetrators of abuse to justice. Many of these survivors have been further vindicated in securing redress though the courts in actions taken against their abusers and those who employed and supervised them. This is an important pathway in a system where, under the Constitution, the State provides for education but is not the employer of teachers.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Louise O'Keeffe case provided clarification on the specific conditions in which the State failed in its obligation to protect a child from abuse by a teacher. Those circumstances relate to the fact that there had been a prior complaint of sexual abuse to the school authorities against the teacher in question. The importance of the prior complaint test was further highlighted in the domestic courts in the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Noonan in June 2016. While this may seem restrictive, it is important in the public interest to ensure that the State and, by extension, the taxpayer do not assume financial liabilities without good cause. If this occurs, not only is it unfair to the public, it also potentially allows those responsible for the abuse to evade their obligations, which would be a terrible outcome.

I acknowledge that this is a difficult and contested area and that the State must act in a way that is fair and proportionate. The appointment of the independent assessor to the ex gratia scheme recognises this. In light of the assessor's requests for submissions from various parties, including the Minister, in advance of his assessing the appeals referred to him and in reviewing the legal implications of the judgment, it is clear that he is giving the matter serious and careful attention. The approach proposed in the Fianna Fáil motion of including in the ex gratia scheme survivors of convicted sex abusers, even in the absence of a prior complaint, may seem attractive on the face of it, but it has been argued that this would only open up the scheme in a limited way, as relatively few abusers have been convicted. However, what might seem like an inclusive measure, is actually an exclusive one. I must reiterate the remarks of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, that it would be manifestly unfair to those whose abuser was not convicted. The State is willing to provide redress where there is a just reason for doing so, but the State must also act in the public interest in a way which is fair and equitable to all. The amendment to the motion reflects this and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context