Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I usually find the Minister very reasonable, but I am deeply disappointed with his contribution I welcome the apology given by the Government but I see no evidence that it will mean anything, in particular in view of the Minister's statement: "The truth is that if more people in decades past had been willing to speak out...the State...would have been better placed to act”. This is not about more people speaking out; this is about the State failing in its duty and in infringement of Articles 3 and 15 of the ECHR. Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. It "prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The State failed to do that. More importantly, the State is continuing to fail to do that.

Paragraph 62 of the judge's findings outlined that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Article 13 rights under the convention continue to be infringed. Yet the Minister gave a speech today in the manner I outlined. He stated, "Put simply, the scheme did not work." Put simply, the scheme was designed not to work; it was designed to fail. We know that because conditions were put into it that were impossible to comply with. The Minister referred to a complex judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. I thought it was a pretty straightforward judgment. Notwithstanding that, and various people's level of experience, Mr. Justice O'Neill put it in crystal clear language. My colleague quoted another writer earlier. Shakespeare's words come to mind, namely, "A Daniel come to judgment" regarding the judge's use of language. He states on page 16 that it is crystal clear that the ECHR did not make any finding of a breach of Article 3 based on the fact of a prior complaint, yet the Government has consistently in its engagement with him and before every court said that a prior complaint was an integral part of finding the Government liable. The Government has persisted with its line. Previous Governments have done wrong and the Government has persisted with that.

Mr. Justice O'Neill went on to say, regarding the inclusion of such a criterion, that it was inherently illogical for the State to demand the very evidence that is not there or cannot be recovered because of the very failure of the State, which constitutes the actual breach. The Government breached Article 3 and then put in a condition that made it impossible for people to access the scheme. There is a phrase in Gaeilge. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil Gaeilge ag an Aire. It is fáinne fí, a vicious circle. The Government put the victims of abuse through a vicious circle, knowing well that they could not succeed. Within that vicious circle we know that of the 50 persons who applied to the State Claims Agency, 44 were refused and six cases are pending. Of the 44 refused, all failed on one particular reason, and in some cases another, namely, that they had no evidence of a prior complaint. Today's speech from the Minister perpetuates the abuse rather than learns from it. Even for the time in 1973, the Government failed to enforce the most minimal standards and still in the 21st century, it is trying to say it is historical. It is not historical. Even at the time, the minimum standards were not complied with. There was no provision to even report complaints, notwithstanding the fact that the courageous Louise O'Keeffe reported a complaint. That was subsequently misused in a misinterpretation of the ECHR judgment. The Minister is shaking his head. I ask him to read the findings of Mr. Justice O'Neill and the six recommendations. He will see the judge taking the State's case and the way it was represented in the three High Court cases. It was not an accurate representation of what the court found. The Minister should read the judgment and find out and then put it in context. The context is that Louise O'Keeffe said the State fought her tooth and nail, as it fought all the other victims. After a legal journey of 15 and a half years, she had to go to the ECHR, and she is still fighting. What did the State do? It fought her every step of the way and it fought her in its submissions to Mr. Justice O'Neill. It set up an ex gratiapayment that was designed to fail, to exclude and to heap abuse on abuse. Nobody succeeded at that. That was on top of 400 incidents of abuse since the mid-1960s in one national school, followed on by a perfect awareness from the convictions in the criminal courts that sexual abuse was prevalent at the time.

See this speech in context