Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue. I thank Deputy Paul Murphy for raising it also. We are here this evening to seek justice for the victims of sexual abuse in Creagh Lane primary school, Limerick city. That the abuse happened is undeniable. The perpetrator has been convicted by the criminal courts and put behind bars. The victims, who fought their case long and hard against almost insurmountable odds, find there are two quite arbitrary and artificial barriers placed in their way by the State when trying to gain access to the State redress system. First, they are supposed to have made a prior complaint. Leaving aside the difficulty in acquiring evidence of a prior complaint back in the 1960s, the requirement requires a grotesque and deliberate misinterpretation of the judgment in the Louise O'Keeffe case. Second, the victims are supposed to have sued the Minister for Education and Skills, which proceedings are no longer statute barred, or were no longer statute barred at a certain time. The requirement to take proceedings against the Minister for Education and Skills flew in the face of all the legal advice the victims got at the time. What group of people, particularly victims, would take legal action against the advice of their solicitors or counsel and against all prevailing legal advice? That legal advice has subsequently been vindicated in not one but a number of High Court decisions.

A redress scheme is a redress scheme, and a redress scheme should be concerned only with whether abuse took place, whether people were affected by it and the level of compensation. We want justice for the victims of the sexual and physical abuse suffered in Creagh Lane primary school. The victims in question have fought long and hard. Their lives have been undermined and, in some cases, destroyed as a result of what they suffered as innocent children in the care of the State. Is the Minister prepared to remove the two barriers to gaining access to the redress fund?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are some very courageous men and their families in the Visitors Gallery. These are the men who suffered, along with others, the horrific sexual abuse in the late 1960s and who have had the courage to speak out and campaign about it despite all the difficulties they have faced along every avenue they have tried to go down.

This is a very distressing issue, as one realises when one talks to the victims, as one should, but it is also a very simple issue. The men were abused by a teacher being paid by the State. That is uncontested. The man was convicted. Afterwards, the victims faced threats and bullying all over again, this time from the State. The Government attempted to bully them into silence, telling them that if they did not drop their case, the State would pursue them for legal costs. They faced the same bully-boy tactics used against the victims of abuse in 2009 after Louise O'Keeffe lost her initial case. She went on to be vindicated by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the State was liable for the abuse she faced in school. At that time, the Taoiseach was forced to issue an apology to her.

Despite this, the Government has thus far tried to avoid the consequences of the O'Keeffe ruling. The focus on the need for prior complaints is completely bogus, as is hiding behind the suggestion that the case is statute barred. The man responsible pleaded guilty to serious sexual assault. There is no doubt about or question mark over the fact that the abuse occurred. Despite this, the victims feel they are being persecuted for a second time 50 years on. There are being told they do not qualify for the redress scheme through no fault of their own but through the actions of the State. This is about the State accepting responsibility and apologising. The least the Government could do in this regard would be to allow the victims into the scheme, which was set up precisely for this sort of circumstance.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. I am very much aware of the stress suffered by individuals who have suffered from sexual abuse. I have met such people and understand the concerns expressed by the Deputies. The historical legacy of sexual abuse in Ireland is appalling.

The redress scheme, established under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, was intended to deal with very particular circumstances, namely, the abuse of children that occurred while the State was acting to a significant degree in loco parentis, that is, where children had been removed by the State from their parents and placed in institutions for their protection and welfare. The redress scheme has not been extended to any institutions since 2005 and it has been closed for applications since September 2011.

The school referred to by the Deputies was not a residential institution, was not listed on the schedule of institutions covered by the legislation and, because it was a day school, was not eligible for inclusion within the redress scheme. While there were calls for the redress scheme to be extended to other types of institutions and to day schools, the Government decided not to extend it. The redress scheme was set up for particular types of institutions where children were placed in the care and protection of the State and did not have access to parental guidance or influence.

In the Louise O'Keeffe case, the European Court of Human Rights has found that the State has liability in these cases in specific circumstances, namely, where there was a prior complaint against the abuser in question and where the case is not statute barred. In its response to the O'Keeffe judgment, the Government agreed that out-of-court settlements should be offered in those existing cases of school child sexual abuse being brought against the State where the cases come within the terms of the ruling and are not statute barred. The State Claims Agency, which manages such cases on behalf of the State, has made settlement offers in six such cases, which have been accepted. Subsequently, in July 2015, the Government approved proposals on the same basis to offer ex gratiapayments up to a maximum of €84,000 to those who initiated legal proceedings in cases of school child sexual abuse against the State but who subsequently discontinued their claims against the State.

Persons who believe their cases come within the criteria can contact the State Claims Agency and provide supporting evidence. At this stage, I cannot say how many cases in this category will satisfy these criteria. Where there is a disagreement between the State Claims Agency and the individual as to whether his circumstances come within the terms of the European Court's judgment, provision is being made for the application to be reviewed by an independent assessor. In these settlements, the State will not be covering the liabilities of the perpetrators, school managers or patrons, or other co-defendants. A person who suffered abuse or injury in school had recourse to report the matter to the relevant school or statutory authorities. While the redress scheme has been closed since 2011, victims of sexual assault, like other injured persons, may bring personal injury cases for compensation through the courts for the injuries and loss they have suffered.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister referred to an independent assessor to whom people can refer in the event of a disagreement between the claimant and the State Claims Agency. What precisely will be the role of this assessor? What is the point in the assessor if the State will not cover any of the liabilities? Who will cover them?

Is the Minister telling us that he is not going to remove either of the two barriers and will leave the scheme as it is? If so, this will not be the last he hears of it.

Will the Minister agree to meet the victims of Creagh Lane? I appreciate that he has other appointments immediately after this debate, but I can approach his office to arrange a meeting. Will he discuss their case with them?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not write that answer, but it is shameful to hide behind such a narrow interpretation of the O'Keeffe ruling. Ms Louise O'Keeffe has commented on the matter of the prior complaint against the abuser in question. She has stated that there is no legal basis for suggesting that it is necessary to establish a prior sexual abuse before one can succeed. This is simply not the law. The Government is choosing to take an excessively narrow view of the O'Keeffe judgment.

The case is not statute barred as a result of anything that the defendants have done, but as a result of the State's actions over a period of years. The Council of Europe reported that the authorities "explain that they are taking a holistic and flexible approach when assessing the existence of a prior complaint which would include not only complaints". Is what the State is doing flexible and holistic? Does the Minister not agree that this abuse should be included in the scheme? I call on him to meet those who were abused.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputies recognised, these legal measures were in place long before I came to this job. The position as to when the State has a liability is clear. The Oireachtas decided that the State would have a liability when it was acting in place of the parents. That is how the residential institutions incurred State liability - the State had removed young people from their parents, set itself up to regulate the institutions where they were to be cared for, and failed in its duty.

The situation with a day school is different, in that those schools were managed and run under school patrons and the State did not go to court, as it were, to place people in those institutions. I understand that the court found liability on the part of the State in the Louise O'Keeffe case because the abuser had been identified and was known to the State and, as such, the State should have taken greater action to protect the child. That is where the State's failing occurred. This is the basis on which the Government's legal advice has interpreted the European court ruling. The State must have known that an abuser was in place and did not take the steps required of it to protect children. Unfortunately, this is the basis on which the State can be held liable. As the reply indicated, others may also be liable, but not the State in other circumstances.

The role of the assessor is to provide an independent process to determine whether individual cases fall within the terms of the agreement. The State Claims Agency has arranged a process under which there would be such an independent assessor.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister reply to my request for a meeting with the victims? Will he make them a-----

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will consider that matter, but I do not have the capacity to deal with the issue. The legislation is clear and I cannot just change this situation. That is the legal advice that I have received. I will consider the request, but I do not want to give the impression that I am in a position to introduce a scheme of compensation when the established rules as to when the State is liable are clear. I do not want to give a false sense of expectation.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At least meet them to explain that.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister meet them?