Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 May 1999

Vol. 505 No. 5

Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. C. Lenihan

It is difficult to discuss this legislation. It is a great change and it is extraordinary that we have had to introduce such a Bill. I commend Deputy O'Sullivan for bringing this forward. It is a great achievement early in her political life, having been returned in a by-election, to have her Bill adopted by the Government and it is a tribute to her concern in this area.

We are going through a difficult and traumatic period. Revelations have emerged in the "States of Fear" documentary series and elsewhere concerning the duty of care which religious orders were obliged to uphold but clearly did not. This was in respect of vulnerable people under their care. People are finding it hard to deal with this terrible matter. It is a divisive, emotional and difficult issue. The Minister and Deputy O'Sullivan are to be commended for bringing this forward so that people who abused young boys and girls many years ago can be prosecuted and pursued through the courts.

I received a reminder of the difficulties in this area when I attended a recent political fund raising event in Shelbourne Park greyhound track. A gentleman approached me, asked if I was a TD and challenged me as to what I was doing about these issues. He did not mention the "States of Fear" programmes but he challenged me in an aggressive manner. One gets defensive when put in such a position. I guessed from the conversation that there was something on this man's mind. I said I would be delighted to take up the matter with the Minister and tried to reassure him that the Government was taking measures to right the wrongs done many years ago but he was not impressed and did not think the Government was doing enough. It was hard to convince him that things were being done. Our conversation lasted about 10 minutes but such was this man's traumatic experience at the hands of one religious order that he found it hugely difficult to tell me that he had been in this position. He had not been sexually abused but he had been horribly physically abused. He had been a member of what was something of a national institution, the Artane Boys Band. It is ironic and dreadful that while that band was playing at Croke Park such awful things were happening in Artane.

I am glad this legislation is coming forward and the Government is taking all the steps needed to ensure that people who went through the industrial schools get the justice which they richly deserved. It is difficult for Irish people to deal with this because, whether we like it or not, there was extensive church control of Irish society at that time, a virtual moral monopoly. It appears the whole society colluded in the mistreatment of the unfortunate individuals placed in orphanages. The members of the religious orders were not always uncaring but in a great many cases they were. We should fully acknowledge this collusion, which was not under duress. It was not spiteful collusion but those were the times. We will have to revisit this matter and examine it carefully.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Science are to be congratulated for making the public apology but that is not enough in this area. The man I met in Shelbourne Park will want much more than that, more even than a commission to investigate. The people affected will seek compensation and they will be right to do so. I hope the Government addresses this in an up front manner. There are many people with painful memories, who have suffered and feel that nothing was done for them for years. In some cases they tried to raise these allegations at various points in the past 30 years or so and that led to even more frustration. They made the complaints and because society had colluded in the process it refused to accept that this could possibly have happened. When allegations were made of child abuse by religious or non-religious people who were involved in the care of those children, the defining feature has been denial.

This legislation is a humane, proper and positive response to what has been played out in the newspapers and other media concerning sexual and other abuse. We must move forward while having regard to the dignity of the individuals who were treated this way. It is not an accident that the people mistreated in the industrial schools were vulnerable in that society or powerless and from a background which did not give them influence. They had been abandoned and were at the mercy of the State. Unfortunately it let them down, and it will have to pay for that because it is not right that people should have those painful and horrible memories. Justice can and will be done.

I commend the Minister for what he has done and commend Deputy O'Sullivan for her courage in introducing the Bill. I am sure she will make a great impact in the future and I hope she will be a Minister some day and bring forward more legislation.

Ms O'Sullivan

I thank the Minister and all those who contributed to the debate. I am in the somewhat unusual position of responding to a Second Stage debate on a Bill but not being a Minister or Minister of State. I will endeavour to address the issues but some of them, particularly those raised by Deputy Higgins and Deputy Neville, would be better dealt with by the Minister, such as the register of sex offenders, mandatory reporting, an ombudsman for children, and the recommendations of the reports on the Kilkenny incest, Kelly Fitzgerald and Madonna House cases.

I thank the Minister and his civil servants for his offer of assistance and co-operation. We wish to proceed by consensus as far as possible, although there will not be full agreement on one area.

The Minister suggested there may not be clarity in the Bill on the issue of retrospection. There is a need for absolute clarity here and I would be happy to consider this matter with him and his officials. The question of the words "emotional and mental"versus“psychological” is not a point of principle and can be considered in this context.

I interpret the wording on legal disability in the way I intended it to mean. The Minister suggested it may have a broader meaning and may include areas besides physical and sexual abuse. This needs to be looked at, although I believe the Bill is adequate in that regard.

The main area of disagreement between this side of the House and the Minister concerns the incision of all physical abuse and not just sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is also physical abuse. The Government proposes referring the matter to the Law Reform Commission. However, I am concerned that delays in addressing the issue of physical as opposed to sexual abuse would indicate that one is more significant than the other. Serious physical abuse can have all the damaging consequences that sexual abuse gives rise to, for example, with regard to a person's emotional capacity to get over the abuse and to be able to take a case. Given this, I believe the Bill should cover physical abuse.

There is widespread agreement on the need to address this legislation in a comprehensive manner. However, we on this side of the House believe that a greater degree of urgency is required in addressing some of the matters raised. We are all agreed on complimenting those who have displayed so much courage in speaking out. Deputy Conor Lenihan referred to one individual in that regard. When one describes an individual case one realises how much courage it takes and how difficult it must be for people to expose the terrible things that happened to them as children. I am sure many more have been unable to do this and that they are being somehow assisted by those with the courage to speak out. We cannot under-estimate the importance of the step taken by those who have spoken out and who are willing to tell things about themselves that none of us would like to have to talk about.

A number of the points raised by Deputy Jim Higgins are more proper for the Minister to comment on. He said the prison system only had the facilities to deal with ten sexual abusers whereas there are approximately 280 offenders. Like him, I believe this issue must be addressed immediately. The only way we will deal with it is by providing treatment to offenders. At least one of the people who appeared on the programme "States of Fear" admitted to having offended because he effectively knew no better. Children brought up in an atmosphere of sexual abuse sometimes believe it is the normal thing to do. While there are offenders in prison who may not have had that experience, there is an onus on us to offer treatment in all cases where there is any possibility that an offender might benefit.

Deputy Jim Higgins's description of the hypocrisy of those who, for many years, preached one thing and practised another needs to be exposed. I welcome his support and the support of Deputy Neville on the question of physical abuse.

The question of records has not received much public attention. Many people want to obtain information on their past. It should be made available to the commission, both in the interests of the individuals concerned and in the common interest.

Deputy Neville has strong views on the need for an ombudsman for children and has studied the matter. He illustrated very well how such a role would be fulfilled and how it would dovetail with the other aspects of the issue. He also referred to imminent cases and the importance of ensuring that we enact the Bill as soon as possible.

Deputy O'Kennedy referred to a number of the legal aspects and suggested that the courts might have dealt with the matter. However, as legislators we should not leave it to the courts; we have a duty to deal with these pressing issues. We will not know if the courts would have addressed matters by way of legal precedent and decision. It is better if we deal with them in the Oireachtas.

On the question of whether matters should be dealt with by a tribunal or through the courts, Deputy O'Kennedy made important points on precedent, the ability to appeal and the complexity of the kind of compensation a person may seek. The establishment of a tribunal would not obviate a person's right to go to court as well or instead.

Deputy Conor Lenihan provided a good and graphic account of how an individual he met responded to the abuse he had suffered as a child and how strongly such people feel about the importance of us as legislators taking the issue seriously and dealing with it comprehensively.

I thank all who took part in the debate. We are in agreement on a variety of aspects of this legislation, albeit not on one aspect. I look forward to Committee Stage. I am proud the Government has accepted a Bill I presented to the House and I look forward to co-operating with the Minister, his officials and the rest of the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.