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."

Ms O'Sullivan

I wish to thank the Government for providing time to debate this very important legislation which is a central part of the collective response that must be forthcoming from us, the political community, and the community as a whole, to the horrifying facts with which we have had to come to terms, namely, that our society was based on a sham and that the image we had of ourselves as a people who care for and love children hid so much horrible abuse beneath the surface – an abuse of the most vulnerable of our children.

This is a much worse blow to our concept of ourselves than all the financial scandals that have been unveiled because it is a much more fundamental abuse of power. While the golden circles of power and influence which are the subject of tribunals of inquiry forged their profitable bonds at the centre of Irish society, different circles, circles of cold stone, went unnoticed at the far fringes of the social sphere. If it is important, and it is, to throw light on circles of privilege and self-interest involving politicians, developers, big business and financial institutions, it is more important to throw light on the other extreme of social influence, namely, those with no power.

Imprisoned in those stone circles were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children who were in the so-called care of the State, religious institutions or warped and abusive parents. Windows of light were rare and when they did exist those who looked in did not seem to see what was happening inside. Those diametrically different experiences of life in Ireland in the not so distant past, perhaps even in the present, represent, in their different ways, gross abuse of power. From my perspective, the physical and sexual abuse of helpless children is the most gross and the most deserving of investigation.

Much investigative reporting, many column inches and a great deal of Dáil time have been devoted to questioning the activities of the socially and economically powerful. We want to know what happened, and rightly so. Let us be just as rigorous in pursuing those who wielded power in less prestigious circles but with more destructive results in the lives of individuals. The television series "States of Fear", Susan McKay's book about Sophia McColgan, Paddy Doyle's The God Squad, Annie Ryan's Walls of Silence and the personal testimonies of many brave survivors compel the urge to find retrospective justice or, at the very least, an acknowledgement of the enormity of the harm that was done.

Anyone who has spoken to a survivor of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, will know how important it is to them to have confirmation from someone outside the circle of abuse that what happened actually took place, that it was wrong and that it was not their fault. There is a compelling need to tell their story so that they can move on and reconstruct their lives. There is also a compelling need to see justice done. For many justice is not available.

This Bill seeks to make it possible for some of those who are now restricted from seeking justice by the statute of limitations to do so.

The RTE series, "States of Fear" has brought the appalling hidden history of abuse in State-financed institutions to public notice in an unprecedented fashion. Mary Raftery and her team are to be congratulated for the service they have done. A comprehensive response is essential and has to focus on four broad areas. First, individual experience, hurt, needs and recovery of those who were abused.

In answer to a parliamentary question which I tabled on 3 March 1999, the Minister for Education and Science informed me that proceedings had been initiated in 145 cases relating to his Department, involving allegations of sexual or other physical abuse of children in institutions which were operated by or on behalf of the State or which were funded from public funds. I have no doubt the number has grown since. A large number of cases has also been initiated against religious orders who ran institutions, school teachers and individuals, some fathers, who have perpetrated sexual and physical abuse on their own children. An article in Magill magazine in February 1999 estimated that at that time 560 child abuse victims were suing the State and the Catholic church. Only this week, media reports indicated that the Garda is investigating 230 complaints against 75 Christian Brothers at Artane boys' school. The sheer scale of abuse in this institution alone is hard to comprehend.

The second response is the requirement to thoroughly and rigorously examine why it happened and what were the factors that allowed it to happen without effective intervention.

The third requirement is to ensure that all children who were placed in industrial schools and other care are given access to their records and that the State and the institutions concerned adopt a rigorous and open approach to searching out these records and to making them available to the people concerned. I, and I am sure other Members, have received letters from people who are extremely anxious to secure this information. I ask the Minister to include that in the various measures being adopted.

The fourth requirement is to put structures in place to facilitate meting out whatever justice can be made available. No recompense can go near to compensating for the appalling abuses perpetrated, the childhoods taken away, the process of growing and developing that is the right of every child warped and destroyed, but we must provide whatever recompense is possible. This Bill is central to that process and it will cost the State money. It will allow people to seek legal retribution from the State and from others. How could anyone justify not doing so? How could anyone suggest that victims of child abuse should be free to go to court if they are 20 years of age but not if they are 22?

Sophia McColgan's story makes it clear how unfair that statute is in terms of the effect of child abuse on the victim. Susan McKay's book takes us painstakingly through the years of abuse that took place within the McColgan family. Despite Sophia and her brother taking every chance that arose to tell what was going on to anyone they came in contact with, particularly in the health service, there was not any intervention. Sophia had to literally construct a life for herself before she could take the enormous and terrifying step of challenging her father who had destroyed her childhood and that of her brothers and sisters.

She could not develop to adulthood in the normal, gradual way of other children. She con structed a survival technique of taking her consciousness out of her own body when she was being sexually abused by her father. She quite simply would have been unable to stand up to him without first making a persona for herself that would be taken seriously by the outside world. She and her brother never succeeded in getting themselves taken seriously when they were children, despite broken limbs and other clear evidence of abuse. Sophia got a degree to give herself standing and self-respect. Her childhood experience would suggest she did right.

When Sophia McColgan sought legal redress against the North Western Health Board and the family GP for their failure to intervene in her and her siblings' case, they put forward the Statute of Limitations as part of their defence. Because she had allowed more than three years to elapse after her 18th birthday before initiating proceedings, they claimed she was statute barred. Since the case was settled out of court it did not become the subject of a legal precedent.

Media reports indicate there is every reason to believe the insurance company which represents the health boards will be willing to use the Statute of Limitations in current cases if it remains unchanged. Therefore, there is an urgency to complete this amending legislation. A case before Mr. Justice Kelly, prior to his resignation, which dealt with Madonna House and involved the Statute of Limitations, will have to be reheard. That case may have involved a legal judgment but, if so, it is not available to us.

The Bill before the House, which I published last year, had its genesis in the difficulties encountered by Sophia McColgan in her search for justice. Recent revelations have again highlighted the obstacles the statutes present. In this Bill I am seeking to remove the restriction of the statutes in cases of childhood abuse.

The statutes of limitation set out certain deadlines within which actions for damages must be brought. Generally, an action for personal injuries must be initiated within three years of the occurrence of the act complained of. There is, however, provision in the legislation that time does not run while the potential plaintiff is under a "disability". Being under a disability is generally understood to mean either that the plaintiff is under the age of majority – 18 years of age – or that he or she is of unsound mind. If neither of these two criteria apply, a plaintiff has no excuse for not initiating proceedings within the strict statutory period.

The purpose of the Bill is to allow for an extended definition of disability, so as to accommodate circumstances of childhood abuse. It is a short and targeted Bill. Section 1 contains a standard provision relating to the Bill's short title, collective citation and construction.

Section 2 provides that a person shall, for the purposes of the Statutes of Limitation, be regarded as under a disability where, by reason of significant emotional or mental injury suffered by that person and attributable to the act complained of – being an act of physical or sexual abuse committed against that person when he or she was a child – the ability of that person to make reasoned decisions to bring an action in respect thereof is substantially impaired. Effectively, an extended definition is given to "disability", to include persons who, although of entirely sound mind, may not have been in a position, as a result of the injuries which they have suffered, to have taken appropriate action against those who have assaulted them.

Section 3 provides a saver clause, in line with current judicial practice, which retains the power of a court to stay an action in circumstances where, given the passage of time since the acts complained of, the initiation of proceedings would be fundamentally unfair to a defendant. I thank Finbar O'Malley for his expert help in drafting this Bill.

The Bill, as drafted, encompasses physical abuse, including sexual abuse. Non-sexual abuse should be addressed in this context rather than be referred to the Law Reform Commission, as indicated in the Taoiseach's speech on 11 May when he announced the measures relating to childhood abuse following the "States of Fear" programmes.

I do not believe victims of severe physical attacks, some of which were graphically described on television, should have to wait again. Broken teeth, broken limbs and head injuries add up to serious assaults and gross abuses of power. Sexual and physical abuse have often been perpetrated at the same time. I urge the Minister to retain the integrity of the legislation in this regard.

While on the surface this Bill may appear to be aimed at securing monetary compensation for victims of child abuse, it has a more significant intent. We have all learned the importance to victims of coming to terms with their personal histories. Court action in these cases has far more to do with the public acknowledgement of injustice done and the vindication of rights than with financial compensation. The commission which was announced by the Government, in response to the exposures regarding industrial schools, may recommend the setting up of a compensation tribunal. That may happen, but I would not be opposed to it. This amending legislation and the court process would provide a back up and an alternative to those who wish to take that route.

I just received a report relating to the Canadian experience; other Members may also have received it. A commission was set up there to deal with institutional child abuse and the report contains much detail about how the issue was approached. We could probably learn much from it. Research was commissioned on how the issue of redress and the broader issues in relation to compensation and coming to terms with child abuse should be dealt with by society as a whole. I hope to read the report in more detail before Committee Stage. We probably have much to learn from countries such as Canada.

I thank the Government for facilitating this debate. By removing legalistic obstacles to justice, we are taking a small but important step in facing up to what was done to so many children. We must not let this issue drift out of the limelight. We must put in place the necessary measures to ensure that there is no hiding place for abusers. The social services inspectorate, which was recently announced, the register of sex offenders and an ombudsman for children are some of the special measures on which I ask the Minister and his colleagues to give a definite timeframe. I look forward to the publication of the White Paper on mandatory reporting to which the Taoiseach referred when he announced the measures. I am interested to know when that White Paper will be published and the entire issue debated.

The Labour Party is determined to ensure that the Children (Juvenile Justice) Bill and the constitutional matters relating to the rights of the child are addressed. The shortage of trained child care staff is causing concern to health boards and this must also be urgently addressed if we are to be in a position to put procedures into practice. When announcing the various measures, the Taoiseach said £4 million would be allocated to the establishment of a counselling service. He indicated that this funding would have to be phased because of the shortage of trained and appropriate staff in the counselling area.

This issue is important and members of health boards – Deputy Neville is also a member of the Mid-Western Health Board – have become aware of the difficulty in recruiting child care staff. Educational establishments must be urgently approached to ensure that appropriate staff are available to health boards and other organisations to deal with this matter. If that is not done, it will be difficult to put all our plans into practice.

There is still evidence of homeless children begging on the streets. Given such facts, we cannot say that all the neglect is in the past. Many speakers mentioned during the recent debates the need to deal with the present as well as the past. The Bill is a major part of the Labour Party's legislative programme and I hope it is the first of many Bills which will be accepted by the Government. There is no more important issue confronting us as a society than the protection of children. The Bill is part of the necessary process of confronting our shameful past in this regard and I commend it to the House.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I am glad of the opportunity to welcome the principle underlying the Bill on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government and to congratulate Deputy O'Sullivan on her initiative in bringing it forward. I wish to first put into context the Government's approach to the important question with which the Bill deals. The period within which civil actions should be taken forms only a part, albeit a very important one, of the Government's comprehensive approach to the whole issue of abuse in childhood.

On 11 May the Taoiseach announced a broad package of measures exemplifying the Government's proactive stance in this sensitive area. The main features of this package are an apology on behalf of the State to victims of child abuse; the setting up of a commission to inquire into childhood abuse; expansion nationwide of the counselling services available to assist victims of child abuse; the preparation of a White Paper on the mandatory reporting of child abuse; immediate amendment of the limitation laws as they relate to civil actions based on childhood sexual abuse; referral of the question of limitation in other forms of childhood abuse to the Law Reform Commission and priority advancement of legislation to include a register of sex offenders.

A most significant element of the Taoiseach's announcement was the statement of apology made to victims of child abuse. This unreserved apology was made on behalf of the Government and previous Governments and of the State generally. In the statements on the matter in the House recently, it was common to hear Deputies on all sides join in the making of that apology. More important is the response from those who endured those terrible times in their past and whose childhood was stolen. No one expects them to forgive or forget easily. The hope is that the State can somehow facilitate a form of reconciliation so that the terrible imbalance and burden in their young lives and in later years can be lifted to some degree.

There is much work to be done in redressing those wrongs. A significant step in this process is the setting up of the commission to inquire into childhood abuse. My colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, has already announced the membership of the commission, which will comprise Ms Justice Laffoy of the High Court and two respected and experienced professionals from the field of child care and abuse therapy. The Government's strategy of establishing the commission first on a non-statutory basis and with broad terms of reference means that the initial experiences gained by the commission will inform a considered approach to the question of redrawing its terms of reference or investing it with any legislative powers it may need to complete its work satisfactorily. This approach has been given a broad welcome inside and outside the House and I am confident that the high calibre of its membership will ensure that it will develop a wide acceptance from all concerned when it gets down to work and starts the process of identifying more fully what it needs to do and how it should go about doing it.

Under the Government's plan of wide ranging measures, there is a commitment to expand the services available for counselling of those who have lived through abuse in childhood with the aim of providing a service of a uniformly high professional standard throughout the State to all who need it. There is no instant solution to the expansion of these services. The right people need to be recruited and given the right training and this will take time. The intention of the Government is to build on the expertise and experience that already exist and to develop quickly from there to meet the special demands that will undoubtedly be placed on services.

There is a growing frankness in the way people are now prepared to debate child sexual abuse, a topic which until not too long ago was almost taboo. The courage of those who have suffered such abuse and who wish to speak out about their deepest personal experiences means that every one of us, in one form or another, is increasingly aware of the tragic circumstances of the past and of the problems which now need to be addressed. Further new laws and the enhancement of our services to meet the issues will feature in the Government's programme of action.

The Government has been progressing a considerable number of measures to date. In May last year I published my discussion paper on the law on sexual offences. Much of the paper deals with offences against children and in response to the submissions received on the paper, I sought and recently obtained Government approval for the preparation of a package of legislative measures designed to protect children and other vulnerable persons against sex offenders.

The main focus of the package will be the setting up of a registration procedure for convicted sex offenders who, on their release from prison, will have to notify their names and addresses to the Garda. The system to be introduced will be what is known as a tracking system, a means for the Garda to be aware at all times of the current addresses of convicted sex offenders who, on their release from prison, will have to notify their name and address to the Garda. Any subsequent changes to their names and addresses will have to be similarly notified. Failure to notify will be an offence. The length of time on the register will be set out in the Bill by reference to the seriousness of the offence, with some modification for juvenile offenders.

It is intended that the gardaí, in consultation with the relevant State agencies, such as the probation and welfare service and the health boards, will undertake continuous risk assessment of those who are subject to the registration requirement. Information will be disclosed to other persons only in the most exceptional circumstances to prevent an immediate risk of crime or to alert members of the public to an apprehended danger, and then only on a strict "need to know" basis. In addition, the proposed Bill will contain tough new provisions that will empower the courts to make civil orders against convicted sex offenders whose behaviour in the community gives the gardaí cause for concern, and to order sex offenders to be subject to probation and welfare service supervision on their release from prison.

Another significant innovation I will introduce is separate legal representation for complainants in rape and serious sexual assault cases during applications to hear evidence and cross-examine on a complainant's previous sexual experience. Since such applications are heard in the absence of the jury, the argument that the accused would be prejudiced by the complainant's legal representation does not arise. I also hope to include in the package measures aimed at reducing the scope for sex offenders to obtain work that involves unsupervised access to children. Work on the preparation of the Bill has been given priority in my Department. The heads of the Bill were circulated to all Departments earlier this month. The planned date of publication is in the next session.

In the context of the employment of sex offenders, arrangements are in place since 1994 whereby the Garda authorities carry out clearance checks in respect of full-time prospective employees in the health care area who would have substantial access to children or vulnerable individuals. These arrangements, which were introduced by my predecessor at the request of the Department of Health in response to allegations of abuse of children in residential child care centres, are implemented by the Garda authorities in strict adherence to legal advice received in the matter from the Attorney General.

It is a matter of concern for me that a large number of organisations with responsibility for child care, who engage staff ranging from full-time paid staff to voluntary staff, are not currently covered by the existing Garda clearance arrangements for full-time employees in the health care area. I wish to see these arrangements extended as quickly as possible to cover persons who would have regular unsupervised contact with children or other vulnerable persons, irrespective of whether that is in a health care setting.

At my request, the Garda Commissioner has been urgently undertaking a comprehensive review of Garda clearance arrangements in the child care area generally. This review is clearly of the utmost importance, relating as it does to the security and safety of children but, inevitably, it is also essential to safeguard the privacy and other rights of individuals. Accordingly, the modalities for operating the extended Garda clearance arrangements envisaged require careful consideration. I am informed by the Garda authorities that this review is progressing quickly and I hope to make a further statement on this matter shortly.

It is accepted that, irrespective of the new arrangements introduced in this area in the future, it will continue to be necessary to bear in mind that criminal record checks, while being capable in appropriate circumstances of making a significant contribution to ensuring unsuitable persons do not secure positions of trust, are not the sole answer to ensuring applicants' suitability for jobs, particularly where children or other vulnerable persons could be open to abuse. There will continue to be a particular onus of care on employers to maintain good employment practice both during the recruitment stage – good interviewing practice, checking references, etc. – and when it comes to adequate supervision arrangements post-recruitment.

Statutory measures relating to child sex abuse already in place as a result of my initiatives include the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996. That Act provides that Irish citizens who commit sexual offences against children when abroad can be dealt with on their return to this country as if the offence had taken place here. The Act also targets the organisers of sex tourism by making it an offence to arrange transport for child sex tourists or to publish information on child sex tourism. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, gives effect to the EU Joint Action on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Children in so far as it applies to children. It provides for a detailed definition of child pornography and creates new child trafficking and child pornography offences, some of which are punishable by up to life imprisonment.

The Statute of Limitations Bill before the House today will add considerably to the code of law that exists for child sexual abuse, and while the Government has proposals in this area, we have no hesitation in accepting the principle of Deputy O'Sullivan's Bill in so far as it applies to child sexual abuse. The Government accepts there is a need for some clarification on how the law on limitation of actions should apply in the case of a person who has been abused in childhood but does not proceed for some time against the perpetrator, the perpetrator's employers or those responsible for failing to prevent the abuse.

The law on limitation of civil actions is a balance between two conflicting rights, the right of a person to proceed in court for the redress of a wrong as against the right of a person to proceed about his or her normal business in the knowledge that there is no risk of stale claims being brought. In the balance also is the wider public interest identified by the Supreme Court in the case of Touhy v. Courtney in 1994 in avoiding stale or delayed claims. The question of the balance of rights has exercised the minds of academics, practitioners and legislators in many other jurisdictions.

In our jurisdiction, the Statute of Limitations Act, 1957, has been the basis for the law on limitation of civil actions. Only one significant amendment has been made to that statute since, the amending act of 1991. Up to that point, the position was that a person had three years from the date of accrual of a cause of action for personal injuries based on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty within which to commence proceedings. That three year period did not start to run during any period where the person was under a disability. Section 48 of the Act specifies that a person is under a disability while not of full age, while of unsound mind or while a convict in certain circumstances.

The significant change brought about by the 1991 amending Act was to introduce the concept of "discoverability" to limitation law as it relates to personal injuries cases based on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. The effect of this is that if an injured party does not know he or she has been injured by the wrongful act or omission in question at the time it occurred, the three year period does not begin to run until such time as the person discovers, or could reasonably have discovered, the injury.

The 1991 amendment was made on the basis of a report on the matter by the Law Reform Commission. That report analysed the approaches to the question of discoverability taken in other jurisdictions as well as the framework of Irish law, both constitutional and statutory, into which such a change would have to be integrated, before arriving at a detailed set of recommendations for amendment of the law. The need for detailed precision of language in the amendment of this technical area of the law is apparent from the Commission's report and the resulting Act.

The Law Reform Commission has also recently produced a consultation paper on another aspect of limitation law, the law as it should apply to latent non-personal damage arising from professional negligence. This would cover such matters as negligent surveying of a building where defects may not become apparent to the occupier for years or defective legal advice given to a purchaser on the title to a property which may not emerge until the person concerned tries to sell the property. The commission has been examining this area on my initiative in response to questions concerning policy in the law which arose in the case of Touhy v. Courtney, which I mentioned earlier.

Any change in the law on limitations needs careful research and teasing out of the implications so that, as legislators, we can be satisfied that the changes we make achieve exactly the policy aims we intend to fulfil. That is why, following on the McColgan case and the article on the matter written by their counsel, Mr James Nugent SC, and published in the Bar Review of March 1998, one approach was to refer the matter of limitation periods in child abuse cases to the Law Reform Commission to have the benefit of that body's acknowledged experience in dealing with various aspects of the law of limitations.

However, on further reflection on the whole matter of child abuse by the Cabinet sub-committee, which led to the overall strategy of the Government as announced by the Taoiseach on 11 May, the Government is satisfied that the way to proceed is by way of early amendment of the Statutes of Limitation as they apply to child sex abuse and to provide a dedicated package of legislative and support measures as well as the establishment of the commission. The Government is happy, therefore, to agree the Bill on limi tations before the House subject to what the Government regards as important policy and legal or technical amendments.

The Government accepts that special rules must be seen to apply to limitation periods in child sex abuse cases. Society has always regarded as evil any form of sexual activity in relation to young children. Sexual acts by those in a position of perceived or actual power in relation to young persons have always been wrong, and the criminal law in particular rightly regards those acts as heinous. However, criminal law in general does not operate a system of periods of limitation for serious offences within which legal proceedings must be brought. By contrast, the civil law has, in this as in other jurisdictions, always operated such a system, with few exceptions.

There is now public awareness of the feelings of guilt and shame which can be induced in those who are made objects of sexual abuse even though they are blameless. We now know better, that these feelings of shame and self-blame can paralyse the will and the ability of otherwise rational people when it comes to dealing with the consequences of the abuse they have suffered. Apart altogether from entering on the path of litigation, many such victims will have difficulty in bringing themselves to avail of the counselling and psychotherapeutic services they need. Often until they have availed themselves of such services over a considerable period they are unable psychologically even to consider what remedies may be available through the courts. The Government's view is that the case for changing the law of limitation as it applies to child sex abuse cases is unanswerable. That is why it is pleased to be able to offer its support in principle to this Bill.

With other forms of child abuse, however, the issues are not always as clear-cut as in the case of sex abuse. Questions arise from the wide range of activities which, at one end of the scale, would have been classed until not too long ago as reasonable corporal punishment and, at the other end of the scale, are by any standard unacceptable but may not affect the ability of a person to take legal proceedings in a given time. The Government's view is that it needs to obtain the advice of experts on whether and to what extent other forms of abuse are likely to have the inhibiting effect on the victim long into adult life that is known to occur in many instances of childhood sex abuse.

Some other jurisdictions have modified their laws in respect of sexual abuse in childhood but not in relation to other forms of childhood abuse. Research needs to be undertaken into the position in a wide range of other jurisdictions so that we can benefit from the experiences of those states which have taken a wider or a narrower approach to the issue of limitation periods for various forms of childhood abuse, understand why different approaches have been taken in different countries and apply the most appropri ate reasoning gleaned from that research to whatever changes we should make in our law.

The Government has, accordingly, decided to ask the Law Reform Commission to give early examination to the issues and to make recommendations. The Attorney General has this week referred the matter to the commission. It is well placed to deal with the matter, having dealt with other substantial aspects of limitation law in the recent past. In light of that referral, I will be moving an amendment to the Bill confining its application to actions arising out of sexual abuse in childhood. When the Law Reform Commission's report becomes available, the Government will be in a better position to assess what further changes need to be made in the law and to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals.

I now address some more detailed aspects of the Bill. I assure Deputies, especially Deputy O'Sullivan, that these comments are offered in a spirit of co-operation and are motivated by the wish, which I am sure is shared by Deputies on all sides of the House, that we put in place changes which will achieve what we want to achieve without any unexpected and undesirable effects.

The scope of the legal disability provided for in the Bill appears to go beyond what is intended to be covered. As framed, the Bill would permit a person to bring a late claim in respect of, say, a car accident or even the sale of defective goods on the basis of a disability related to child sex abuse at the time that the accident occurred or the purchase was made. It appears to be a matter for further consideration by the House as to whether the disability in question in the Bill would need to be defined on a more specific basis. Accordingly, I will be proposing an amendment on Committee Stage which would link the disability closely with the pursuit of proceedings arising out of the abuse and not extend it to all other forms of legal proceedings to which the concept of disability under the Statutes of Limitation applies by virtue of section 49 of the 1957 Act.

The Bill, in describing the injury which impairs the bringing of an action, uses the expression "emotional or mental". There may be a case for following the lead of the Domestic Violence Act, 1996, which uses instead the word "psychological" to convey the circumstances of the person bringing the action. I understand this word was used so as to encompass the mental and emotional welfare of the victim of domestic violence.

I have already referred to the most recent amendment of the Statutes of Limitation in the 1991 Act. That Act provides, in section 7, for the application of the new provisions to all causes of action accruing whether before or after the passing of that Act and to proceedings in being at the time of the passing. A provision of that kind would need to be made in the Bill so as to make the policy of the Bill more clear. As the Bill stands, there is the possibility that it could be interpreted as not being retrospective in its application to cases which arose before the passing of the Bill. If that were the case, the Bill would fail to meet the Government's objective. which is that retrospection is an essential element of policy in this area.

These are some of the matters that will be the subject of Government amendments when we come to debate the matter on Committee Stage. The amendments will be brought forward, as are these comments, in a spirit of co-operation on the basis of the Government's support for the principle of the Bill as it applies to childhood sexual abuse cases. I assure the Deputy on my own behalf and that of the Government that whatever assistance can be made available in steering this Bill through the parliamentary process and onto the Statute Book will be offered.

The Government's response to this Bill follows an announcement of its commitments to the subject of child abuse. It is the response of a Government which is willing to share responsibility for whatever action the House, society and the community we live in can and must take to remedy the wrongs of the past and to try to ensure that they do not happen in the future.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I wish to share my time with Deputy Neville.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I join with the Minister in offering my congratulations to Deputy O'Sullivan for introducing this Bill. It is timely, opportune and overdue. As a result of the tremendous work done by her and her advisers in producing the Bill a major obstacle to victims of abuse in getting compensation for the pain, suffering and damage inflicted on them will have been removed.

Society owes a considerable debt of gratitude to Mary Raferty, producer of the television series "States of Fear", to researcher, Síle Ahern, and to RTE for jolting the conscience of the nation and for again holding up a mirror to politicians and society to show how totally inadequate and piecemeal our approach has been to the physical and sexual abuse of children. It has taken television series, such as "Dear Daughter" and "States of Fear", to achieve what years of campaigning by child care organisations have failed to achieve. Maybe now we will finally put in place a comprehensive and effective child care and child protection regime rather than the piecemeal policy announcements of the past, many of which appeared in the wake of media revelations of individual scandals or of published reports into personal tragedies. The reality is that public and political interest in child care and the protection of children has been one of ebb and flow.

While I welcome the Taoiseach's long overdue apology on behalf of all of us to the victims of abuse and the Government's proposed truth com mission announced by the Minister for Education and Science, current Government policy has been one of lethargy and inaction. The Goldenbridge revelations struck at the heart of the public conscience. All kinds of commitments were given; prominent among them was a State funded counselling service for the victims of institutional abuse. Suddenly all kinds of legal complications were thrown up and the proposal was abandoned and it did not reappear until today.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform promised a register of sex offenders and pulled back from the promise when he bought time by setting up a commission to report on sexual offences. The completed report alluded to by the Minster again today was completed and brought before the Dáil in May 1998. Not alone has the Minister failed to follow up with the promised register of sex offenders, he voted down a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill, sponsored by my colleague, Deputy Neville, which would have given effect to what the Minister promised in the past and again today but failed to deliver. The Government's legislative programme published on 19 April last excluded the proposed Bill from the list of measures to be published let alone enacted before the summer. This Bill, like many others, is lost somewhere in the realms of the Government's legislative "also rans".

The programme for Government states that a key priority of the Government would be "mandatory reporting of child abuse". We are still waiting for this measure to be delivered. It is lost, closeted firmly away somewhere in the recesses of the Department of Health and Children. Yet the Taoiseach told the Dáil on Tuesday, 12 May, that a White Paper would be published "as soon as possible". Time will tell us exactly what that means.

When the Government was formed two years ago, the traditional Department of Health was changed to the Department of Health and Children. The Minister for Health and Children and his Department should be pivotal when it comes to dealing with child care; they should be central to co-ordinating and driving initiatives and should be the most "hands on" in dealing with the current crisis in child abuse yet, strangely, they seem to be almost on the sidelines and certainly play no more than a peripheral, secondary or supporting role.

This Department was presented with a substantial number of recommendations from the Kilkenny incest report in 1993, but these have not been implemented. The recommendations of the report of the committee of inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald also remain unimplemented, despite the fact that the programme for Government is clear and unequivocal when it promises "full implementation of the recommendations of the Kilkenny Incest Inquiry report, the Kelly Fitzgerald report and the Madonna House report".

Again the programme for Government is very clear and specific. It commits the Government to "implementing the Child Care Act in full". Two years later, health boards are still awaiting the essential new child abuse guidelines, which have not been revised since 1988 and were to be an important follow-on following the enactment of the Child Care Act, 1991. The social services inspectorate, first promised in May 1996, following publication of the Madonna House Report is yet to be established. I hope it will appear some time later this year.

Last week, a High Court judge said it was appalling that a rapist, who will be released next October without getting therapy, will be free in society. The judge ordered that man – he sent him to jail in 1996 – should be the subject of a transcript to be sent to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is nothing short of a disgrace that we have approximately 280 offenders serving prison sentences for offences of rape and sexual abuse. Many of these have offended against children. Yet there are only facilities to provide treatment and therapy for ten sex offenders. As the High Court judge said in the case of the untreated rapist, who is soon to be released, "He is going to be let out no better than he went in". Dozens more will be jailed before the end of this year and only a select handful will be treated. Such abject neglect raises a major question mark over just how serious or sincere we are abut the issue of child sex abuse. The most tangible testimony of the sincerity of the Taoiseach's apology would be to address the glaring inadequacy and major deficiencies and the broken promises which litter the area of child care and child protection.

Many people would like to believe that the Ireland of the 1990s will be remembered for its economic success story. It will be remembered as the decade when we turned the economic corner and forged economically ahead, moving dramatically up the European and world economic league tables. It will also be remembered as the decade of the revelations when public figures, bodies and institutions had their affairs and conduct laid bare and what was revealed was a shameful litany of scandal and abuse of power. The hidden Ireland of child abuse inside and outside residential care was not confined to the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or the 1970s but has continued into the 1980s and 1990s. These happenings are not from the dark, dim and distant past. Many happened a mere three years ago and many are still happening today. Nothing, not the so-called expert legal advice or anything else, should stand in the way of full exposure. The full, untruncated and uncensored Madonna House report should be published now.

The involvement of members of the Church has been well and truly exposed by reports and court cases. Criminal charges have been brought and must continue to be brought until the entire perverted cancer of child abuse is stamped out. The same treatment must be meted out to the child care workers who brutalised and robbed children of their childhood. Equally culpable are the Departments and organs of State which, in many cases, were told about and colluded with what was going on and turned a blind eye. We include among these health board officials, doctors, social workers, teachers and others who had a professional as well as a moral obligation and who did not act or speak out. There was a collective cover-up laced with crass hypocrisy, much of it perpetrated by those who railed publicly against the so-called evils of contraception and divorce while indulging in, ignoring or abetting the most sadistic paedophile activities.

I welcome this Bill as an important step in ensuring that no victim can be excluded by law from getting legal or financial redress. Under the law at present, a victim can only take legal action for up to three years after reaching the age of 18 years. The traumatic nature of sexual abuse is such that many victims would be incapable of initiating such an action until long after their eighteenth birthday. These changes, which we are putting through the House, courtesy of Deputy O'Sullivan's Bill, mean that the legal door will now be open to any person of any age who has been abused. Nobody will be debarred from initiating a damages suit. Can we take the apology of the State seriously when we are told that while it is prepared to accept the amendment to the Statute of Limitations to extend the time within which the victims of sexual abuse may claim compensation, it is currently unwilling to similarly change the law in relation to physical abuse? I would like the Law Reform Commission to consider the issue.

I do not know why we have to always look over our shoulder, be foot dragging or look at examples from other countries when it is clear that abuse is abuse is abuse, whether it is of a physical, mental or sexual nature.

How can we treat seriously the Taoiseach's acknowledgement that there is a need for a comprehensive policy to address the issue of child abuse when it is clear that a law which extends the time for bringing claims for sexual abuse will not immediately apply to physical abuse and, as a consequence, will be unworkable in a large number of instances in which children have been both sexually and physically abused over the years? The Statute of Limitations should be immediately changed in its application to apply to both sexual and physical abuse.

All parties should move beyond simply dismantling the legal barriers. Some victims have indicated they have no interest in monetary compensation, they simply want to be believed, to tell their tales and for the truth to come out. For others, possibly a majority, there is the issue of compensation. At present there are 174 cases for compensation listed for hearing before the courts. There is a need for the State and the Church to consider a comprehensive and constructive alternative approach to court that would be adopted by such claimants. Are we at this stage going to force each victim of abuse to come to open court and be cross-examined on the horrors of their past? Surely the State and the Church should agree to put in place a new structure to determine compensation claims. The State should go beyond its truth commission and set up a special forum where such claims can be heard in a full and sensitive manner and processed expeditiously while keeping legal costs and expenses to a minimum.

I welcome the commission to inquire into childhood abuse. Its aim is commendable – to enable victims to have the opportunity to tell of the abuse they suffered to a sympathetic and experienced forum. It will also look into the causes of abuse in institutions and elsewhere. I trust this will include primary and secondary schools. It will also seek to establish the motives of those who carried out the abuse. It will make recommendations on the needs of those who were abused and the measures needed to safeguard children for the future.

The central question, however, is what powers will it have? It must be given whatever powers it feels it needs. I note that the Minister for Education and Science has indicated he is prepared to make available all records from his Department. We also need a clear statement from the Minister for Health and Children that all relevant records from his Department and from the various health boards will be made available to the commission. We need the same commitment from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The commission must be enabled to examine in full the failure of those Departments to supervise the care provided for children for whom they had a statutory responsibility. We must know what complaints are on file and the reasons they were not followed up.

The idea of an ombudsman for children has been mooted for a considerable period. I am somewhat disappointed to note that in the spate of announcements about the recent manifestations, there is no mention of, or speculation about, a children's ombudsman. At this juncture, it is an idea well worth revisiting and its merits as an institution that could wield effective power on behalf of children should be examined.

In all, 46,000 children passed through the Irish industrial school system. We must pay tribute to the many good people who managed and worked in these institutions and looked after the children there. Notwithstanding the horrific abuse carried out by a minority of those who worked in the schools, many people did their best to try to fill the void left by a society and State which abdicated its responsibility and left the institutions totally unresourced. These institutions were neglected on two fronts – they were starved of resources and left mainly unregulated and unsupervised. For the children who went through those institutions, even if there never was abuse, there was the heartbreak of severance from their parents. Many of them were never visited by their parents or their immediate or extended families. They lost contact with their parents and were left in a state of emotional anonymity.

Many of these children never managed to establish their family ties or origins. This is another huge area where the State has an obligation to provide the resources and imagination required to enable these people to trace their long lost family members. While this would be painstaking and highly skilled work, the State has an obligation in this regard because these people found themselves in such institutions because of its failure. This service should now be provided and should be an integral part of the comprehensive programme which hopefully will be put in place to make reparation and restitution for the failures and negligence of the past.

I compliment Deputy O'Sullivan on doing society a considerable service by introducing this Bill.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I wish to clarify one point. Deputy Higgins called for the publication of the full Madonna House report, which we will certainly consider. However, will he clarify why, when his party was in Government and it received the Madonna House report, it did not publish the full contents throughout its period in office?

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I said in my contribution – if the Minister was listening he would know this – that notwithstanding any so-called legal expert advice available to the Department or the Minister, which was the impediment at that time, it should be published.

Mr. Neville

I also welcome the Bill and I congratulate my colleague from Limerick, Deputy O'Sullivan, on her initiative in bringing it forward. I am disappointed, however, the Government has not implemented more objectives in this legislation. It is important that the Bill extends the Statute of Limitations for both physical and sexual abuse committed against people when they were children. It is not practical to amend the law on child sexual abuse while not making the same changes as regards physical abuse. Sexual abuse is a form of physical abuse. It is impossible to separate these areas when detailing abuse which occurred ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. What arguments will be made as to which abuse was physical or sexual? There are too many cases where there is clear evidence of serious and appalling sexual abuse. This is also accompanied by physical abuse.

As outlined in the various television reports and documentaries, as well as in Government reports, victims of abuse should have the facility to seek compensation, whether for physical or sexual abuse, where a number of years has passed since they attained adulthood and, as a consequence of the abuse suffered in childhood, have not been able to make a claim for compensation until recently. Fine Gael is concerned that this issue is properly and expeditiously addressed. It must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, having regard to the many hundreds of claims pending before the courts and the proposed rehearing of the case heard by Judge Cyril Kelly brought by a person seeking compensation for abuse relating to alleged incidents at Madonna House, to which Deputy O'Sullivan referred. It is essential to outline whether the Statue of Limitations will be invoked against this claimant in the proposed rehearing of the proceedings, as occurred in the original case in which Judge Kelly reserved judgment, some weeks prior to his resignation.

Sexual abuse has a profound effect on the victim. Most sexually abused children suffer long-term traumatic stress disorders and can experience a range of mental health problems. They often inflict harm on themselves, either directly through deliberate injury and self-mutilation or indirectly through eating disorders and drug abuse. Once children become victims of abuse they tend to suffer further abuse in later life. They are likely to suffer deep and extremely traumatic effects as teenagers and adults. They can suffer from multiple personality disorders and bouts of alcohol consumption to the point of feeling suicidal. They can suffer depression and elation, nervous breakdowns and long periods spent in self-imposed isolation due to a mistrust and disbelief in humanity. They discard friendships and are often unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy. They live most of their lives in a state of fear and no amount of compensation can make restitution to such victims. It can be only a small, but important, recognition that their person has been attacked, abused, battered, brutalised and dehumanised. Their crime was that they were poor.

These people, who will now have their stories heard, who are now encouraged to reveal their terrible suffering, must have the resources of the courts to bring the perpetrators to justice to compensate for their visiting such vile abuse on them when they were young, innocent and helpless children. For that reason, I congratulate Deputy O'Sullivan and the Labour Party for this initiative.

A substantial number of compensation claims involving allegations of sexual or physical abuse await hearing in the courts. Fine Gael believes the Government must take steps to put in place a new compensation tribunal before which such claims can be processed in a humane and speedy fashion with legal costs and expenses kept to a minimum. The focus of such a tribunal should not be merely in respect of the State making payments for compensation but should also include claims for compensation for which church authorities and religious orders are liable.

We call on the Government to commence immediately the process to facilitate the establishment of such a tribunal. The adversarial, costly and time consuming court procedure for civil claims is not appropriate for the victims of child abuse perpetrated in State supervised industrial schools. There is an unanswerable case for the establishment of a tribunal of compensation for those who, as children, were battered, dehumanised and made victims of sexual abuse

Child abuse continues today and its levels are increasing, but there is a high level of legislative neglect. Yesterday we learnt of two children in Clare being approached by adults in suspicious circumstances. The Minister informed me that in the period September to December 1998, there were approximately 100 incidences reported to the Garda of suspicious approaches made to children. We need a children's ombudsman, established on a statutory basis, to promote and protect children's rights. Children have a right to feel safe, not to be brutalised and dehumanised. They have a right not to suffer from sexual abuse. They have the right to be treated with the same respect and dignity as every human being. A children's ombudsman would ensure these aims were achieved as far as possible.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland ratified without reservation on 21 September 1992, accepting its international obligations towards children, states that all signatories shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights accordingly. Given that Ireland ratified the Convention, the Government is obliged to take steps to ensure compliance with the provision to protect and promote children's rights. A children's ombudsman must be a priority.

Many children live in considerable disadvantage – children in care, children in legal custody, children who are subject to abuse and neglect, homeless children and children with disabilities. The Government should establish a children's ombudsman as an overall mechanism for the promotion of children's rights.

We can look at the past, apologise for it and compensate for it, but what happened cannot be undone. We must recognise what happened but we must ensure that it does not happen again in any guise, institutional or otherwise. This is our duty as legislators.

At its first general meeting in March 1995, the Children's Rights Alliance decided that one of its main concerns would be the establishment of an office of ombudsman for children which it felt would play a significant role in implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ensuring that children's rights were protected. Following examination of the first report on the implementation of the convention, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about the lack of an independent monitoring mechanism such as an ombudsman or a children's rights commissioner, accessible to children, for dealing with complaints or violations of rights and to provide remedies for such violations. The committee recommended that the Government should consider positively the establishment of an office of ombudsman for children to further the implementation of the convention in Ireland.

Public discourse with children has been minimalist in nature. This is shown by the presence of all the principal players in education at the 1994 National Education Convention with the notable exception of children. The Constitution Review Group, CARI, the Kilkenny incest investigation and the report of the 1995 Kelly Inquiry have all stated that the strong emphasis of the family in the Constitution may, consciously or unconsciously, be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents than of children. The constitutional clarification of children's rights would assist in the creation of a positive environment for a statutory office of an ombudsman for children. Consequently, a specific, overt declaration on the rights of children should be inserted into the Constitution. This would involve the amendment of Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution.

An ombudsman for children should be allowed to monitor child protection standards, to promote examples of good practice and to inquire into serious failures of practice. It is essential that the ombudsman is able to take legal action in the event of a public body acting in serious breach of its obligations to children. The children's ombudsman, however, should not become involved in legal proceedings until internal complaints or appeals systems have been exhausted.

In establishing such an ombudsman, the Government would recognise children's fundamental, political, social, economic and civil rights not yet enshrined in legislation. The ombudsman would be a neutral investigator of children's legitimate problems and complaints. With the freedom, authority and autonomy of the office, the ombudsman should tell it like it is and ought to be, and provide a responsive forum for children's grievances. It should ensure that children are perceived as autonomous with their own special needs and rights.

By establishing an ombudsman for children, the State will provide a significant institutional medium through which children and young people can be heard and given a conflict free environment during their formative years from birth to voting age. The children's ombudsman should speak for children in the context of Government services, facilitating and accommodating remedies for wrongs inflicted on children. A children's ombudsman would lead the way towards ensuring that what was experienced by the brutalised and dehumanised children in institutions, as outlined in the "States of Fear" programme on RTE, would not happen again. If the ombudsman for children is to genuinely promote children's rights, the office must engage in meaningful dialogue with children. This could be facilitated through the use of representative surveys or free hotlines as used by the Norwegian and Swedish ombudsman's office.

There is an unanswerable case for the establishment of an ombudsman's office and the Minister's Department has a role to play in that. It should be co-ordinated by the Minister of State with responsibility for children. I am surprised he is not present for this debate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Like everyone here, I welcome the principle of this Bill, its intention and what I hope will be its effect, as does the Minister.

Within the Bill there is a range of complex issues which must be dealt with. No one would suggest child abuse is an isolated issue and everyone will agree with the comprehensive programme which will express society's concern about this matter. The Government's response must take all of the issues involved into account. That is why the Minster has proposed such a comprehensive outline. While all of us want to see the conclusions of the commission, for instance, and the proposals introduced in legislation as soon as possible, it is also important to recognise that we must draw on the best professional advice and experience, be it legal, medical or psychiatric. That process should not just be confined to this jurisdiction. I hope we would not suggest, because clearly it is not the case, that anything other than an immediate response on any specific issue is satisfactory at a time when this issue is a matter of concern to society generally, particularly as most of the cases about which we are concerned have their history and origin in the past, a past which is different from the current relatively enlightened and sensitive attitude to child abuse, be it sexual or physical. For that reason, I welcome the Bill but, as Deputy O'Sullivan would acknowledge, it is focused on one specific aspect. I am sure she, too, would agree with the need for an overall review and to look at some of the provisions in her Bill in that context.

I want to make two or three general points relating to limitation. The courts have extended the application of the limitation disability to the advantage of a number of litigants. This is not to say that this proves the Bill is unnecessary. My example, Army deafness cases, will not necessarily commend itself to the House but it is the most obvious example because the statute starts to run not only from the date of the injury but, significantly, from the date from which the person complaining of that injury was aware, particularly after taking professional advice, that the injury derived from the negligence or negligent acts of the proposed defendants. Sometimes that has applied rather too generously in the instance of Army deafness. I would be reasonably confident, even if this legislation were not introduced now – I am not trying to denigrate it by so saying – that, if issues of this kind came before the courts, if someone brought a complaint and the Statute of Limitations was pleaded formally in the defence, the courts would hold that the statute did not run against the plaintiff not only until the plaintiff could establish that he or she discovered the injury or its consequence at a given time but until he or she was clearly aware that the injury was caused by the negligence or breach of duty of the negligent party.

Of course the statute does not become an issue unless it is formally pleaded in defence. It is not just that the injury occurred but that it was caused by negligence. Therefore, somebody who might be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder might not have been aware that the injury, the post traumatic stress, psychiatric imbalance or mental distress, was caused by negligence. The courts, as they currently interpret matters, would say that until such time as it was reasonable to expect, after professional consultation and advice, that the person was aware of the negligence aspect, the statute would not run against that person. That said, I am not trying to cut across the need for this.

Clearly this is about compensation because civil actions are literally limited to compensation. Anyone who has practised in the courts in whatever fashion knows well that the wrong of even a physical injury can never fully be redressed. The plaintiff can never reach the stage where he or she would have been had the injury not occurred. Therefore, the only remedy available through the courts, and properly so in this instance, is that of financial compensation. Financial compensation, of itself, is imperfect compensation. In response to those who might suggest tribunals in this instance, there are established guidelines, precedents, judicial determinations and diktats in relation to financial compensation, whether we are talking about a physical or psychiatric disorder.

The reason we cannot approach this in too simplistic a fashion in terms of financial compensation is as follows. If it emerges, for instance, that the psychiatric disorder, which was caused exclusively by the injury, in this case, child abuse, has not only had an effect on the health of the person injured but also on the capacity of that person to earn a standard of living, one is looking at a new area which involves an assessment by way of actuarial calculation. I am not inviting this but I know well that lawyers would consider this if it appeared that some person was disabled from, for instance, pursuing an education course and getting a university qualification or had to terminate that course of study. I would feel fairly confident that a court would take that into account and say that a calculation must be examined regarding loss of future income or a differential between the person's earning capacity and what it would have been had this injury not occurred. That is just one example where the courts, irrespective of what we think about them, are best equipped because this is not like the case of hepatitis C where injury was caused by one element.

In addition, one must determine as a matter of fact whether the abuse occurred and what exactly it entailed. I have great sympathy with those who say that the courts may be not the most appropriate place for this but the courts can introduce procedures in camera, adhering to all the proper established practices which would enable evidence to be brought fully and properly before them, which might not be so easily discharged by a tribunal.

In this instance, Deputy Neville stated that not only the State but also whoever was responsible should be made amenable. There can be no suggestion that the State should indemnify wrong on every occasion from whatever source. Of course there must be the facility for taking proceedings against the named party, organisation or society responsible. If it is alleged that the State, in one form or another, was in dereliction of duty in not instigating or forcing change, there could be a case. However, in that instance if there is to be a case, even between different institutions, and if the State is involved, one is looking at the apportionment of liability between one party and the other, what is called joint tort. That is a complicated issue which we should be careful not to dismiss when we look at issues of this kind.

We are talking about injuries which are related to post traumatic stress and matters of that kind. The courts recognise compensation for that already. Many cases involve a bigger element of compensation for psychiatric disorder than for physical injury. That is a matter for the courts to determine having heard the evidence in each case but it is not quite a simple matter. One must determine who was to blame and for what proportion of blame they were responsible. When one looks at the quantum, which is what we are considering here and which is the only issue with which the courts can deal, there are many complex questions involving, in many cases, highly professional advice, be it that of an actuary, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a behavioural scientist etc.

The question of legal representation of people bringing actions of this kind also arises. In some cases, the plaintiff who suffers from a disability, sues through his or her friend, who should have a close relationship with the plaintiff. There are issues to be looked at in that context. Court decisions are binding and create precedents by which judges are guided. The appeal mechanism, which is so important for litigants, is a very special feature of court procedures and should certainly be left open in this case. This issue is slightly more complex than was initially thought. We are all ad idem on this matter to which the Minister's response is generous and comprehensive.

Debate adjourned.