Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan arises from Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 2 is consequential, amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are consequential on amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, will be taken together by agreement.
Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Report and Final Stages.
(Dublin West): Could we have a reminder of the speaking times on this Stage?
All Members can speak twice. A Member may make a second contribution which will not exceed two minutes. The Member who moved that amendment retains the right of reply.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 7, before "SEXUAL" to insert "PHYSICAL OR".
When I published this Bill, I included physical and sexual abuse in its scope. It was subsequently amended on Committee Stage to remove physical abuse. The issue of physical abuse was referred to the Law Reform Commission. This amendment seeks to restore physical abuse to the Bill.
I have spoken to many people since my interest in the area has become public, many of whom were victims of abuse when they were children. Most of them were abused in institutions run by the State or financed by it. I have heard harrowing stories of abuse of all kinds. Most of those stories involved physical and sexual abuse. Some of them involved physical abuse only. Further stories detailed other methods of coercion and abuse of power. These children, who had no one else to stand up for them, were treated with appalling cruelty by people who flagrantly abused their power.
Debate on this has been widespread. There was an enlightening television series which resulted in a public apology by the Taoiseach on behalf of the nation. There have also been promises of a commission and other issues. This is just a part of it, although it is an important part. People feel they need to be able to seek retribution when they are capable of doing that.
Victims of physical abuse have been just as traumatised by what has happened to them as victims of sexual abuse. In many cases the two forms of abuse are intertwined. It is sometimes difficult to judge if an action is one of physical or sexual abuse – actions such as administering a beating to someone's bare buttocks.
I will not go into details about the stories I have been told other than to say they are horrific. The effects of physical abuse are as traumatic as the effects of sexual abuse. It has limited people's capacity to deal with the rest of their lives. These people need to be able to seek civil retribution under the law. In cases of physical abuse, if this amendment is not accepted, it will not be possible to seek redress under this legislation if the statute of limitations period has passed. In the case of childhood abuse it is three years after the 18th birthday. Many of these people only now have the capacity to deal with the issue and because the abuse of them was physical they will be deprived of the benefits of the Bill, which is progressive in intent. It adds to the rights of people.
Physical abuse must be included within the scope of the Bill. It is not enough to leave it to the Law Reform Commission because many people hope to be able to take action under the terms of this legislation. The victims of physical abuse should be able to take such action and they should not have to wait again while the commission deliberates on the issue.
Separating physical and sexual abuse downgrades physical abuse and signifies that it is not as traumatic, powerful or appalling as sexual abuse. We are indicating that one abuse would not have caused as much trauma as the other. I am not in a position to judge that, but from talking to those who have experienced it I believe they are as traumatised by physical abuse. In addition, given that there has been so much interaction between these two forms of childhood abuse it is not appropriate to separate them.
(Mayo): The amendments in my name seek to give effect to the same sentiments as those espoused by Deputy O'Sullivan. I am at a loss to know how the Minister can justify making a distinction between physical and sexual abuse. I cannot see how one can say that the emotional turmoil, trauma and psychological scars created by perverted physical abuse carried out on people 20 or 30 years ago is any less traumatic or damaging than sexual abuse. I fail to understand how the Minister, in introducing legislation, can defend a situation where he has only done half the job and then not even done that properly. He should do the job properly and comprehensively. The legislation should ensure that, regardless of whether the abuse is physical or sexual, both aspects are covered.
We have been subjected to a tide of public protest on this issue and I am sure the Department has been likewise affected. The newspapers and radio commentary and chat shows also make it clear that the protest is against the fact that the Bill only deals with sexual and not physical abuse. When Committee Stage was concluded I wonder was it publicised that the Minister indicated he would doggedly stand over the Bill in its current form.
I received a telephone call from a man now living in Los Angeles who left Artane in 1958. That man was very honest. He could have claimed he had been sexually abused because the perpetrator is dead, but he did not. He was clear that in his case, and in the case of the majority of his peers in Artane, perverted physical abuse was involved. A drawer was suitably adapted, the victims were asked to put their heads into it and, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, in such a constrained position they were physically beaten on the buttocks. Perhaps there was a sexual dimension involved, but the abuse was physical by its nature. The person who telephoned me did not make any claim that he was sexually abused but he said he was grossly physically abused. He pointed out that he was, therefore, excluded from having any civil redress under the terms of this Bill.
In the interests of fair play, the common good and the right of redress by the thousands of people who were physically abused and who still carry the mental, psychological and physical scars, I appeal to the Minister to introduce a Bill that does the job properly rather than operating on an incremental basis, as tends to happen with legislation from the Minister's Department, when further amending legislation is often required. The Minister repeats the time-worn excuse that the matter is with the Law Reform Commission. When did it go to the commission? Has he sought an indication from the commission as to the current status of the issue? When does he anticipate a report from the commission? In the short term can he not do the decent thing and accept the thrust and the spirit of the sentiments expressed by Deputies O'Sullivan, Flanagan, Shatter and me and include physical as well as sexual abuse?
The amendments before the House on Report Stage are in the same format as the amendments set down on Committee Stage. This arises because of the uncaring and insensitive attitude of the Minister on that Stage. When he replies to the points raised by Deputy O'Sullivan and others I hope he will show a little more sensitivity, flexibility and care than he did on Committee Stage.
If, thanks to Deputy O'Sullivan and the House, there is to be a remedy for persons against whom acts of sexual abuse have been committed, how can we deny a remedy to persons who have been subject to violent physical abuse? Surely these people have rights? Is there not a constitutional issue here? If a remedy is granted in respect of sexual abuse a remedy should also be granted in respect of violent acts of physical abuse.
In many circumstances it will be difficult to differentiate between the two acts of abuse. There is a constitutional question here. I assume the Minister and the Government received advice from the Attorney General on the issue. I would like to hear it.
In its current form this Bill is unworkable. While it will extend rights to a small number of people, it will not meet the primary purpose for which it was originally published and in the confined application proposed by the Minister it will not work. Deputy O'Sullivan published the Bill in its original form and we are now debating a truncated version. I published a similar measure on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. I am sure substantial thought went into Deputy O'Sullivan's Bill. Similarly, substantial thought and work went into my Bill.
As published, both Bills dealt with the issues differently using different phraseology, but they both had the same intent. It was to address those who suffered injury as a result of physical and sexual abuse, injury which resulted in their being incapable for many years of coming to terms with the effect the abuse had on them, but who were finally able to do so. The Bills sought to ensure they would be able to bring legal applications to seek civil compensation against both abusers and State institutions and bodies whose neglect could be regarded as responsible for the abuse they suffered.
When I introduced to the House the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill, which was published in 1988, the then Fianna Fáil Government tried to emasculate it. We defended the Bill on Second Stage and on Committee Stage because the Government did not have a majority on the committee. However, because some Deputies failed to appear in the House on Report Stage – they were not Fine Gael Deputies – the Government managed to emasculate a section of the Bill which meant that instead of it being a measure which would achieve the original purpose for which it was intended, it would create a great deal of damage and injustice. As a consequence of what happened on that occasion we were able the following week to put a motion to the House to have the Bill recommitted. We were successful with that. The persons responsible for emasculating that Bill were the Minister for Justice and, presumably, his departmental advisers. When the Bill was recommitted the sense of what the Fine Gael Party was saying about the measure was accepted, the extraordinary damage being done to the measure by the advice received by the Minister from his officials was recognised and the Bill was restored to a workable form in which it could achieve the objectives for which it was intended.
With respect to the Labour Party and to Deputy O'Sullivan, if my Bill had been dealt with in this way by the Government, I would not be enthusiastically trying to have it enacted. I would be using every political avenue open to me to put pressure on the Government to restore the Bill to its original form and to allow it to be enacted with its original objectives intact. There is no purpose in the House putting through a measure which is fatally flawed and about which there may be major constitutional difficulties.
There are major practical difficulties. The Bill seeks to allow those who have suffered sexual abuse to bring proceedings and to process claims within a period that is out of time under our existing Statute of Limitations. It excludes physical abuse. There is not, within the Bill as drafted, a definition of sexual abuse. Is sexual abuse something the victim perceives as sexual abuse or is it something that gives the perpetrator sexual gratification? If I get sexual gratification, because I have sado-masochistic tendencies, from beating up young children but never interfere with the sexual parts of their bodies, is that sexual or physical abuse? If, as a result of physical beatings victims suffer such psychological damage that their sexual lives into adulthood are seriously impaired although they were not sexually interfered with by the perpetrator of the abuse, is that sexual or physical abuse? If, because of my perversity and inclination, I spend a year terrorising a child under my care in a residential institution by making that child's life miserable, using the strap whenever it suits me, inflicting physical punishment by the use of my fists, depriving the child of food, engaging in activity where there may be other deprivation such as locking the child in a cellar and, having done so for that period of time for my own sexual gratification, I then start sexually interfering with the child and the child brings proceedings for compensation, can the child receive damages for the physical abuse he received before the sexual abuse started? The Minister may say the child can, because that may come within the definition of an act of sexual abuse but at what stage does it do so? If I beat up someone and then, within a day or two, sexually interfere with him, does that come within the definition of sexual abuse? If I beat up someone and then, two years later, sexually interfere with him, does that come within the definition?
Are we going to have traumatic court cases involving people who have already suffered abuse, the quality of whose lives through many years has been substantially impaired, who have suffered severe psychological and physical damage, who have had to seek the assistance of psychiatrists and psychologists, who have been prescribed medication for depression or other psychiatric conditions caused by such events? Are we going to put such people in the witness box and have them cross-examined by lawyers acting for persons already convicted of abuse who are trying to limit the claim by establishing that a portion of the abuse was physical and should not give rise to compensation? Are we going to see the obscenity of lawyers representing the State, the Department and Minister for Health and Children, the Department and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department and Minister for Education and Science adopting the type of approach adopted in the Brigid McCole case with the objective of limiting the financial impact to the State of any claim brought and, as a consequence, cross-examining victims of sexual abuse to try to tease out which elements of abuse are available for an award of damages and which are debarred by application of the Statute of Limitations as it now stands because they are classified as physical. Is this the type of law the Minister and the Government believe should be put in place and is in the public interest? Is it consistent with the apology extended to the victims of abuse by the Taoiseach in May of this year? I do not believe it is. This is making a travesty of well-intended legislation which was introduced to address an essential need.
I find it impossible to come to terms with the Minister's approach. I do not know whether the Minister is acting on his own on this issue or is so constrained by departmental advice that he is incapable of seeing through the utter foolishness of dealing with this measure in this way. We were told there was some sort of ministerial committee examining the overall issue of abuse. Proposals to address the consequences of abuse suffered for decades by children in this country were apparently considered by a group chaired by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, with a sub-committee which included the Taoiseach and eight members of Cabinet. It defies imagination that eight members of the Cabinet could have agreed to this measure or that the totality of the Cabinet could have agreed to it being dealt with in this way in full understanding of the consequences of what is now proposed. Was there an information deficit? Did Ministers who were busy running their own Departments simply accept the advice given by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and did the Minister simply reproduce to the committee the advice he was given by his officials?
As someone who has drafted 17 Private Members' Bills, many of them dealing with legal issues of greater complexity than this, I find it incomprehensible that it was decided to try to separate sexual from physical abuse, to deal with sexual abuse as though in a vacuum and to pass the issue of physical abuse to the Law Reform Commission. The issue of physical abuse is no more complex than sexual abuse. Sadly, there are as many varied possibilities of physical abuse as of sexual abuse.
Sending that issue to the Law Reform Commission not only creates a difficulty with the workability of this measure and creates the possibility of huge and substantial injustice but also means that for an extended period of time the victims of physical abuse will remain statute barred from bringing applications for civil compensation against both the perpetrators of abuse and the State agencies whose neglect and failure were directly responsible for the abuse that occurred. Newspaper headlines are more often devoted to cases involving sexual abuse than physical abuse. Research has established and future research will establish that over the decades this country has had a substantial problem of children in State institutions being sexually abused. However, there is an even greater number of children who, over the years, have been victims of physical abuse.
The only rationale I can give for the distinction is that this Bill is not about addressing the problems of the injustice suffered by victims of physical and sexual abuse. This is a smart measure to limit the financial liability of the State and, in so far as claims for damages are made, to try to ensure that the majority of victims of abuse – in this context the majority are the victims of physical abuse – continue to be debarred for an extended period from seeking compensation against the State and State agencies for their neglect and failure to protect children in their care. This is a cost saving measure. It has nothing to do with the issue of physical abuse.
I wish to refer to a speech delivered by the Taoiseach on 11 May 1999. Addressing Deputies and visitors at a presentation he was making he said:
How children are treated is one of the key elements which defines any society. Over recent years, more and more attention has been paid to the many failures of our society in the treatment of children. Unfortunately, this has been a piecemeal approach driven by the bravery of individual victims determined to tell their stories and seek justice. A light has been shone into the dark corners of both our past and present, and these victims have performed an immense service in challenging our collective complacency. They have shown us that we cannot put the past behind us by ignoring it. We must confront it and learn its lessons. That is the least we can do to address the injustices of the past and the dangers of the present. The time has long since arrived when we must take up the challenge put to us all by the victims of childhood abuse.
This Bill is a piecemeal response by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to address one aspect of a major problem and a failure to take up the challenge put to everyone by the victims of childhood abuse. Sadly, the Department's approach to this measure exposes the Taoiseach's remarks as nothing more than a cynical public relations response forced by media programmes highlighting the barbarity suffered by victims of abuse in State institutions.
What the Minister is doing should be put in context. The manner in which he is dealing with this Bill and the area of sexual abuse means that the Bill excludes claims for compensation for physical abuse and does not even extend to all victims of sexual abuse a right to claim compensation in circumstances in which the Statute of Limitations currently acts as a barrier to their so doing.
One of the earliest public spotlights on childhood sexual abuse derived from the Brendan Smyth case, a case which led to the fall of the Government. It exposed barbarous sexual abuse by a priest of young children in Northern Ireland. The resulting publicity led to proceedings in the Republic of Ireland following complaints by the victims of Brendan Smyth with regard to incidents that occurred in this jurisdiction. Those who made complaints of being sexually abused by Brendan Smyth would have made their complaints to the Garda over three years ago. That means that over three years ago they were, in the context of this legislation, individuals who had ceased to suffer a disability which rendered them unable to come to terms with what occurred to them.
The Deputy should speak to the amendments.
I am briefly referring to this because we will discuss it later. Not one of the people who made a complaint and whose evidence resulted in the prosecution of Fr. Brendan Smyth in this jurisdiction can use this legislation to claim civil compensation in so far as there is an institution, such as the Church authorities, against whom such claims might be made. Now—
On a point of order, I have listened in silence to a great deal of rubbish.
Is that the intellectual response of the Minister to a comprehensive argument?
If I am to listen to other amendments as well, I wish to find out from the Chair how this debate will be ordered. Deputy Shatter has drifted to a different group of amendments which are not even in his name.
That is what we heard last night from the Minister on another Bill.
Acting Chairman
The Minister has made his point. Deputy Shatter, I have already pointed out that you have strayed from the amendment. Other Deputies wish to speak and there is a limit on time.
We will come back to that issue and that is all I intended to say. If the Minister had not interrupted, I would have returned directly to the amendments before the House.
He shows contempt for the House.
This measure will distinguish between the position and entitlement of victims of sexual abuse to process successfully court proceedings to seek compensation for the abuse suffered and those who suffered physical abuse and their entitlement to successfully process proceedings to seek compensation.
There are many victims of sexual abuse or physical abuse whose quality of life has been equally impaired by the abuse suffered at the hands of the perpetrators of abuse. The Government in its proposals is seeking to distinguish in an arbitrary and illogical way between the different types of abuse. This provision is open to serious constitutional challenge. The danger of such a challenge is that if it were successful, it would simply result in the Bill being found unconstitutional instead of extending its provisions to the victims of physical abuse.
If the Bill is passed in this form and continues to make this distinction, the President should refer it to the Supreme Court for a decision on its constitutionality. I do not believe a victim of abuse, faced with the possibility of having to address their own personal situation, should also have to confront the expense and upset involved in having to defend a constitutional issue. If the President refers the Bill to the Supreme Court and it finds it to be constitutionally sound, at least some victims of sexual abuse will be able to process their proceedings, although all victims of physical abuse will be excluded.
If the President does not do that, I want an assurance from the Minister that a health board, which finds itself the subject of a negligence case taken by a victim of sexual abuse who, as a child, was in its care, will not seek to have the Bill set aside on the grounds of unconstitutionality to protect it from the financial consequences of a successful damages action. I also want an assurance that no team of lawyers acting on behalf of a Department will so deal with this measure. I want to ensure that, however defective the measure may be, victims of abuse relying on it to process a court action in circumstances where they may be otherwise debarred by the existing Statute of Limitations do not discover that their court proceedings are undermined and destroyed by the legal representatives of the State or its agencies seeking to have this measure declared unconstitutional. That is possible. It would be unprecedented, but the manner in which the Bill is being dealt with by the Minister is unprecedented.
I appreciate this is a limited debate but it should not be. These issues are too serious. Thousands of people are affected who were in the care of the State in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s and in circumstances where State agencies lamentably failed in their duty to ensure children already perceived to be at risk and taken into care were given the proper protection, care and upbringing to which they were entitled.
The Minister seeks to stand by the distinction he makes. I do not want to bring other sections of the Bill into this, but I want to ask a question of the Minister in the context of the distinction between physical and sexual abuse. There is a provision in the Bill whereby an act of causing, inducing or coercing a person to participate in any sexual activity will be regarded by the Bill as sexual abuse. If I physically abuse people with an intent to coerce them into sexual activity but I do not succeed and sexual activity does not occur because, despite beating them black and blue, persecuting them and imposing various deprivations on them, they do not succumb or bend over to the whim of the perpetrator of abuse, is that sexual abuse or physical abuse? No sexual abuse will have occurred because the victim, despite the suffering, has not succumbed. Will we dance on the head of that pin?
If the Minister says that, where I beat up people with the intent of sexually abusing them and they resist me, they can claim damages, will a court then be put in a position, in cases where there is no evidence of sexual abuse but substantial evidence of physical abuse, of trying to ascertain whether the intent of the abuser ten or 20 years ago was ultimately to coerce a sexual act or whether he or she was simply getting pleasure from the physical abuse? How will we deal with that issue? Is it covered by the Bill? Does it not put the spotlight on the unworkability and utter foolishness of this measure?
The way in which the Government deals with this is a scandal and a disgrace. Despite the pleasantries of the Taoiseach, as uttered on 11 May when he announced that we would deal with sexual but not physical abuse in this measure, it confirms that, within Government and Departments, there is a complete lack of insight and understanding of the manner in which we should approach these issues. There is a failure to address the enormity of the barbarity to which children in this country were subjected and to understand the nightmare adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s in their daily social lives and in bed at night still suffer in trying to come to terms with what happened to them as children. There is no way in which the legislation can be enacted in this form and work in a manner which will put any humanity on the face of our legal system. The Minister should recognise that.
I am not interested in political point scoring; I am interested in the issue. I am also greatly con cerned that people on whom abuse was perpetrated and whose plight was ignored for far too long get justice. We should not discriminate between the victims of physical and sexual abuse. The type of discrimination the Minister seeks to implement is probably legally unworkable in practice in many instances.
Perhaps the Minister might answer the following question. If a child in an institution run by the State was a victim of physical abuse at the hands of one of the people running the institution, and there happened to be a second person in the institution who perpetrated sexual abuse on the child, and if the abusive experience, as is inevitable, seriously blighted the life of that person through his or her adult years, are we now saying he or she can bring proceedings to seek damages for the sexual abuse but not for the physical abuse because it was perpetrated by someone else? Are we saying that, if and when in the distant future the Law Reform Commission reports, the Government digests the contents of that report and the parliamentary draftsman drafts legislation in the area, the person can bring a second action in three or four years' time for physical abuse and that he or she can go into the witness box for a second time and relive the awfulness and barbarity of what was done when he or she was a child in an institution for which the State was responsible? How can any Government stand over legislation of that nature? There is no justice, humanity or common sense in it. It can only be the invention of a legalism and bureaucracy which is incapable of coming to terms with the issues we have an obligation to properly and comprehensively address.
(Dublin West): I support the amendments which want to restore to the Bill the concept that victims of physical abuse should qualify for the extension of time under which claims can be taken against perpetrators of physical violence.
When RTE television showed the "States of Fear" series of programmes, the nation was shocked as a result of the curtain which was drawn back on the decades of institutionalised violence by agencies of Church and State against the most helpless people imaginable, namely pre-teen and teenage children. Although the nation has unfortunately become somewhat accustomed to high profile court cases involving child sexual and physical abuse, the distillation of the experience of successive generations of children in that programme brought home the enormity of what was visited on a defenceless section of our population throughout the history of the State until relatively recent times.
Following the shock which resulted from the revelations and the exposure of the awful experiences of a generation of children and youth, we had humble noises from the Government and the Taoiseach. In order to try to express or mollify the shock and anger of people throughout the country there were promises that the victims of that abuse would be adequately dealt with by the State in a fair and compassionate manner, unlike the way in which some other victims of the negligence of agencies of the State were dealt with in very recent times. Unfortunately, pushing this Bill through in its current form shows that the penitence of the Government was not very long-lasting.
It is astounding that there is an attempt being made to make a distinction in the Bill between the impact of sexual and physical abuse on children or adults. In every county there are victims of sexual and physical abuse and a number of people took the opportunity to speak to me about their own experiences, particularly following the broadcast of the programme, "States of Fear". It is absolutely clear that the effect and impact of years of sustained abuse, including physical abuse without explicit sexual abuse, can traumatise and paralyse a person for their entire lives. The idea that somehow, three years after the age of 18, people can be so fully recovered and of such a mind that they can make a clear and rational decision and a clear claim against the perpetrators of violence against them, shows that those who framed this legislation know nothing about the horrific emotional and psychological consequences of long-term physical abuse of innocent victims, particularly children and young people. To the injuries suffered by people in these circumstances is now being added the insult of the Government deliberately excluding them from the scope of the Bill, thereby taking away their right to seek just and appropriate compensation for incidents over an extended period which have made their lives a nightmare. It also creates a chasm between sexual and physical abuse. Those who are not experts but who have listened to the people concerned, know there is no such chasm. In fact, sexual abuse may manifest itself in large part in physical threats and domination, particularly by males over females and children.
In pursuing the Bill in its current form the Government is adding another wrong to people who are already defenceless and in very vulnerable situations. Only yesterday I visited St. Mary's Special School in the Phoenix Park for children who have particular problems arising in many cases from their backgrounds. The teachers and those who deal with children who have been physically abused and threatened over a long time in their own homes will tell how paralysed these children are right into their teenage years and long afterwards. The State already fails those children most criminally in having totally insufficient resources to meet their needs and to intervene to allow them be healed from the horrific effects of violence which they have suffered. Precisely because of the failure of the State to provide sufficient resources, special schools and special residential care, sufficient psychological assistance and psychiatrists who are specialised in this area, the trauma is continued and the mental damage continues. In many cases there has not been effective intervention right into adulthood which would allow people get their heads and lives sufficiently together, thereby allowing them make a rational decision to take a compensation claim. The Government is telling those who eventually justly look for compensation that they may not seek it. It is adding insult to the injury which has been suffered. Everybody knows how really deep the suffering is of people who have gone through institutionalised violence or violence in the home or other areas. Therefore, to add this additional insult compounds the suffering and the wrong. To speak about the Law Reform Commission and a report in never-never time is not sufficient. The Minister must explain to the Dáil the very serious situation in which he is placing those people and justify doing so if he can.
I have already outlined in some considerable detail on Second and Committee Stages the Government's approach to limitation periods in cases of child abuse of a non-sexual nature. Sexual abuse of children has always been regarded with particular abhorrence by the community, all the more so when such abuse is perpetrated by the people charged with the care and nurturing of children. As I stated in my contribution on Second Stage, the Government's view is that the case for changing the law of limitations as it applies to child sex abuse cases is unanswerable.
On a point of order, it is practically impossible to hear the Minister. I am not an applicant in an Army deafness case, so perhaps the Minister could speak up a little.
Sure. It is universally recognised that the abuse of a person of tender years in a sexual way can result in trauma which can prevent the victim from seeking help or redress for the abuse suffered, in some cases well into adult life. It is clear that special provisions regarding limitation periods to take account of that lasting effect should apply to civil actions where sex abuse is an element. This is not to suggest however that the issues surrounding physical abuse in childhood are regarded by the Government as being less serious or of less significance in our approach to childhood abuse. I am well aware from representations made and from having heard at first hand the harrowing stories of some of those whom I have met how such abuse has blighted many lives, leaving emotional as well as physical scars. Neither I nor the Government seek to neglect their position or exclude them in any manner.
The Government's approach to the issue of childhood abuse has been open and proactive. That remains the approach. As I indicated on Committee Stage, such abuse can cover a wide range of activities, some of which would have been classed until relatively recently as reason able corporal punishment; others, by any standards, are unacceptable but may nonetheless not affect a person's ability to bring proceedings in a given time, while still others may have the same lasting trauma that is known to arise frequently out of sexually abusive acts.
The situation regarding sexual abuse is clearcut. That is the reason we have supported the Bill to the extent that it deals with such abuse. As regards physical abuse, however, the situation is not clearcut. Because the issues are not clearcut the Attorney General, at my request and with the concurrence of the Government, referred the matter to the Law Reform Commission. The purpose of that referral is to have the benefit of the commission's research facilities, well established consultative processes and, most importantly, independent and considered advice on the way forward in this area of the law. I understand the commission's researches are under way. It does not make sense to pre-empt the advice sought by proceeding with legislation to deal with such cases. That is the reason the Government indicated its support for the Bill in so far as it deals with sexual abuse cases and I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage confining its application to actions arising out of sexual abuse in childhood.
I have seen the Government's position on the Bill represented as a refusal to legislate for physical abuse cases and an unwillingness to deal with the issues. These comments misrepresent my position and that of the Government. These misrepresentations and attributions are wrong. The issue is being and will be dealt with. Before we can decide what changes should be made, however, the Government must know how best that change should be achieved. The Oireachtas should be in the same position.
Deputies will recall that I gave repeated assurances on Committee Stage that I will act on the commission's report in a prompt and proactive manner. That remains my position. It would be a pointless exercise to request the commission to do this work only to pre-empt its findings by extending the scope of the Bill at this stage to include physical abuse. It may well be that its recommendations will fall in line with proposals contained in the Bill, but it is equally possible that it will recommend a different approach. It is a sensible and responsible approach to await the outcome of its work. This is a highly technical and complex area of the law and it is only right that we should have available to us the advice of experts. Any change in the law in relation to physical abuse should be informed by the commission's work if we are to ensure we achieve the best outcome in legislation. I will act in a prompt and proactive manner on its report when it becomes available.
Deputy Jim Higgins is at a loss to understand the reason we cannot include physical abuse. I trust I have now explained precisely the reasons we cannot do so. The Deputy said that we should accept the thrust and spirit of the amendment, but thrust and spirit are of no benefit in this instance. Words in statute explain and clarify the law. Those words must be precise, clear and unambiguous. If this was a problem which was amenable to glib or shallow solutions I would have thought of them by now, but it is obvious to everybody that it is not.
The only solutions the Minister has come up with are glib and shallow. Is that what he is telling us?
Deputy Shatter suggested that no substantial thought was put into the Bill. That is as ridiculous as it is lamentable. That is precisely what the Law Reform Commission is doing, it is giving substantial thought to how the issue of physical abuse might best be addressed. The Deputy then made the extraordinary claim that sexual abuse was not defined in the legislation. That led me to the conclusion that he had not read the legislation. Sexual abuse is defined in section 2(4). If the Deputy had bothered to read it, it would not have been necessary for him to proceed as he did.
It does not define the concept properly.
Sexual abuse is defined as follows: (a) any act of causing, inducing or coercing a person to participate in any sexual activity; (b) any act of causing, inducing or coercing a person to observe any other person engaging in any sexual activity, or (c) any act committed against or in the presence of a person that any reasonable person would in all the circumstances regard as misconduct of a sexual nature provided the doing or commission of the act concerned is recognised by law as giving rise to a cause of action. I respectfully suggest that before the Deputy criticises me or my officials he should at least do us the courtesy of reading what he is criticising us about.
The Minister should deal with the issues I specifically raised.
With regard to the Deputy's insistence that there is no more difficulty in legislating in terms of sexual abuse than physical abuse, it must be clear even to the most critical or biased observer that his argument does not stand up and is built on sand. The Deputy and members of this party have alleged that this is a smart measure to delimit the liability of the State. This is ironic to say the least. I ask them to look at their own record in this respect. This is not a smart measure to delimit the liability of the State, it is a genuine attempt to deal with what is an extremely serious and grave issue. It is my intention to ensure justice is done and that in being seen to be done the correct mechanisms are in place to enable it to be done. Were I to do otherwise I would be in serious dereliction of my duty. That cannot be denied. This is not a financial cost saving measure. It is nothing of the sort and I deeply resent any assertion to the contrary.
This matter was referred to the Law Reform Commission last May shortly after the Government announced its broad package of measures to deal with the question of abuse in childhood. It is my understanding that the commission's work is proceeding and that it is in the research phase of the process. I must point out that the commission is entirely independent in the exercise of its functions and it is not answerable to that extent to me or any other Minister of the Government.
The allegation was made that this legislation is unconstitutional. I am not a member of the Supreme Court and I am not in a position to give anybody a cast-iron guarantee as to whether the legislation is constitutional but—
The Minister could seek advice.
—it is my duty to accept the advice of the adviser to the Government, who is the Attorney General, and the advice available to me is that the legislation is constitutional.
I have to refer to an argument which is trotted out on numerous occasions by Deputy Shatter against several Ministers for Justice of my party. I have heard him speak of the Minister being constrained by officials. I want to explain to him that this is a most offensive assertion and that officials in my Department take great personal offence to it because they are doing a job at the request, and on the authority, of the Minister and Government of the day, and that is precisely what they are doing in this instance.
With regard to cases where a plaintiff seeks compensation which arises out of a mixture of sexual and other forms of abuse, it seems evident that the entire range of compensation sought would be encompassed by the disability rule provided for in this Bill. In other words—
Even where different perpetrators apply different types of abuse?
—if, as a result of the disability arising out of the sexual element of the abuse, a plaintiff was only now able to proceed, the claim could encompass compensation for non-sexual as well as sexual abuse.
Will the Minister give way to take a question?
I am going to complete my contribution.
Will the Minister give way under the new rules of this House?
I listened to Deputy Shatter for a long period of time.
Deputy Shatter, the Minister is not giving way; you can come back in when he concludes.
The Minister is obviously not prepared to take a question which would undermine him.
It is not my fault if Deputy Shatter did not read the legislation before he came into the House.
Is the Minister telling the House that if I am physically abused by one person and subsequently sexually abused by another, I might be able to sue the subsequent abuser, but if I am unfortunate enough to be physically abused by two people but not sexually abused, I cannot take court proceedings?
Deputy Shatter should have read the legislation before coming into the House.
Is there a logic in that?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Shatter, the Minister to continue.
Deputy Shatter's arguments are fundamentally flawed by virtue of the fact that he stated in the course of his contribution that an act of sexual abuse was not defined in the legislation. It clearly is defined.
The Minister avoided dealing with each of the examples I gave him.
In those circumstances he cannot expect me to start lecturing him now on the contents of the legislation. Deputy Shatter is extremely naive if he, as a lawyer of considerable calibre, expects me or any other Minister to give assurances about the conduct of hypothetical legal proceedings in the future. That is not something—
So I am right in each of the examples because the Minister is not addressing any of them.
—Deputy Shatter would advise any of his clients to do. He cannot and must not expect me to do so either.
I want to make one thing very clear to the House. This matter is being addressed with a great deal of consideration. It is being dealt with in good faith. There is no intention, nor was there ever, to delimit the State's financial liability in this most serious matter. I am trying, to the best of my ability, as is the Government, to put in place measures that are just so that people can get justice, whether they relate to offences of sexual or physical abuse. There may be some whom I cannot convince of that but I assure those people who are victims who are, as one speaker rightly said, vulnerable and who may have found themselves defenceless for many years, that this matter is being dealt with in good faith. I have no intention of allowing it to be politicised by whatever source. I would ask those people who have been deliberately and callously misrepresenting the position to desist from doing so because all they are doing is causing further deep pain. In that context, I accepted Deputy O'Sullivan's legislation in good faith because I did not want a political football made out of an issue of this gravity. It is only right that my word should be accepted.
I wanted to take part in this debate because I am aware the House is understandably concerned about the consequences of sexual or physical abuse on victims. The sensitivity felt towards those victims should be reflected in our discussions here.
The Statue of Limitations was introduced in 1957 so that there would be a balance between the right of injured citizens and the right of those by whom they claim they were injured. That is a fundamental obligation enshrined in all of our statute law. People who were under a disability – that has been traditionally a disability of age, as minors – were, therefore, taken as being entitled to initiate proceedings at a period outside of the limitation in the statute, be it three or six years in certain circumstances, from the time their disability ceased either through age, if they were minors, or if their mental disability ceased.
Until now I have not had an opportunity to take part in these discussions but I have been generally impressed with the contributions, although I heard the Minister respond to some of the points made this morning. I have been generally impressed by the concern of all the speakers to ensure that if there is a special circumstance, which is clearly that arising under special abuse – this is a significant amendment to legislation which will be a tribute to this Oireachtas when it is introduced – a special statutory provision would be made in that regard. The question then arises whether there should be a statutory provision included to cover physical abuse.
All of us, including the Minister, are sensitive to the trauma that arises from physical or sexual abuse and we must take account of that in terms of the disability period. There is no question that this is a delicate and difficult area and anyone who suggests otherwise is ignoring the principles of the law in respect of all of our citizens, including those against whom physical abuse is alleged and those who allege they were subjected to that physical abuse. It is not as simple as looking at only one side of the issue. Deputy Shatter will be aware of that from his own legal experience. The courts have already taken a broad and tolerant view in respect of plaintiffs who, up until the amendment of the 1991 Act, would certainly not have been entitled to bring claims before the courts.
We are all familiar with the claims for noise induced deafness which are before the courts on a daily basis and which would previously have been defeated by the Statute of Limitations. The courts held, rightly, that claimants should not be debarred from making claims unless and until they knew they had a noise induced deafness and were aware that that deafness was caused by the negligence of the defendants, namely the Minister for Defence in his corporate capacity. For that reason, people who served in the Army during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and whose injuries dated back to those periods, have been able to bring claims before the courts on the basis that they did not become aware, until some time in 1994 or 1995, that the noise induced deafness from which they were suffering was caused by their service in the Army. That is the view the courts take.
Should a person be able to claim for army deafness but not for physical abuse?
Deputy Shatter is far too intelligent – and I trust he accepts my intelligence and experience in this area – to make a nonsensical statement like that. I am talking about the general principles applied by the courts. I welcome this legislation but, even if were not to be passed, I would be of the view that there would be every likelihood that the courts themselves in the interpretation of "disability" would conclude that, because of the trauma and fear suffered by victims of sexual abuse, such abuse constituted disability sufficient to ensure that the statute would not begin to run against a plaintiff because of the sense of fear and intimidation which is a natural consequence of such abuse. I would be quite confident, having regard to the trend of court decisions, that the courts would hold that view even if this legislation were not passed.
We should not leave everything to the courts in these matters. It is quite proper that amendments should be introduced to this legislation. There is a distinction between physical and sexual abuse and the consequences suffered as a result of each. We are all agreed that we do not want to see victims of either physical or sexual abuse disadvantaged in any way in terms of the claims they bring. When I hear my colleague, James Nugent SC and others of his ilk suggesting, quite properly, that this area is so complex that the Law Reform Commission should examine it and that we should have the benefit of the commission's acknowledged experience, my case rests. Mr. Nugent's view represents the consensus view of my colleagues at the Bar. Mr. Nugent might be amused to hear his name mentioned in this House as he would not see himself as an adviser to the Government. Perhaps if there were to be a change of Government, we might see his name put forward for the position of Attorney General. If we introduce statutory provisions which have constitutional and legal implications, we should be careful that they will not be at risk of being struck down as being unconstitutional. There is a balance to be struck between the rights of the injured party and those of the party against whom a claim is brought.
We have an obligation to show real and effective concern for people who have been traumatised through physical or sexual abuse. However, we should not ignore the principles of the Constitution; we should wait and obtain the best possible advice from people who are well equipped to advise us.
I accept the Minister's word, which he gave us both on Committee Stage and here today, that he will act on the report of the Law Reform Commission. However, that will not address the problems which I and other Deputies have about the separation of physical and sexual abuse in this legislation. I want the provisions of this Bill to be availed of by as many people as possible who have been abused and who wish to take civil legal actions against the alleged perpetrators of the abuses. I have serious concerns that the legislation may not be as effective as it should be if the two types of abuse are separated. I strongly believe that people are just as traumatised by extreme physical abuse as they are by sexual abuse and that the two types of abuse should not be separated.
People may have a difficulty in deciding whether they should take a case under this legislation where they have been both physically and sexually abused or where they may be unclear about whether their abuse would be defined in law as sexual abuse. Various instances were outlined in which it could be doubtful as to whether the abuse perpetrated was physical or sexual. There is a fear that if people do not receive advice quickly, the three years will catch up on them again. Will they find themselves in difficulty under the terms of this legislation if the definition of physical and sexual abuse is not clear? There is a difficulty with referring part of an issue to the Law Reform Commission. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments and not to break up the concept of this Bill which was intended to cover both physical and sexual abuse.
(Mayo): I deeply resent the Minister's comment that some of us on this side of the House are politicising this issue. We are not. We are engaging in dialogue about a fundamental Bill which has been introduced to redress the long-standing grievances of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people about the lack of civil redress for the damage and injury inflicted on them as a result of the State's negligence, its abdication of responsibility and the fact that it stood back from the proper supervision of the welfare of the children of this nation for the best part of 70 or 80 years.
In putting together legislation, one must, as the Minister stated, be precise, clear and unambigu ous. The Minister is using this as the reason for not including physical as well as sexual abuse. Nothing is more precise, clear or unambiguous than the word "physical" itself which has clear and obvious definitions and connotations.
Definitions can be dangerous. Deputy Shatter outlined a number of hypotheses. They are not simply hypotheses for arguments sake but are real possibilities in relation to the three definitions of what constitutes sexual abuse, as defined in the legislation, and they should not be dismissed as being simply superfluous or for the purpose of making argument. They are real possibilities which will invariably be thrown up in court when they are presented by way of argument to define what is supposed to constitute sexual abuse.
The Minister should think again about inserting the word "physical" and leave it to the courts to decide. The reason we appoint judges and set up courts is to make determinations on facts. It is up to the judges, in their wisdom, to decide whether it comes within their definition and view of what is a physical assault on a youngster or during the period under challenge in the courts.
The question I want to ask relates to the relationship between Government and the Law Reform Commission. The Minister always has an excuse – that it is not his fault, his hands are tied and this is a matter for the Law Reform Commission. The only speaker from the Government side, Deputy O'Kennedy, said leave it to the courts and it will probably be all right. Who makes the laws around here? Who is in charge of this shop? Under the Constitution, we are charged with responsibilities and powers to make laws.
I accept it is a complex issue and one on which the advice and views of the Law Reform Commission should be sought. We heard that from the Minister on Second and Committee Stages and we are hearing it again on Report Stage. That we have to wait for the Law Reform Commission is stonewalling on the part of the Minister. The Law Reform Commission has produced many reports since its inception, most of which are very fine reports. The Minister knows there is a long time span between the publication of the report and the enactment of the consequences of that report by way of legislation.
What steps is the Minister taking to communicate with the Law Reform Commission since this matter was considered on Committee Stage, amendments were voted on and since the committee accepted it is a matter for the Law Reform Commission and that we would wait for its report? Has the Minister stated to the Law Reform Commission that he wants a report on this matter by 1 January 2000 and before this measure passes through the Seanad? Stonewalling and saying it is not a matter for us and that we can wash our hands of it is doing the nation a disservice.
The purpose of this legislation is to make sure the law can deal fairly with plaintiffs and defendants. It has nothing to do with the potential expense of particular defendants. It is a question of legal principle and not fiscal pragmatism. If the situation was otherwise, the Bill would have been defeated on Second Stage during Private Members' time but, instead, the Government supported the legislation.
A number of points have been made. Deputy Higgins said to leave the issue of physical abuse for the courts – let the courts decide on the issue. If that were the case, perhaps he might like to tell me why I bothered in the first instance to give a definition of sexual abuse in the legislation. It must be clear to him that the reason for that is that there must be clarity in the law. That is precisely why sexual abuse was defined as it was.
I cannot pre-empt what the Law Reform Commission will say on this matter. While it is not for me to inform the commission that it should do something by a certain date, we have made several inquiries as to how it has been progressing and I am satisfied that it is progressing the matter to the best of its ability.
I find it somewhat ironic that Deputy Flanagan should describe my actions of referring the matter to the Law Reform Commission as an excuse. It is anything but an excuse. Indeed, I remind him that it was a Fine Gael Government which originated the Law Reform Commission in 1985 or 1986.
I raised a number of examples of difficulties which can arise. As regards the problem of the person who is physically brutalised in an institution by one individual and then sexually brutalised by a different individual, I asked the Minister if it was illogical that one can bring court proceedings for the sexual abuse but not the physical abuse. The Minister did not respond to that.
I raised the issue in the context of the sexual abuse definition and said there was not a full definition of sexual abuse. I am right because the definition in the Bill seeks to extend non-sexual abusive behaviour into being sexual abusive behaviour in certain instances. It goes on to refer to sexual activity or activity or misconduct of a sexual nature. I asked the Minister is it physical or sexual abuse if someone brutalises a young child with the intention of having sexual relations with them but never succeeds in engaging in sexual activity, but he did not answer that. I asked him if physical abuse, which does not involve sexual activity, carried out by an individual who is into sadomasochism was sexual or physical abuse, but he could tell us that. That is why I raised these issues and a variety of other questions to which the Minister failed to respond. One cannot promptly distinguish between physical and sexual abuse in this legislation.
I do not accept it is a difficult issue and my colleagues and speakers on this side are right that if this Bill was extended to physical abuse, as it originally intended, and if the amendment Deputy O'Sullivan seeks to make was made, in line with similar amendments proposed by herself and Deputy Higgins, it would be left to the courts to determine physical abuse. The courts make that decision with regularity in dealing with care proceedings brought where children are abused physically and are currently taken into care. There is no mystery about the concept.
If Deputy Shatter had read the legislation, I am sure he would have been able to answer most of his own questions. I am entitled to expect people to read the legislation before they come into the House to discuss such an issue.
The last thing any of us wants is for this issue to become a political football. The core of this Bill did not separate sexual and physical abuse for very good reason. I have had extensive discussions with a number of people who have been abused and for them, the pain and trauma cannot be separated in terms of whether it was perpetrated in a physical or sexual way. It was perpetrated with callousness and cruelty and with extraordinary effects on the lives of those people. It is not right to separate the two issues and enact the legislation without including physical abuse.
I listened to what the Minister said. I have the greatest respect for the Law Reform Commission but this is the legislation which will be enacted in the near future. I do not know how long we will have to wait to hear the verdict of the Law Reform Commission and for subsequent interpretation and legal action. The amendment seeks to reintroduce physical abuse and to restore the integrity of the Bill so that we do not separate the pain of physical abuse from sexual abuse. I will press this amendment to restore the words "physical or" to the Bill as well as sexual abuse.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael. |
Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley. |
Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie. Jacob, Joe. |
Níl–continued
|
Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Sheehan; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
(Mayo): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 23, after "abuse" to insert "or physical abuse or both".
This amendment proposes what Deputy O'Sullivan is seeking, that the legislation should cover physical as well as sexual abuse.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6
In page 4, to delete lines 13 to 27, and substitute the following:
"‘an act of sexual abuse' means any act, being an act the doing or commission of which is recognised by law as giving rise to a cause of action—
(a) of causing, inducing or coercing a person to participate in any sexual activity,
(b) of causing, inducing or coercing the person to observe any other person engaging in any sexual activity, or
(c) committed against, or in the presence of, a person that any reasonable person would, in all the circumstances, regard as misconduct of a sexual nature;".
This is a drafting amendment.
The amendment is opposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related to amendment No. 9 and the amendments can be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(5) A person who institutes proceedings to which this section relates shall not be deemed to have acquired the will or ability referred to in subsection (1)(ii) on a date earlier than the date of passing of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1999.There was concern that under the legislation those courageous and brave people who challenged those who perpetrated abuse on them and reported it to the Garda or elsewhere or sought legal advise may be excluded because it may be considered they have the legal ability to address the issue and the Statute of Limitations might be interpreted by the courts as already running, so to speak – in other words, they would not be within the scope of this Bill. It would be highly unfair and unjust if those people were excluded from the scope of the Bill. That is the reason for tabling this series of amendments.
I am aware of the time constraints that apply, but it is unsatisfactory that we will not have an opportunity to properly debate this issue. It is a complicated one and I am sure Members will wish to make a great number of points on it. It is one that is of particular concern to those brave people who have highlighted the issue. I urge the Minister to accept this series of amendments. I strongly state my problem with the fact that we will not be able to debate this issue further.
(Mayo): I support amendment No. 7. The Bill is narrowly confined in terms of not including physical as well as sexual abuse. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, effectively, it penalises the hundreds and thousands of people who came to the realisation that they had been abused.
As I must put the question in 30 seconds, does the Deputy wish to give the Minister a few seconds to reply.
(Mayo): No. The procedures in this House are a farce. It is a negation of democracy that, effectively, we cannot discuss 60% of the Bill.
Deputy Higgins, that was a decision of the House this morning.
It is a decision of the Government and the Minister. It is being railroaded through the House.
(Mayo): It is a disgrace.
We should have extra time next week.
This is an extremely com plex area. It is a matter to which I have given consideration since Committee Stage and I will continue to do so between now and when this Bill is taken in the Seanad. I will try to come back to the House if that is possible.
It is possible. The Minister should talk to the Government Chief Whip. This is a subversion of the democratic process. We have been treated once again with contempt. It is no wonder this House is an irrelevance. This is not parliamentary democracy.
As it is now 1.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, 1998, is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Barnes, Monica.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre. |
Connaughton, Paul.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John. Ferris, Michael. |
Níl–continued
|
Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Ferris and Sheehan.
Question declared carried.
I thank the Minister and his officials and, indeed, Mr. Finbarr O'Malley for drafting this Bill.
Deputy, I would prefer if we could avoid this. I know it is traditional but the Bill has been disposed of and, in fairness to the speakers on the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, we should move on right away. I do, however, appreciate what the Deputy has to say.