Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001

Vol. 537 No. 5

Written Answers. - Proposed Legislation.

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

67 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason for the delay in the introduction to Dáil Éireann of the Residential Institutions Bill; and if he will make a statement on the question of compensation for day-schools pupils who were abused by school staff. [17121/01]

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

587 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason for the delay in the publication of the Bill to provide for compensation for victims of abuse, while in the care of institutions for which the State had regulatory or supervisory functions; and if it is still intended as promised that this Bill will be enacted before the summer recess. [16976/01]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 587 together.

The Government has today approved for publication the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001. I intend to publish the Bill tomorrow. The Government also agreed that the enactment of this Bill will be given the highest priority. It will be a matter for this House and the Seanad whether the Bill will be enacted before the summer recess.

The Government agreed to a draft scheme of a Bill at the end of February. In addition to the time taken to draft a complex Bill, my Department has engaged in a process of detailed consultation on the proposed provisions with support groups for former residents of institutions, their legal representatives and other interested parties. In the circumstances the time taken to bring the Bill to the stage of publication has been reasonable.

In deciding to establish a scheme under which financial awards from public funds can be made to victims of abuse, the Government had regard to the special responsibilities that public bodies had for residential institutions such as industrial and reformatory schools, responsibilities that did not apply in the case of ordinary primary and post-primary schools. In the case of residential institutions, public authorities had formal and, in most cases, statutory responsibility both for placing the children in the institutions and for regulating all aspects of their operation. To a significant degree, the State, through these public bodies, replaced parents as the natural protectors and carers of the children concerned. This placed an onerous moral and legal responsibility on the public bodies for the care and welfare of the children. This, in turn, places a special responsibility on the State to try to provide redress to people who suffered abuse while in its care.

As regards ordinary schools, these institutions were very different in their purpose, operation and management from the residential institutions. In particular, they did not have the kind of total control over the lives of their pupils that the residential institutions had. The children in these schools overwhelmingly continued to live in their homes under the care of their parents. Furthermore, in the regulation and supervision of the schools, public bodies did not have the kind of powers and duties that applied in the case of the residential institutions. The special responsibility which the State had for children in industrial and reformatory schools and similar places did not apply in the case of ordinary schools.
Top
Share