Written Answers. - Child Abuse.
Liam Lawlor
Question:
491
Mr. Lawlor
asked the
Minister for Education and Science
if he will consider amending the legislative proposals in relation to the provisions in the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001, to address concerns (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[23694/01]
One of the concerns to which the Deputy refers is that the enactment of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001 and the setting up of a scheme for financial redress to victims of abuse in childhood will prejudice the effectiveness of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The view is expressed that former residents of the institutions will be encouraged to make their claim to the redress board only.
At the outset I would like to emphasise that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is an entirely separate body from the proposed redress board. The commission has a function to inquire into past abuse of children in all situations, other than the family home, to establish accountability for abuse and to provide a therapeutic forum for victims of abuse to tell the story of their experience, good and bad. The redress board will provide compensation from public funds for people who were injured as a result of abuse in childhood while resident in institutions for which public bodies had regulatory and supervisory functions. Both bodies are part of the Government's response to widespread public concern about alleged abuse in the institutions in particular and are intended as going some way to serving the needs of victims of abuse in childhood. Those needs, as expressed to me and my Department, by many former residents of the institutions include the need to be believed and the need for answers as to why abuse happened to them and who were the responsible parties. They also include in some, but by no means all, cases a wish to be financially compensated.
While appreciating the concerns expressed as coming from a genuine desire to see the commission successfully complete its work, I never theless have to say that it is unfair to former residents of institutions to presume to know how they will act. As matters stand, the commission has a very substantial number of applications and some are already being heard. There is at present no evidence of a drift of applicants away from the commission.
The second concern is that the redress board will make awards on the basis of untried and unsifted evidence. This is not the case. Any claimant before the redress board must establish firstly that he or she is suffering or has suffered some significant injury, physical or psychological. Secondly, the claimant must establish that that injury is consistent with the abuse as alleged. Both will involve significant medical and psychiatric evidence and the board itself may have assessments carried out. Awards will be made effectively on a no-fault basis and therefore it is not proposed to inquire in detail into the facts of abuse as alleged.
The third concern is that Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001, does not include victims of abuse in day schools. As published, the Bill applies to orphanages, industrial schools and reformatory schools. The institutions concerned were those over which the State had significant supervisory or regulatory responsibilities, mainly arising under statute. While in a legal sense, the Government cannot accept liability for acts of abuse in the institutions, there nevertheless remains the fact that some children did suffer abuse while in State care and that the children concerned were separated from their parents and therefore did not enjoy normal parental care and protection. They relied to a significant extent on public bodies to protect them and it is now all too clear that, notwithstanding that duty, some children were abused.
The payment of public moneys as financial redress for abuse suffered in such cases is therefore appropriate. These considerations do not apply to day schools where public bodies did not have the kind of supervisory functions, powers or duties which applied in the residential institutions and the children themselves were resident with their families. In the circumstances it is not proposed to apply public funds towards compensation in such cases.
However, recent amendments to the Statutes of Limitation do recognise that a person who suffered sexual abuse in childhood may not have been in a position, due to the abuse suffered, to take legal action against the abuser. Normally a person would only have three years from the date on which he or she attained his or her majority to bring such an action. The statute now provides that the normal period of three years within which a person can bring an action will not apply where the delay in bringing the action resulted from the abuse itself such as suppressed memories of abuse. Following an amendment to the Statutes of Limitation made by this Government provision was made for persons who suffered sexual abuse and who were advised that their claims were statute barred. To assist such persons in bringing a claim, provision was made for a special one year period, from June 2000 to June of this year, to allow them to commence actions against their abusers. As regards other kinds of abuse and the application of the statute, the Law Reform Commission have published a discussion document on the broader issue of limitation periods in those cases and are considering the issues further.
Finally, one of the functions laid down in the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000, requires the commission to advise the Government on the actions that may be taken to alleviate the damage suffered by persons who were abused in childhood. The commission process is open to all people who suffered abuse in childhood, except where the abuse occurred in a family home. The commission may have views on how issues of compensation for abuse in ordinary schools can be dealt with.
