Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 2005

Vol. 605 No. 5

Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 28: In page 18, subsection (4)(c), line 7, after ‘‘by’’, ‘‘whom’’ inserted.

Provision was made in section 28 of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill to facilitate a person who is not satisfied with the outcome of an application that he or she had submitted to the education finance board, which disburses grants under a trust fund, to refer the case to the Office of the Ombudsman. In the course of the debate in the Seanad, Senator Ryan highlighted a drafting error in the legislation which could be interpreted as restricting those with a complaint against a decision of the education finance board from having it investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Senator maintained that the wording could restrict the scope of the appeal. The Minister raised the matter with the Parliamentary Counsel and acknowledged that an amendment was required to address the error. Accordingly the Minister for Education and Science was happy to accept the amendment as drafted by the Senator on Committee Stage in the Upper House, whereby the word "whom" was inserted in page 18, line 7 of section 28. The inclusion of the amendment will ensure there will be no doubt as to who could have cases investigated.

I have no difficulty with the amendment. I ask for clarification on an issue raised on Report Stage here. Will the education finance board been included in Part I of the First Schedule of the Ombudsman Act? Following our discussions we had understood that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, would introduce a proposal to ensure it would be included. Has this changed?

This error was identified by my colleague Senator Ryan in the Seanad. While it was described as a drafting error, as the Senator said it is quite a significant error. To regard it as a drafting error may be an oversimplification. If the error had not been spotted the section would have read: "Where, following an investigation under this Act into an action, it appears to the Ombudsman that the action adversely affected a person by or on whose behalf an application was made". This would mean that a person could be excluded from coverage under the Ombudsman Act.

During our debate on this section, I was particularly concerned that we did not have absolute clarity that the education finance board would be covered under the Ombudsman Act. The Minister who was here for the debate said it would be more appropriate to do this under the Ombudsman Act rather than in this Bill. That the Bill was passed by this House and the drafting error was only spotted in the Seanad indicates that much confusion exists as to whether the board will be clearly covered under the Ombudsman Act. I would like an absolute assurance from the Minister of State that this is the case.

I am glad the error was spotted. In fairness to those involved in drafting the legislation, nobody in this Chamber spotted the error. Unfortunately with legislation of this import which can have far-reaching consequences, it could be a matter of life and death. I welcome the fact that it is changing. I hope the Minister of State is about to say that the issue of the Ombudsman will be covered under legislation dealing with the Office of the Ombudsman. If not, can we have a good excuse?

I support the amendment. I am very conscious of the fact that it relates to a drafting error. Restrictions on victims should never be an option when dealing with child abuse and institutions. I still have major concerns about how victims were treated over the years. Many people are under the impression that child abuse took place 20 or 30 years ago. From a legislator's point of view, we must be vigilant when dealing with the victims of child abuse. In recent days, we have all heard the horrific story of how a young 11 year old girl was treated. It is very important those involved in child care, in the teaching profession and in forming legislation, are conscious that such abuse exists all the time. There are many dysfunctional families crying out for help every single day. We come across some of them in our clinics on a regular basis.

All the people involved must be constantly vigilant. Young children should be able to seek help from the social services. I speak as someone who worked in the primary education sector for over 20 years and who dealt with child abuse cases. Some children found themselves in circumstances where the only friendly face was a teacher doing yard duty. It is important that victims are treated with respect and dignity. A number of Deputies raised this issue in other amendments. Victims of vaccine trials should have been allowed to bring their cases to court.

I hope we have learned about children in institutions. The system was flawed, major mistakes were made and major damage was done to children. We should stand back and pay tribute to the adoptive parents in Ireland. In the past 60 to 70 years, children who did not go to institutions were adopted by families and the vast majority of them were looked after very well. Adoptive parents rescued many children. Many of these children are now adults and are leaders in Irish society. Sometime adoptive parents feel angry because they are excluded from the debate on adoption, yet they were the heroes who rescued children from institutions.

I commend Senator Ryan for noticing the drafting error. There should not be restrictions on anyone.

I support the amendment. Deputy McGrath was right when he spoke of the people affected. When we open the newspapers every day, we read reports of young people being abused. Some of those are now getting the opportunity to go to court, tell their stories and bring to account the people who abused them as children.

I share Deputy Gogarty's concerns about the issue of the Ombudsman. We were given assurances by the Minister for Education and Science when discussing the Bill that the difficulty surrounding the Office of the Ombudsman would be resolved by future legislation. I hope the Minister stands over those assurances. It would be terrible if, due to an error, the Office of the Ombudsman were not able to investigate causes of concern. I congratulate Senator Ryan for spotting the error.

The legislation is positive and will, I hope, allay some of the concerns of the groups that made submissions throughout the process. There are still many people who are critical of how the process was set up. They are still angry, but the anger has much to do with the failure of the State up to now to take on board the hurt and anguish suffered by these people. They are also concerned that we get it right this time. I hope the situation is better now than it was at the beginning of this process.

In response to Deputy Enright's query, the necessary regulations must be made by the Minister for Finance under the Freedom of Information Act, not by the Minister for Education and Science. The Minister for Finance is agreeable to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the education finance board is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Other Deputies raised the issue of the clarity with which the Ombudsman was involved in appeals from the education finance board. Deputy O'Sullivan sought an absolute assurance on this and I am happy to provide her with it. I hope that also satisfies the other Deputies who contributed.

Seanad amendment put and declared carried.
Seanad amendment reported.
Top
Share