This is a purely technical amendment to delete the term "a Minister of State", which is not necessary. The amendment has no substantive effect on the Bill and was included in the interests of precision.
Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 1: In page 4, subsection (1), line 19, "a Minister of State" deleted.
During the discussion of this matter in the Seanad last Friday the Minister for Education and Science made a number of incorrect statements regarding the process to date. I make one final plea to him to deal satisfactorily with the matter of those persons who were abused in day schools, particularly those concerned in my constituency. Officials from his Department have been in contact with them and the Minister met a deputation. His predecessor was also in touch with them for a long period. This is the Minister's final opportunity to address this issue in a satisfactory manner. I do not accept that either the Minister or his Department fully understand what is involved or the level of unfairness demonstrated in the Bill. I ask him to make a positive commitment in the next half hour.
I echo Deputy Flanagan's comments. This is the last opportunity for the Minister to bring closure on this very difficult issue to the people currently excluded from the terms of the Bill. It is three years ago this month since the Taoiseach offered an apology on behalf of the Irish people to all who were abused in institutions as children. He did not distinguish between those who were in residential institutions and those who were in day schools. It is disingenuous in the extreme for the Minister to suggest that people who were in day schools and suffered abuse at the hands of people who were paid by the State to work in institutions it regulated and inspected should be excluded from the compensation scheme.
As the Minister is aware, many of them paid an initial visit to the commission and conveyed their concerns about the fact that, on the one hand, the commission is carrying out the investigation and listening to people's stories while, on the other, there is a selective compensation scheme. The people currently excluded from the terms of the Bill made it clear to Ms Justice Laffoy that they are not prepared to participate in the commission while the Minister continues to deny them the right of redress. If the Taoiseach's apology is to mean anything to people who were sexually abused in day schools, the Minister must meet his serious moral obligation to include them in the terms of the Bill.
The Minister has expressed concern about opening floodgates. This was recognised in the proposal he received which would allow at least those former day pupils who were abused and have been involved in court cases in which convictions were secured against the perpetrators to benefit from the compensation scheme. There is no justification for excluding them. One must bear in mind that, in addition to the extreme damage, hurt and trauma they experienced as a result of suffering abuse as children, these people have also been through the very difficult process of a criminal court case where they have shown the bravery and strength to give evidence which in many cases secured lengthy sentences for the perpetrators. By denying them access to the redress board, the Minister is leaving them no option, but to go through the same harrowing experience again, this time by taking civil cases through the courts.
This is the Minister's last opportunity to provide justice and fairness to these victims. They have contacted him on several occasions and made numerous pleas. Having given them clear commitments that the Minister would include them in the terms of the Bill, a series of Government backbenchers made the case for doing so on Second Stage. As we approach the end of the process, the Minister has forgotten these people by excluding them and leaving them to their own devices. The refusal of the State to take responsibility renders the Taoiseach's apology meaningless.
I draw the Minister's attention to one further matter.
Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy has discussed general issues at length. I remind her we are discussing Seanad amendment No. 1.
I am sure you will appreciate that this is the last opportunity for the Minister to bring about fairness and justice.
Acting Chairman
The Bill is to be guillotined.
It is in his power to do so in the next 15 to 20 minutes. The changes he introduced on Report Stage will undoubtedly end up before the courts. To entitle former boarders in special schools to claim, while denying the same entitlement to day pupils who were abused is wrong and there is no question that it is open to legal challenge. I implore him to reconsider the matter and include these people within the terms of the Bill.
I will be brief because the two previous speakers made the case well. The Bill should be inclusive, not exclusive. It is appalling that we are enacting legislation that discriminates against day school pupils who have been sexually abused and does not extend to them the same compensation rights as are being extended to those who were abused in residential institutions. It is extraordinary that it is still not recognised that many of the people concerned have been to hell and back and had damaged relationships in their adult lives as a consequence of their experiences as young people and teenagers.
Deputy Shortall referred to those who have already been before the courts as witnesses. These people have suffered great trauma, yet they have shown extraordinary courage in providing information to the Garda Síochána, appearing as witnesses before the courts and having to cope with the rigours and stress of cross-examinations conducted by lawyers defending, and acting on the instructions of the people accused and ultimately convicted of their sexual abuse, people who denied their guilt during the court case.
They have done an enormous public service to the State and I question the extent to which this has been understood. There are people behind bars who otherwise would continue to prey on young people. They have been imprisoned for no other reason than the courage of their previous victims to come forward and cope with the stress of a criminal trial and the 18 month to three year lead in period between complaint first being made to the Garda Síochána and the trial taking place. They should be given the same rights to compensation as victims of abuse in residential institutions. I have no doubt this issue will return to the House after the next election and I hope we are opposite and in a position to deal with it. A gross injustice is being perpetrated by this legislation.
I welcome the fact that it will provide compensation rights for the victims of institutional abuse but I deplore the fact that it excludes those who suffered abuse in day schools and who have had the courage to come before the courts to tell their stories. They have contributed to keeping behind bars many people who abused children.
I support the three previous speakers. It has been inferred, if not attributed directly to the Minister, that the State's reluctance on this issue is cost driven. Will the Minister comment in that context on the extension of the statute of limitations and the fact that many victims are pursuing the State anyway through the courts for compensation? The raison d'être of this legislation apart from compensating victims, is to do so in a non-adversarial and out of court fashion. Does the Minister accept that even from a financial point of view if he were to extend the scope of the Bill to people who were day pupils and who have sexual abuse cases before the courts, limited though that might be, it would go some way towards resolving the one significant outstanding issue raised in the legislation. Otherwise that issue will divide the House if the Minister does not yield at this late stage.
Regarding entitlement to an award—
Acting Chairman
We are gone far past the amendment.
This is the last opportunity to speak. It is the eleventh hour and notwithstanding the technical nature of the amendment there are outstanding issues on which the Minister should comment.
Is it not the case in respect of the women who worked in a Magdalene laundry that we now have two categories of women who worked side by side in those laundries? One of them will now be entitled to compensation by virtue of the fact that she came from an industrial school to a Magdalene laundry while some unfortunate woman who was incarcerated – and that is the reality – in a laundry for being pregnant out of wedlock is not entitled to compensation.
Surely we are on very thin legal ice. I do not claim to be a legal expert but this seems a rather invidious distinction to draw, that if a woman came from an industrial school to a Magdalene laundry she is entitled to compensation for abuse suffered, while if a woman was incarcerated in such a laundry for being pregnant out of wedlock but had not been in an industrial school she is not entitled to compensation.
The Minister should also comment on day students, where we now have a somewhat similar situation to that which pertained in the Magdalene laundry. Of two students who sat side by side in a school, if one went home in the evening while the other was resident, one is entitled to compensation. The Schedule lists one particular day school for Traveller children where entitlement is being established. What is the legal advice available to the Department? Will that ring-fencing, that artificial distinction, stand the test of judicial scrutiny? It appears to me to be very unfair and I ask the Minister to consider those issues at this late stage. Apart from our moral obligation to deal inclusively with all victims, even from a financial point of view this is a false economy of the Minister's.
Acting Chairman
In fairness, I have to rule on this. The amendment provides that reference to a Minister of State be deleted. I let the first speaker off so I had to let the others off but we cannot have a general discussion on this amendment. Does Deputy Enright want to address the amendment?
Regarding the amendment, whether it is a Minister or Minister of State involved, I am unhappy because what the Minister is deciding here is very wrong. I spent a great deal of time on Second and Committee Stages on this issue, when I made an appeal to the Minister similar to the one which Deputy Creed has made. We must have redress for people who attended day schools and primary schools. I refer to those who suffered sexual abuse, as physical abuse is more difficult to establish. If people were sexually abused in primary or post-primary schools they should be entitled to compensation.
Acting Chairman
We are getting away from the amendment.
When this Bill was in the Seanad in recent days, a number of my constituents contacted me. They are still suffering from trauma, upset and depression because of the way they were abused but now they feel they are being abused further by being refused redress and compensation.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy should conclude.
A wrong has been perpetrated against these people. They were sexually abused and until the day they die the abuse will remain with them. The Minister should go as far as to allow redress in the form of monetary compensation to those who were sexually abused in primary and post-primary schools. We are in the final days of this Dáil and if the Minister gave those people that redress it would be great.
This Bill was for a very specific group of people, those in residential institutions.
Was the apology for a specific group of people?
I am talking about the Bill. I have said all this in the Seanad. I stepped ahead of the commission, which is looking at the situation, and established a specific group. The Residential Institutions Redress Bill is for people who were in residential institutions and for whom the State had a clear and definite responsibility. There is no point in going back over all the issues involved here.
I appreciate the suffering of those to whom Deputies have referred. I said clearly that this is not the end but relates to one group which could be specified very clearly. As we saw during debates on the Bill it was not easy to specify it clearly and people have raised questions about what I have done already and suggested there may be challenges. This Bill will at least do something specific for people who were in a tight corner as the State had taken them away and locked them up and their parents were not involved – the Kennedy report gave a full account of the situation. In that sense this is a clear and important group.
There are other groups and in the first instance I thought it might be a good idea to include the victims of those who had at least been convicted in the courts. However, the more I looked into this the more complications arose because of problems with equity and with people who could not maintain a court case because people who could give evidence were not available. This is a much wider issue and should now be examined by whoever is in my position after the election – there is no question about that. In the meantime the commission will look at this issue and may be able to give some guidance in its interim or full report. It is looking very widely at this matter and one of its functions is to recommend how issues of past abuse can be addressed in the interests of the victims. Strictly speaking, I should have waited for that, but Deputies are familiar with the reasons the Government did not want to wait. I wanted to specify a particular group—
I do not like to interrupt—
We are only just completing—
The Minister did not have to wait for the commission to report; he could have taken it on board himself.
The Bill is being completed just in time. If I had conducted a wider examination, I have no doubt that it would not have been finished by now. I would have had to go back to Cabinet and to the Attorney General and other legal advisers. That will have to be done after the passage of this Bill, which is being expedited to do something for a specific group. We have discussed the Magdalene institutions on previous occasions, but I wish to make clear again that those for whom the State was responsible, who entered such institutions because the State was responsible for their welfare, comprise a distinct group. This Bill is the first important and major step in this process and should be welcomed as such. It has been alleged that I am wrong in what I am doing, but I do not believe I am as this is a right and good measure.
The Minister is wrong in what he is not doing.
I agree there are many other things to be done. We have done a great deal and I accept that we need to do more.
If the Minister accepts it, why does he not include it in the Bill?
It is not as simple as that. The Deputy knows this is a much wider matter; for example, certain phrases have to be defined. Whatever one does, one must make sure the definitions are right within the total population. Many Deputies have said that one case may relate to sexual abuse whereas another may be broader or narrower. I hope the House welcomes the Government's undertaking to address this specific problem.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Section 1: In page 4, subsection (1), line 33, "14.” deleted and “14;” substituted.
This is a technical amendment to correct a minor error in punctuation.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
Section 1: In page 4, subsection (1), line 35, "cohabiting;" deleted and "cohabiting." substituted.
This is another technical amendment to replace a semi-colon with a full stop.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 4:
Section 4: In page 5, subsection (1), line 46, after "disability", "or mental illness" inserted.
The words "or mental illness" were included following a debate in the Seanad. Although this amendment was not necessary, it is helpful as those suffering from mental illness will be specifically mentioned in the Bill. I agreed to the insertion of the words "or mental illness" for the purposes of such clarification.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 5:
Section 11: In page 11, subsection (11), lines 35 and 36, "Where, having considered a report made pursuant tosubsection (10), the Board” deleted and “The Board, having considered a report made pursuant to subsection (10)” substituted.
This amendment was agreed in the Seanad to correct a mistake made in the drafting process.
On the drafting process, can I ask the Minister to respond to Deputy Creed's legitimate question regarding the list of institutions in the Schedule to this Bill, with specific reference to whether some of those involved were not quite boarders, in effect, but were more than day pupils?
All the schools on the list in the Schedule are residential schools.
Their students were not all residential pupils.
The residential element has to be there.
They were not all residential pupils.
I want the Minister to examine the case of two pupils in a residential school who sat side by side, both of whom were abused. One went home each evening and the other did not. The scheme the Minister is introducing will entitle one of those pupils to compensation but not the other. Abuse is abuse; those who are abused should be compensated as it is heinous and offensive regardless of where it happens.
We are returning to the question of the two fundamental criteria: the responsibility of the State and the residential element.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
As it is now 1.45 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day, "That Seanad amendments not disposed of are hereby agreed to in committee and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House.".
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendments reported.