I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am delighted to be moving the Second Reading motion for this important Bill. I am particularly moved to be doing so today in the presence of some important visitors in the Gallery. I acknowledge the presence in particular of Mr. William Gorry of the Residential Institutions Survivors' Network and Mr. David Ryan. I also acknowledge Mr. Ryan's late brother, Mr. Mark Ryan. They did so much between them to expose the reality of abuse in schools. I also acknowledge Ms Deirdre Kenny, CEO of One in Four. I acknowledge those visitors. I should also say that I have been working with many other survivors and their families. Many have come forward to me over recent days and many are watching the debate on this Bill on Oireachtas TV. I will begin by saluting the courage of all those survivors who have spoken out, disclosed and shone a light on a dark and shameful chapter in the history of this country in highlighting the reality of their lived experience of abuse as children. Indeed, I acknowledge the many survivors who cannot speak out for other reasons and who continue to suffer. We all think of them and what they have endured. It is in that context that I am glad to be moving the Second Reading of this Bill. If passed, it will be an Act to facilitate the bringing of child sexual abuse proceedings against unincorporated bodies of persons. It seeks to enable such a body to pay damages arising from such proceedings and from the assets of an associated trust, to extend the limitation period arising from claims of child sexual abuse and to provide for connected matters. This Bill creates what I have been referring to as an "unblocking mechanism". Its purpose is to unblock the process of seeking redress from religious bodies and associated lay-run trusts. It would facilitate the bringing of child sexual abuse proceedings against unincorporated bodies of persons, notably religious orders, and would empower survivors to recover damages arising from such proceedings, not only from the orders but also from the assets of an associated trust in certain circumstances. It would extend the limitation period provided for by the Statute of Limitations in respect of civil proceedings arising from claims of child sexual abuse. This is a Bill I have been working on for some years. In a previous life as a practising barrister, I represented many survivors of abuse before what was then known as the Residential Institutions Redress Board, which operated in the 1990s into the 2000s, as the Minister will be aware. These were proceedings arising out of abuse perpetrated, in most cases, against children in industrial schools. I will never forget hearing about the experiences of the survivors I represented, the utterly chilling accounts of the terrible abuse they suffered at the hands of both religious and lay figures employed in industrial schools, many of which were run by religious orders. The experiences were shocking. Desperate damage, harm and hurt were caused to many people. Individuals spoke to me of suicidal ideation as a result of their childhood experiences, of their ongoing difficulties in sustaining relationships and of their fears of passing on the effects of the trauma they had suffered to their children. At the time, it was important that the State made attempts to ensure redress. The Minister will recall, as I do, the difficulties with the Woods cap on the amount of redress to be paid by the religious orders in the 2002 deal. Quite apart from that cap, however, the scheme was also flawed in other ways, and victims were retraumatised by being dragged through lengthy and unnecessarily adversarial proceedings. In the context of the 2002 Woods deal and subsequent attempts to secure contributions to redress from religious orders, we have seen successive Governments - the State - bearing the vast bulk of the cost of redress. Of course, the State remains responsible. Religious orders were also responsible, but they have got away with paying nothing like their fair share. The Woods deal applied a cap of €128 million. The total cost of the Residential Institutional Redress Board scheme is now estimated at €1.5 billion. I am working with a number of survivors groups to improve the State’s response to dealing with the awful legacy of church-State collusion against some of the most vulnerable members of Irish society, particularly children. I am also working with groups like the Residential Institutions Survivor's Network, which I have spoken about and on behalf of which I recently wrote to the Taoiseach and the Ministers for education and Social Protection. That group has identified a litany of flaws in current State redress schemes and schemes to support victims. Survivors are often retraumatised by their exclusion through application of apparently arbitrary rules, inadequate redress processes or simply by unduly bureaucratic and insufficiently compassionate responses such as a helpline that does not deal in a compassionate and kind way with survivors who contact it. That is the kind of basic thing the State should be getting right. We heard this week from 19 of the women who were abused by Leo Hickey in Dunderrow National School but who were excluded from redress schemes, so there is a great deal to do to ensure that the State’s response to the legacy of child abuse is survivor led and that the State is kind and compassionate in its approach to those who are now adults but who were abused as children. Much of the work to deliver justice has also been stymied by the religious orders by means of obfuscation, delaying tactics and the deployment of entirely legal but unethical devices which have the effect of them avoiding paying their share of redress. The Bill stems from my desire to do right by survivors. It is my belief and that of the Labour Party that no organisation, church or State, should be able to hide from or escape accountability. For many years, we have been aware of the practice whereby religious orders have shifted their assets into lay-run trusts that have no legal liability to survivors. The orders which have the liability have much fewer trusts that can be targeted. I hasten to add that the legislation I am proposing is not limited to religious orders. It would apply to all unincorporated bodies, including sports clubs, political parties and so on. Clearly, what we are seeking to address is the deployment of what we might refer to as lawfare, that is, legal tactics deployed with a detrimental effect. Such tactics are used by religious orders in particular. The orders are using the law to frustrate the efforts of those seeking redress for terrible damage inflicted on them in childhood. Lay-run trusts that hold the assets bear no legal liability and, therefore, the State lacks leverage when it seeks to recover a proportion of redress from the religious orders. I spoke about the 2002 deal, but there have been numerous attempts since then by the State to recover a share of compensation or redress from the religious orders. There have been attempts to secure voluntary contributions from the religious orders. There was Sheila Nunan's process, but none of these processes have delivered anything like the share of redress we would expect from religious orders that are serious about meeting obligations. Religious orders must answer serious ethical questions about how they have engaged with the State and with survivors of abuse. One of the first moral lessons any of us teach our children, regardless of faith, relates to the need for honesty when we have done wrong and the need to step up, admit we have done wrong and ensure accountability. We cannot say the response of religious orders to historical sex abuse of children has embodied that principle. These are sneaky tactics being used by institutions that purport to show moral leadership in our society. Appeals to the moral duties of religious orders have clearly not worked. I refer to the processes we have seen over the years in which religious orders have not stepped up. A recent study in The Sunday Times estimated that €755 million in compensation to victims of abuse is still outstanding from religious orders. Meanwhile, EY compiled a recent study, which I understand was commissioned by the Minister's Department, which found that a sample of religious orders hold €1.3 billion in assets. The money is there and the assets are there, and we are talking about the most heinous of crimes perpetrated against children. It seems that religious orders are displaying more concern for their reputations and the bottom line than they are for victims. It is the job of the Government and legislators to make sure that religious orders cannot continue to deploy this indefensible practice. I brought forward this Bill - I have spoken about it in the House on several occasions - in an attempt to be constructive and to ensure we do our bit to make sure that religious orders pay their share. I welcome that the Government has established a high-level interdepartmental group to advise it in respect of the funding of future redress claims in the same way that I welcomed the establishment of the commission of investigation into abuse in schools. It will be quite a long process before the commission reports, and we have heard that the interdepartmental group's report is not due until May 2027. I welcomed the Taoiseach’s confirmation on Tuesday that he will make efforts to bring forward the date of the of the interdepartmental group’s report, because May 2027 is a long way off. Survivors who have waited decades for justice should not be kept waiting any longer than is absolutely necessary. That is why, while I welcomed the commitment by the Taoiseach to bring forward the date of the publication of the group's report, I was disappointed to hear him say that the Government will seek to impose a six-month delay on the Second Stage reading of this Bill. Not only am I disappointed, I do not understand it. I published this Bill years ago. It has been nearly two years since I was told that the previous Government had referred it to the Attorney General’s office for consideration. I introduced the Bill on First Stage in December, and the Taoiseach has said it aligns with Government priorities. The Tánaiste spoke just this week about the need to ensure that religious orders pay their share. Why does the Government need to delay the Second Stage reading for a further six months? We in the Labour Party are happy to work with the Minister and his team to scrutinise the Bill in order to make sure that it passes muster and that the mechanisms in it to ensure accountability of religious orders and associated trusts are watertight. We are happy to accept amendments and to work with the Minister to see the Bill become law, but we do not believe another six months will be required before it can move to the Committee Stage. I asked the Minister previously about bringing forward a Bill like this. He indicated that he would wait for recommendations from the Law Reform Commission. He will see that in the explanatory memorandum of our Bill, we refer to the consultation paper on unincorporated associations published previously by the Law Reform Commission. The report is still awaited, but we have used the consultation paper and what has been done already in drafting this Bill and can see no reason – legal or political – for the kind of can-kicking that a six-month delay represents. I return to the matter of the courage of survivors. Over decades, extraordinarily brave people have come forward to expose this dark chapter. That disclosure comes at a personal cost. Survivors should not have to go public with their stories in order to see action taken. They should not have to go public only to be told to wait longer for recognition. The Dunderrow women spoke of abuse in respect of which a conviction was secured in 1998, yet they are still waiting for redress. Survivors have spoken out to ensure that the State will confront the appalling abuse perpetrated against them and other children in schools and institutions, many of which were run by religious orders. We want to do more than praise and pay tribute to survivors. We want to ensure that they get justice. In many cases, survivors have tried to pursue justice through the courts but have found themselves thwarted by legal structures that frustrate accountability and that obstruct the taking of legal action through the use of unincorporated associations. There is no justification for seeking a further six-month delay. We simply cannot support that and we will be challenging that attempt, if indeed that is what the Minister will propose. I mentioned the 19 women who have come forward in the past few days to speak about their abuse in Dunderrow National School. We have also recently heard other terrible accounts of abuse of children in the past. We were reminded of this with the death last week of the notorious abuser Bill Kenneally. We were reminded by the RTÉ documentary that highlighted the appalling decades perpetrated by Eamonn Cooke upon his victims and we heard this week of the conviction in the North of Jeffrey Donaldson. Again and again these stories of the abuse of power against children have exposed a deep trauma that exists in Irish society. We are all aware that when the commission of investigation reports - I think it is not due to until 2030 - it will provide another indication of the huge extent of the abuse that was perpetrated against children. Fortunately, we have reformed procedures and processes and Ireland and Irish schools and institutions are much safer now. We have made this society safer for children but we must accept there is unfinished business. One such piece of unfinished is the shortfall in compensation left unpaid by religious organisations that have cash and property assets running into the billions. We are asking the Minister to do the right thing and ensure we can see this Bill go through to the next Stage. We will work with him through Committee and Report Stages to get it into law. It aligns with Government priorities, will not cost the State a cent and will indeed facilitate leverage for the State in negotiations with the religious orders where currently there is no mechanism to ensure they can be made to pay compensation. This will provide such a mechanism and that is why I speak of it as an unblocking mechanism. I am asking the Minister to do right by survivors and to pass this Bill rather than delaying it for a further six months.

Sentiment score: 0.01

In the first instance, I thank my own Labour colleagues, Deputies Ahern and Sheehan, and the representatives and speakers from other parties who supported this important Bill. I thank the Minister for his engagement on the Bill too. Listening carefully to what he said, he spoke in encouraging terms about the principle behind the Bill. He spoke about the need for people to be able to access the courts and secure redress in a readily accessible manner. He spoke earlier with great clarity about the current difficulties that arise for anyone who seeks to pursue an unincorporated association through the courts. Indeed, Deputy Cummins gave a pertinent example of somebody seeking to pursue the Christian Brothers. Deputy Ahern referred to the Christian Brothers too and having to name 120 individual members. That is the difficulty. The Christian Brothers, through the establishment of the lay-run trust, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, divested a great deal of assets into that lay-run trust. That is precisely the mechanism that we are seeking to address in this Bill. I thank all of those survivors with whom I have spoken and who have been so courageous in coming forward over the years to disclose about the impact of abuse upon them. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the impact survivors can have on shaping policy. We are seeing that with the debate today on this Bill. It is important to acknowledge. Deputy O'Rourke commented that the Minister used the word "complex" quite a number of times. The Minister used it again in his response. I am disappointed that this is used as the device to justify the six-month delay. I was disappointed also to hear the Minister's reference to the likely publication date of that long-awaited Law Reform Commission report into unincorporated associations. I think the Minister said it is not due until early 2028. That will be six years after the consultation paper was published. My concern is that will then become another - the Minister was referencing it today - pre-emptive delaying device and that, in fact, the Minister will not be able to support any Bill until after that date. He did not indicate that the interdepartmental group report might be brought forward. The Taoiseach indicated on Tuesday in his response to me that this publication date would not be as late as May 2027 and that it might be earlier. I would welcome some clarity on that. I can speak to the Minister afterward about that. I want to come back to that point of complexity. Yes, there are complex matters here, but, at its core, this is straightforward. We are talking about a mechanism or legal tactic being used by religious orders. I have referred to it previously as a sort of "developer's wife" tactic, where the religious order bears the liability, as typically a male developer would. It transfers its assets into the lay-run trust as the developer would have transferred assets to their spouse - in a gendered way, typically to the wife - and the owner of the assets is therefore beyond the reach of legal accountability, given that the spouse does not have the liability whereas the person liable no longer possesses the assets. That is the simplest way to describe what this mechanism is. Our Bill is a way of getting around that and lifting the veil, lifting the obstruction and making it easier to sue because, as the Minister said himself, and I made a note of his word, it is implausible currently that you have to sue every member of a religious order in order to pursue religious orders as unincorporated associations. I should say I have some experience: I was taken to the courts as a student union officer, indeed threatened with prison, many years ago for providing women with information on abortion but we were pursued as individuals through the courts because we were officers of an unincorporated association and the union could not be sued as a students' union at the time. Therefore, I am well aware of the mechanisms behind this. Our Bill is very carefully drafted to make sure that it only applies in narrow circumstances. Under section 2, which sets out the circumstances where the legal curtain can be lifted, the wrongdoer is a member of the unincorporated association and the plaintiff was sexually abused as a child. Section 5 sets out how the court appoints the proper defendant. I thought the Minister quoted approvingly the device we put in here. We have set out very careful criteria for when an associated trust can be pursued. Therefore, the Bill is carefully drafted and narrowly focused. The Minister put particular focus on section 8 and the lifting of the proviso around the Statute of Limitations and indicated that that was particularly complex. I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that we are looking to provide for a sort of retrospective effect. That, of course, has consequences, but I am very happy along with Labour colleagues and, I think, colleagues across the Opposition to work with the Minister and the Attorney General’s office to address any issues in this regard on Committee Stage. The Minister proposes to defer this until Christmas Day, which Deputy Ahern described as the anti-Santa approach, although it is more like a Scrooge approach really. My concern is that that will delay our ability to confer with the Attorney General or move to Committee Stage. No doubt we will then be told to wait until May 2027 for the IDG report and then to wait until early 2028 for the Law Reform Commission report. That is just delaying justice and delaying redress for survivors. That is really important because it will mean that survivors will continue to face obstacles and obstructions in looking to pursue religious orders through the courts, because they will have to go through this crazy process where you have to name all the individuals, the orders may or may not provide the nominated name and so on. Survivors should not have to go to court. The other purpose of the Bill is to provide a leverage for the State in negotiating with the religious orders to get the fair share of redress paid. Currently, State bodies, and the Department of education in particular, are at a huge disadvantage in seeking orders to come forward and pay their share, as Sheila Nunan discovered. Deputy Sheehan referred to the difficulties and complexity in trying to get the religious orders to come forward. I think the language used was “a mixed response” from religious orders when they were asked to make voluntary contributions to the State. It was mixed because the State has no sanction. The State cannot say to religious orders that if they do not pay up voluntarily, then it will compel them, as there is currently no power of compulsion. At its core, this Bill is simple. It is about trying to unblock the current obstructions that lie in the way of pursuing religious orders. It is about lifting an obstruction to justice for survivors. So many survivors have come forward and asked that this Bill be progressed and that we see a speedier and more urgent response from the Government. Just yesterday, I heard from a mother whose son, who is non-verbal, was physically and sexually abused while in the care of a particular religious order. She asked what prospect there was for non-verbal children. That is a specific question and one of many that have been put to me. I submitted a parliamentary question on that particular issue. There are many heartbreaking stories of the distress, trauma, deep hurt and damage, and life-long consequences of abuse upon many survivors yet there is a failure to be able to secure accountability from the religious orders that were responsible in many cases. Others have referred rightly to the bigger picture here, that being, the immense power that the church and religious orders wielded for many decades through the State, and the sort of shadow welfare state that the Catholic church operated in running industrial schools, mother and baby homes, Magdalen institutions and many other institutions in which vulnerable persons, women and children primarily, were incarcerated for many shameful decades. The church and the religious orders continue to wield enormous power in our education system through the patronage model. Ninety percent of our primary schools are still under the patronage of the Catholic church and the religious orders, so that power remains. This Bill is one small attempt to get behind the power and the wealth, let us name it, of these religious institutions. The report that others and I referenced earlier noted €1.3 billion of assets held in cash and property by eight religious orders. That is an enormous sum of money. It should be accessible to survivors of abuse and to State bodies that are seeking to do right now by survivors whom they failed for so long. This Bill is aligned with stated Government policy and priorities in seeking to pursue and make accountable religious orders that have escaped accountability for far too long. The scale of this is astounding. I welcomed earlier the movements made on the commission of investigation into abuse in schools but look at the scoping inquiry of 2024. What does it tell us? There were 2,400 allegations of abuse in 308 schools, with more than a quarter originating in facilities for children with special needs. It is absolutely shocking. There were 884 alleged abusers in 42 religious orders. We only know what is the tip of the iceberg. We have relied so much on the bravery of individual survivors to come forward but clearly there is an enormous mountain of undisclosed trauma that is still there among many people who were abused. Listen to the accounts from Dunderrow and those women who are still reliving the trauma of being abused in a systematic, calculated fashion by Leo Hickey. That is the sort of trauma that we are now beginning to uncover. As the oppressive Catholic church doctrine is lifting from the laws of the State, and the Minister reminded us about that with the disregard law this week, which we welcome, we know now how much we have to do to do right by survivors. This Bill represents just one way that we can do right by survivors. I urge the Minister to drop the six-month delay. We have to oppose it. We want to see this Bill pass into law as swiftly as possible to do right by survivors.

Sentiment score: 0.04