I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "Dáil Éireann resolves that the Civil Liability (Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings Against Unincorporated Bodies of Persons) Bill 2025 be deemed to be read a second time this day six months, to allow for the consideration of the legal and policy implications of the Bill's provisions to be undertaken.". I thank Deputy Bacik for introducing this Bill. Like her I welcome to the Public Gallery William Gorry, David Ryan and Deirdre Kenny. At the end of her contribution, Deputy Bacik referred to survivors and it is appropriate we, as legislators, recognise the very significant impact survivors can have on policy and legislation through their bravery in coming forward and providing further information in respect of the trauma they went through. Sometimes I do not think survivors and victims of crime recognise the impact and influence they have. They may not realise how influential they are when it comes to the consequences of their narratives but Deputy Bacik will agree with me when I say it is hugely influential from the point of view of legislators. I assure them also that from the point of view of a Minister, policy is very much affected by the narratives I hear from victims of crime and survivors of sexual abuse. As Deputy Bacik indicated, her Bill seeks to facilitate civil proceedings in respect of child sexual abuse cases against unincorpororated bodies, such as religious orders, and to facilitate the recovery of damages awarded from any such body, including from any trusts associated with it. It also seeks - and this is a more complicated provision - to provide for a one-year window outside the normal limitation period provided for in the Statute of Limitations to enable any proceedings to which the Bill would apply to be brought within 12 months, if enacted. That latter provision is a significant one, as I am sure the Deputy appreciates, and is part of the reason there is a necessity for me to seek a six-month adjournment prior to the Bill moving to the next Stage. In fairness to the Deputy, I think she acknowledges most religious orders select a nominee to represent them in child sexual abuse cases but, unfortunately, this is not always the case. The refusal of some religious orders, or, indeed, any unincorporated bodies, to co-operate with or contribute to previous redress schemes is a matter of considerable trauma and distress for survivors of sexual abuse and their families. It is a difficult and concerning aspect of this awful legacy. I assure the House the Government and I share the dissatisfaction expressed by the Deputy about this issue and I also wish to inform the House this Government is actively looking at possible avenues to ensure those responsible for the running of the schools where sexual abuse occurred are accountable. In that regard, I will give a brief overview of the work currently being undertaken in this area. A commission of investigation into the handling of historical child sexual abuse in schools has been established following the publication of the report of a scoping inquiry by Mary O’Toole SC in September 2024. That is an example of the impact survivors have had on policy-making because it was as a result of the documentary made by RTÉ, inspired by the experience of David and the late Mark Ryan, that the aforementioned scoping inquiry was established, leading in turn to the establishment of a commission of investigation. The commission, which is chaired by Mr. Justice Michael MacGrath, is independent in the performance of its functions and is currently in its establishment phase undertaking essential preparatory work. The task of the inquiry is huge. Four commissioners have been appointed to join the chair in leading the work of the commission, namely, Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring, Mr. Roddy Bourke, Ms Michele Clarke and Mr. Kieran McGrath. The report of the interdepartmental group established to advise the Minister and the Government on the recommendations of the scoping inquiry was published in July 2025. This report was cognisant of the views of survivors in relation to redress as a measure of accountability. Recommendation 2 of that scoping inquiry stated consideration should be given by the Government to establishing a redress scheme for survivors of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools run by the religious orders. Not only was that recommendation given consideration by Government but we abided by it and followed it and as a result we have the commission of investigation in place. The interdepartmental group recognised consideration of a redress scheme may have far-reaching implications and advised a further phase of more detailed work was required to ensure Government is fully informed in any decision it may take. In considering this recommendation, an interdepartmental subgroup of the interdepartmental group was set up in November 2025 to examine the complex issues in establishing such a scheme, including how it might be funded. This subgroup comprises representatives from several Government Departments, State agencies and representatives from the Office of the Attorney General. The purpose of the work of this group is to examine and evaluate key legal and other potential measures to require that those responsible for schools where sexual abuse occurred meet their redress obligations to survivors. This is with a view to informing Government of its findings on possible mechanisms for redress. The subgroup aims to report to the Minister for Education and Youth, and subsequently Government, by May 2027. As Deputies can imagine, the issues to be considered in this area are extremely difficult and time-consuming. This work includes consideration of complicated administrative, legal, financial and other mechanisms, including how any potential scheme might be appropriately funded by those responsible. It also includes examination of international approaches to redress, including models in Ireland, other common law and EU jurisdictions. The underlying aims of Deputy Bacik's Bill align in part with the matters currently being considered by the interdepartmental subgroup. Many of these complex legal, policy and operational considerations are relevant to those contained in the Bill. Given the intricate and challenging nature of these issues, many aspects of this Bill raise legal and constitutional considerations which must be thoroughly examined and approved by the Office of the Attorney General. By way of illustration, the Bill raises complex issues in respect of the apportionment of liability on unincorporated bodies, measures regarding the associated trusts of unincorporated bodies and trusts formerly associated with an unincorporated body. The area of unincorporated bodies and associations is exceptionally complex in law. To that end, in 2022 the Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper entitled Liability of Clubs, Societies and other Unincorporated Associations. It sought submissions from the public. The report of the Law Reform Commission will be important to the development of the law in this area. To give the House a sense of how complex the issues regarding unincorporated bodies are, my Department understands that the Law Reform Commission’s report will not be published before early 2028. The Bill provides for the nomination of a proper defendant by an unincorporated body or, if no such nomination is forthcoming, for the court to appoint a proper defendant. The reason Deputy Bacik has included this is that if there is a legal person who can be sued, whether it is a corporate identity or an individual, that is the appropriate way to go. Unfortunately, in the case of an unincorporated body or a loose association of people, it is difficult to sue that identity unless a representative name is provided. In most instances, as I said, unincorporated bodies that are defendants or intended defendants will provide a representative name. However, as Deputy Bacik is aware, that is not always the case. It places a litigant who wants to institute proceedings in a difficult position if they are not given a representative name that can be used as the representative defendant in any proceedings. The effect is that people’s proceedings are delayed and they may have to go through a complicated court application based on no statutory regime to grant them authority from the court to issue proceedings against an individual who may be identified by the court. The advantage of Deputy Bacik’s Bill, if enacted, is that there would be a statutory mechanism that sets out a procedure for how the court can nominate or identify a person who will be the nominated defendant for the purpose of proceedings. The Bill provides for the nomination of a proper defendant by an unincorporated body or, if no such nomination is forthcoming for the court, to appoint a proper defendant. The apportionment of direct liability on individuals, who have no knowledge of an allegation or may not have been associated with the relevant body at the time of the alleged harm, raises serious issues regarding constitutionality and fair procedures that must be thoroughly examined. It is easier in circumstances where a partnership is being sued. While it itself is an unincorporated identity, if a partnership of solicitors or accountants needs to be sued, the appropriate mechanism is to name all of the partners. There can only be a limited number. However, the difficultly that arises, which is inspiring Deputy Bacik’s Bill, is when it comes to an identity such as a religious order. To be frank, it is implausible to try to institute proceedings against every single member of that religious order, particularly when there is a requirement for the purpose of proceedings that court papers, whether plenary summons or statements of claim, are served on each defendant. It is clearly the case that there is a huge advantage in having a statutory mechanism available that allows the court to nominate an appropriate individual as the nominated defendant. It is also important to point out, however, as I mentioned earlier, that the Bill raises practical and legal concerns regarding prospective knowledge of awards of damages and issues in relation to the retrospective effect of the legislation, including for cases already initiated and live before the courts. More importantly, the Bill proposes a one-year window outside the limitation period provided for in the Statute of Limitations to enable any proceedings to which the Bill applies to be brought within 12 months of its enactment. It would also appear to revive expired causes of action. Reform of the Statute of Limitations would have implications for the State, not just the cohort identified in the Bill. In effect, one of the complicating and complex issues raised and provided for in Deputy Bacik’s Bill is that cases that are, at present, statute-barred would no longer be statute-barred in certain circumstances because of this one-year extension provided to the statute, pursuant to the terms of this Bill. As Deputy Bacik will appreciate, this is a complex legal and constitutional issue. Given the legal policy and constitutional complexity of the issues contained in the Bill and those currently being examined by the interdepartmental subgroup, the views of the Office of the Attorney General were sought again. It indicated that there are significant and complex policy and legal issues that require further in-depth analysis. Deputy Bacik inquired what the reason is for a six-month timed amendment. For the purpose of individuals in the Gallery, a timed amendment means there is a vote on the Second Stage of the Bill, and I am proposing a timed amendment of six months. The effect of that will mean that the legislation will pass Second Stage on the 25 December 2026. It puts a time period on it and ensures that Second Stage will be passed. While that time will pass quickly, it provides my Department and the Office of the Attorney General with an opportunity to consider the complex legal issues identified here. I know Deputy Bacik will be anxious to ensure that this legislation proceeds promptly. Certainly, it will pass Second Stage by the end of the year. During that period, I will have an opportunity to secure further advice from the Office of the Attorney General and internally within my Department. I was the person who proposed at government on Tuesday that we have a timed amendment. In general, as colleagues will know, timed amendments generally operate for a period of a year but I sought six months in this instance. Having that time period will enable me to get the necessary advice that I require. I assure Deputy Bacik that if there are mechanisms to advance her legislation, I will have no difficulty in advancing them or adopting the Bill and trying to reformulate it if some changes are needed. I conclude by saying that I brought the memorandum to Government seeking approval for this Bill be read a Second Time on this day six months to allow for consideration of the legal and policy implications of provisions of the Bill. I confirm this was endorsed by Cabinet. I thank Deputy Bacik and commend her on the legislation. I recognise its importance. Although this measure may only be necessary in limited circumstances, it is nonetheless a statutory provision that should be in place to enable people to bring proceedings.

Sentiment score: 0.06

I apologise, as I had to step out for a number of minutes to meet a group that I had a long-standing arrangement with. I thank Deputy Bacik again for putting forward this legislation. As I indicated earlier on, it is important legislation that aligns with Government policy but there are areas in respect of it that I need to give consideration to. I also want to speak in general about how we get justice. It is important from the point of view of survivors that we emphasise and recognise that justice in Ireland can only be delivered through the courts. The courts are there to deliver justice. In the first instance, when people are survivors of sexual abuse or rape, the first port of call, hopefully, is a criminal court where the perpetrator of the heinous crime can be held to account. That is the primary way that liability and criminal responsibility is apportioned and individuals can be held liable before criminal courts for their heinous crimes and attacks upon survivors. In order for that to occur, however, it involves a significant amount of effort on the part of the person who makes the complaint and proceeds and pursues the claim through the courts. We all saw it recently in terms of what happened in another jurisdiction north of the Border recently when you look at the process that had to be gone through in order for the complainants in that trial to achieve justice before the criminal courts. The criminal courts are where justice is provided in terms of the apportionment of criminal liability. However, justice can be delivered and administered through the civil courts. That is the mechanism that this legislation seeks to engage with. Even though an individual may be criminally responsible for the heinous act of sexual assault or rape, there may also be others associated with that individual who have a broader responsibility and a fiduciary duty that results in them have a liability for the actions of that person. That is why, in so many instances, in situations that arise where people are abused and assaulted by persons who are part of an institution, that institution can be held liable if it can be established that the institution did not take the necessary steps to protect individuals who are vulnerable, such as schoolchildren, who are within the responsibility of the person who carried out the criminal act. That is why, in many instances, it is necessary and appropriate for people to institute proceedings in the civil courts against unincorporated bodies that have a responsibility and liability for the actions of an individual. I know Deputy Bacik is not saying this, but there are many times when people do things on their own and the entity has no responsibility for it. If a member of a political party does something on their own without anyone within the political party being aware of it, the political party should not have responsibility for it. Where there are circumstances which are apparent that the unincorporated body is aware of the actions of the individual or has reports made to them about the dangerous actions of the individual and they do nothing about it, or, even worse, they move the person elsewhere in the knowledge that these serious allegations have been made, in that context, there is a liability before the civil courts that will fall upon the unincorporated body. In those instances, victims who come before the civil courts who want to institute proceedings should be able to institute those proceedings in a readily accessible manner. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that in circumstances where the unincorporated entity will not give a representative's name or will not nominate an individual to be a representative defendant, the court should step in by directing an individual who will be the nominated representative and defendant. The reason that is a form of justice is that justice does provide that damages are a remedy that are to be payable by a wrongdoer in respect of the offences that were committed by that wrongdoer or for which that entity is responsible for. I will conclude by recognising the important role that survivors play in terms of legislation. I have no doubt that this legislation was inspired by the narrative of survivors. I will be back here considering these matter in the Houses in due course.

Sentiment score: 0.01