Child abuse payout plan submitted to Europe is unfair, claims campaigner

Children's rights campaigner Louise O'Keeffe has accused the Government of behaving like an Irish government of the 1930s by failing to tell Europe what exactly it is proposing by way of settlement offers to children sexually abused in primary schools.

Ms O’Keeffe said the State’s updated action plan failed to disclose how it proposes to compensate the victims of abuse in primary schools.

The plan was lodged last week with the Council of Europe in response to Ms O’Keeffe’s victory in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) last year.

She compared the Government’s approach to that of the Cumann na nGaedheal government in 1931, which opted not to publish the Carrigan report because it didn’t want to highlight the extent of child sexual abuse in the country.

“This Government is behaving in almost the same way because it doesn’t want Europe to know the settlement they are offering those abused in primary schools,” Ms O’Keeffe said. “They’re hiding it from Europe because they have not spelled it out clearly in their updated action plan. ”

Litigation

Ms O’Keeffe pointed to section 16 of the updated action plan lodged with the Council of Europe. This addresses article 13 of the ECHR judgment in her case and how the State is addressing litigation by victims of child sexual abuse in primary schools.

According to the plan, which is published on the council website, "the State Claims Agency, which is handling the relevant litigation, has reviewed its day school abuse cases to identify those that come within the parameters of the judgment.

“Consequent on that review, in December 2014, the Government approved proposals to offer out of court settlements to those bringing cases of schools child sexual abuse against the state where the cases come within the terms of the ECHR judgement.”

It adds: “It is likely that there will be cases that will not come within the terms of the ECHR judgement. The State Claims Agency will engage with litigants’ solicitors to clarify the position in cases to make settlement offers where appropriate.”

Complaint

Ms O’Keeffe criticised the submission, saying the State failed to say clearly it was interpreting the ECHR judgment in a manner that creates two categories of abuse victims: those abused before a complaint was made and those abused after a complaint was made.

“Essentially, what the State is saying is they will make a settlement offer to the pupil who was abused after a complaint was made but not acted upon,” she said. “But they won’t make any settlement offer to the pupil who was abused before any complaint was made. It’s discriminatory. But they are not saying that to Europe, they’re effectively hiding that from Europe.”

Ms O’Keeffe added that 12 of the 16 points made by the State in the new plan are exactly the same ones it made in a plan submitted to the Council of Europe in July.

“We are 12 months on from judgment in my case and the State is telling Europe that it has been unable to enact legislation on child protection because some legislative amendments were necessary,” she said. “There seems to be no urgency at all to ensure our children are protected.”

The Department of Education said the plan takes account of developments since July.