By any standards, Louise O'Keeffe is an extremely courageous woman. Abused as a young child and, no doubt, deeply traumatised as a result, blocked, bullied, browbeaten and threatened by the State, she never lay down. She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and that court ruled this week that the Irish State is directly liable for the inhuman and degrading treatment of an eight year old girl. It further ruled that this State offered that girl, now an adult, no remedy for that abuse. The court could have gone much further. It could have said, correctly, that this State prevented any degree of fairness, justice or resolution of this case for Louise O'Keeffe.

Responsibility and liability of this State in this case has now been firmly established.

I hear that the Taoiseach has, in the past few minutes, said some words of apology to Louise, which is welcome. It should be said, however, that given the enormity of the wrong done to this woman and to others, those words of apology should have been uttered in this Chamber. Can the Tánaiste tell me whether that apology extends to those other victims of abuse in primary schools? I understand 135 other adults brought cases similar to that of Louise O'Keeffe claiming the Department of Education and Skills and the State did not provide protection and had a liability for the abuse they suffered. As the Tánaiste knows, following the Supreme Court judgment in 2008 in the case taken by Ms O'Keeffe, they received threatening letters telling them they would face legal costs unless they dropped their cases. Is that threat now removed? Can the Tánaiste tell me why last year the Government argued before the European Court of Human Rights that this State had no liability for what happened to children like Louise O'Keeffe? How is it that officials and counsel were sent, on the behalf of the State and this Government, to again attempt to face down this courageous woman?

Louise O'Keeffe should never have been subjected to abuse. She should have had a carefree childhood. Her case reminds us of the shocking scale of historical abuse, failures and inaction to protect children. I admire Louise O'Keeffe and I join with the Taoiseach in apologising to her for what happened in that school and for the horrendous experience she had to go through. We now have the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, which is a very substantial one of about 82 pages, and we will discuss it at the Government meeting next Tuesday.

This Government has addressed clearly and comprehensively the whole issue of the protection of children. It is absolutely and without question a priority for the Government. We have created a dedicated Department of Children and Youth Affairs and have held a referendum on children's rights. Within the education sector, all schools are required to adhere to child protection procedures which give direction and guidance to school authorities and school personnel in the implementation of Children First when dealing with allegations and suspicions of child abuse. All primary schools now fully implement the Stay Safe programme, which plays a valuable role in helping children to develop the skills necessary to enable them to recognise and resist abuse and potentially abusive situations.

The Child and Family Agency is being officially launched today. It will be the first agency dedicated to supporting our children and families and to promoting the development, welfare and protection of our children. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has published updated Children First guidelines and led a national effort to improve awareness of the need to report child protection concerns, leading to a major increase in reports which are up by one third on 2011. The Minister has also published the heads of the Children First legislation and the revised Bill will be published in March. The legislation will place obligations on professionals and organisations working with children to report suspected child protection concerns, to share information and to engage in inter-agency and multi-disciplinary working. The Minister for Justice and Equality has also commenced the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and it is now the responsibility of every member of society to protect and defend children from sexual and other abuse.

It is no longer acceptable, and it should never have been, that secrecy or ignorance on the part of those with knowledge of what were criminal offences could protect those who perpetrated those crimes. As I said, we will consider the implications of the judgment at the Government meeting on Tuesday.

Not alone should Louise O'Keeffe not have suffered abuse at the tender age of eight in what should have been a very safe environment of her primary school, she should not have been harangued, bullied and threatened by the State. I am sure the Tánaiste will agree with me on that point but that is precisely what happened through the High Court, the Supreme Court and as far as the European Court of Human Rights. It was the Tánaiste's Government that argued the case against Louise O'Keeffe as recently as a year ago. That draws a very serious question over what he said in terms of child abuse being a historical issue. He lists the many legislative achievements, and I applaud them. They are long overdue and very necessary but so too is the necessary sea-change in terms of how the State responds to the Louise O'Keeffes of this world. There is an established pattern that the State and Government close ranks and try to shut down any call for justice from people like Louise O'Keeffe.

A question, please. You are over time.

Let it be said that all of the protections which now exist and are contemplated are a direct result of brave people like Louise O'Keeffe stepping forward. Can the Tánaiste answer my question? I asked him whether the Taoiseach's apology and his apology extends to all victims of abuse in primary schools. I would like to hear him say clearly that his Government and the State now fully accept that the State has a liability for the abuse suffered by all of these survivors and that it has a liability for any current or future instances of abuse of that nature.

Thank you, Deputy.

We can all agree on Louise's bravery-----

Will you recognise the Chair?

-----and on the significance of this judgment but what we need to hear from the Government now are clear words and the actions it intends to take-----

Deputy, did you not hear me? You are way over your time.

-----and an apology to one and all.

Again, I make it very clear that we apologise to Louise O'Keeffe. She should not have suffered what she suffered and I apologise to her for what occurred in that school.

And in the courts.

As the Deputy knows, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment on this case, I think, in 2009, certainly some time before we came into office. That was the legal position at the time. The Deputy raised the issue about the State accepting liability for current and future cases in terms of what happens in our schools. There are very significant implications in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. We have had a system in this country of schools operating under a system of patronage. My understanding of the Supreme Court judgment in 2009 was that it accepted that system of patronage and, therefore, ultimate liability did not rest with the State.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has very serious implications for the relationship between the State and the patronage of our schools. As the Deputy knows, the Minister for Education and Skills has already undertaken a process of considering the whole issue of patronage of our schools. That issue will now be given an added significance by the judgment in this case. That is one of the issues.

The Deputy raised the situation in terms of current and future responsibility by the State. That is among the issues that Government will have to consider arising from this judgment. The implications of it are profound for the patronage system of schools and for the relationship between the State and patrons of schools.

The Tánaiste did not answer my questions.