I am sure the Minister will recall the case of Louise O'Keeffe, who was only eight years old when she was abused by her primary school teacher in County Cork in the 1970s. As the Minister knows, she sought justice against the State and against the Department of Education and Skills. Her case was relentlessly contested by the State. She was pursued at every step. The State won in the domestic courts. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the State, the State Claims Agency wrote to other victims to tell them that if they continued with their cases, the State would pursue them for costs.

Not surprisingly, faced with the prospect of huge legal bills of hundreds of thousands of euro and a Supreme Court ruling against them, 210 out of 250 victims dropped their cases. The Minister knows all of this. John Allen was one of those victims. Just like Louise O'Keeffe, he was sexually abused in his school. His abuser was tried and convicted yet there has been no justice for him. After years of injustice, Louise O'Keeffe did eventually obtain a judgment in her favour in the European Court of Human Rights. This judgment found the State to be in breach of its obligation to protect schoolchildren from sexual abuse and to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The State's response to that judgment has been extremely revealing, namely, a continued obsession with avoiding liability.

John Allen is now one of five victims who wish to re-open their cases against the State. They have sought to have their notice of discontinuance set aside in the High Court in the aftermath of the O'Keeffe judgment. However, the State continues to prevent Mr. Allen and other victims from pursuing justice and it contested his case and again succeeded. However, it should note the commentary of Mr. Justice Barrett ruling in the State's favour when he wondered whether victims would ever see the day when such injustice as may have been done to them was finally righted by a foot-dragging State.

When does the Government propose to stop dragging its feet? John Allen is back in the High Court today on a matter of costs. I want the Minister to give an absolute commitment to the Dáil that the State will not pursue Mr. Allen or other victims for costs in cases such as these. I also want him to tell us when the State will facilitate rather than frustrate victims from pursuing their just cases through our courts.

I understand that in respect of the cases that have arisen, the State has offered an ex gratia payment to those who suffered in this way. This payment is available to people and, as the Deputy recognised, many people have accepted it, which has allowed them to get some satisfaction without pursuing a lengthy, costly and difficult court case.

If people choose to pursue a continued case in the courts against the State, the State must assess the case being made. The State will not automatically concede in every case where this issue is being pursued in a legal way because there will be issues around the extent of State culpability which the State would be defending. I cannot give a blanket assurance relating to any court case that may be taken as to what position the State will take because the State must appraise on an individual basis the case that is being made, the extent to which it is culpable and the extent to which it should defend that case. The State must always take the details into account but it has recognised that injustice has been suffered here and while not acknowledging direct responsibility, it has recognised that the State ought to recognise that injustice and make a payment to the people affected. That is the position as I understand it.

I can get additional briefing for the Deputy but that is the general position that has been adopted. Ex gratia payments are being made recognising the very difficult circumstances people suffered but if the issue of where liability and responsibility lie is being contested in the courts, each individual case must be assessed by the legal advisers and this will remain the case.

I am not seeking additional briefing. I am seeking answers.

I am asking the State to change its course of action. The Government has an ex gratia scheme. It is instructive that it is ex gratia because, as the Minister concedes, it is a matter of denying liability.

Let me tell the Minister about his scheme. Of the 210 victims the State bullied into dropping their cases of abuse, 15 have applied to the scheme and have been determined. Of that 15, eight have failed. That is now the compassionate response to these victims. Not only did the Minister initially bully these individuals into not pursuing the State with threats of massive bills, but now he actually prevents them from reopening their cases and pursuing their very just cause through a court of law. I do not know how the Minister defends that. I certainly do not know how the Government talks about new politics when surely the acid test of new politics in the State is that the Government does not browbeat and ballyrag victims who were failed by the State.

I did not ask the Minister generally about costs but very specifically about John Allen who will be in the High Court. I want the Minister to give an assurance that this man, who was failed and bullied by the State and prevented from a remedy through the court------

The Deputy's point is made.

-----by the State will not now be fleeced for costs. I want the Minister to give that assurance now to the House and to John Allen.

The courts have to decide who is responsible for abuses and to what extent that responsibility is shared by those who are in a position of trust. That cannot be decided by the Oireachtas; it has to be decided by the courts. The State has recognised that people have been extremely damaged and hurt and in respect of that we have made payments and we will continue to make payments under an ex gratia scheme. I am not in a position to assign responsibility. That is a matter only for the courts. Where cases are being pursued by individuals, it is for the courts to determine. It is not for the Oireachtas to make those decisions. The same is true of costs; the issue of costs will have to be decided on the individual merits of the case. I am not privy to the merits of the case the Deputy mentioned and the case that will be made in the courts regarding costs. It is not up to me to offer any blanket view in the House as to how the State will deal with cases that are being brought against it.

The Minister is in charge of the Department and he is blocking people from taking their cases.

Courts decide these issues. The issues of responsibility that the Deputy has raised-----

Governments legislate.

The issue the Deputy is raising is that people have been damaged and where the responsibility for that lies. Obviously that lies-----

That matter is settled at European level.

-----in the primary instance with the individuals involved. Then the question is: does that extend to others? It is for the courts to decide where those responsibilities lie but the State has recognised that such people need to be supported.