I raise a significant and very serious legacy issue affecting the State. It is one which, in many ways, informs how we continue to approach victims of sexual abuse. In the last number of weeks, we have, rightly, had very significant coverage of the mother and baby home scandal, the way in which single women were treated and the absence of any human response to that. At the same time that we have this outrage, however, the State is behaving in an appalling manner regarding those who were victims of child sexual abuse in primary schools and who have not had any or any significant redress. What many of these victims have gone through is shocking. I have met on a number of occasions an individual I can name, John Allen, who was sexually abused by a Christian Brother. For 17 years, he has tried to seek justice. He is living in a council house and his parents are in care. He is in very difficult financial circumstances and suffering from a chronic disease. He has had huge anxiety and trauma as a result of this. He has been dragged through the courts. There are many other victims as well. Deputy O'Dea has raised this issue in respect of 15 victims who are in a similar situation and have come to him about it. I raised this issue with the Taoiseach in October last.

The State fought against culpability for a long time on this one. Louise O'Keeffe had a major breakthrough in the European Court of Human Rights in 2014. I do this in a non-political way because all previous Governments are culpable in terms of fighting that up to 2014. It is since 2014 that we have had a bogus interpretation and application of the Louise O'Keeffe judgment to the victims which is just shocking, in particular in terms of this idea of a prior complaint. How in the name of God is a child supposed to know whether someone complained to a school manager about an abuser? Nevertheless, that is the litmus test for access to the redress scheme. It is cynical beyond belief. Likewise, it is clearly designed as a ready-up to limit access to the scheme. Many of the victims are in a very poor financial state and some have suicidal ideation because of the trauma that has been visited on them. They have been to the Supreme Court and back and to the High Court and back. They can no longer get redress in our courts notwithstanding the European Court of Human Rights.

I have met with Dr. Conor O'Mahony of the UCC child law clinic to go through this with him and a case is now being prepared to go back to the ECHR. We had all the outrage of two weeks ago, but this is all going on under our noses while the Government resists a proper, humane response. Are we seriously saying to these victims, notwithstanding the breakthrough judgment in the case of Louise O'Keeffe, that they will have to go back to the ECHR to get proper application of that judgment? I put it to the Taoiseach that the State needs to engage very quickly and very proactively on this and stop adding insult to the injury of victims of child sexual abuse in our primary schools.

Every generation seems to carry with it its own set of scandals. I met Louise O'Keeffe and admired her courage in making the breakthrough in her case and the years that she fought for that. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan was Minister for Education and Skills and dealing with this when the outcome eventually occurred. The State has been cautious, to put it mildly, about this. What Deputy Martin is talking about now in the language he uses here is not just those who have come forward and were sexually abused in primary schools, but about looking at all the generations who went through primary schools, some of whom might not have understood the nature of sexual abuse or whatever. It seems to me that what Deputy Martin is saying is that we should go beyond just the cases that have been mentioned by him and one that was mentioned by Deputy O'Dea. I have no idea how many thousands of cases may come forward with views that they were sexually abused or not in the primary school system which has been up and running since the foundation of the State and long before that. If Deputy Martin is asking me that we reflect further on the preparation of a further case going back to the European Court of Human Rights, that is one thing. If he is now asking me to comment on the possibility of an enormous scale of sexual abuse over 100 years in the primary school system, that is a different matter. The language of what he has been referring to has been that people in the primary school system are being abused right under our noses.

I did not say that.

Gabh mo leithscéal then. If he is referring to the particular cases where we know sexual abuse was involved, that is a different matter.

The Taoiseach knows what I said.

Deputy Martin is talking about the primary school system. There are others out there who have claimed sexual abuse. There are some people on the other side of the argument who have had allegations of sexual abuse against them who were not guilty. As Deputy Martin knows, this is an enormously complex personal set of tragedies and circumstances. When the Deputy raises an issue like this with the possibility that it could be very, very broad indeed - and he mentioned the primary school system and all of those who have gone through that system - it raises the nature of sexual or other abuse that applied through the generations and is something we need to talk about. If the question he is asking me is about John Allen or the others who were involved in cases similar to that of Louise O'Keeffe where the point he mentioned is correct there would have to be prior notification and each case is taken on its individual way, that is a different matter. Deputy Martin might just clarify for me what it is he is actually asking. Is it about those cases that are parallel to the case of Louise O'Keeffe or is it for an analysis of the entire primary school system over the generations?

I do not want to accuse the Taoiseach of being disingenuous but I believe he is being so in this case. He knows full well what I am saying. It is the application by the Government of an interpretation of the Louise O'Keeffe judgment. The invocation of the prior complaint mechanism has no moral status and, I would argue, no legal status. Only seven out of 360 cases have been settled via this mechanism. I am speaking about people where convictions have taken place and the abusers are now in jail. In John Allen's case this is exactly what has happened, but he has been pursuing justice for 17 years. People had to discontinue their cases in the courts because of the threat of legal costs against them-----

By the State.

-----by the State.

Similar to what was done before.

I am not speaking about every item or accusation. I never said that and the Taoiseach knows it. Let us not introduce confusion or try to create a fog around this. It is very specific. I ask the Taoiseach and the Minister to engage with Dr. Conor O'Mahony in UCC, who has done an lot of work on this and has made submissions to Europe on it.

Thank you, Deputy.

This is not complex, it is quite simple. What happened after the Louise O'Keeffe judgment, it seems to me, is the Government asked how the hell would it limit this and how would it prevent genuine people who have been abused and whose abusers have been convicted and limit the numbers. This is what is going on and it is scandalous. What gets me every now and again is that we had all the outrage two or three weeks ago, but the current policy and current approaches by State victimise even more those who have already been abused. We must remember the Louise O'Keeffe judgment was not about prior complaint.

The time is up, Deputy.

It was about the lack of proactive measures by the State to protect children in schools such as an inspectorial regime. This was the essence of the Louise O'Keeffe judgment. What is now going on is a scandal - the degree to which these victims have been left so high and dry. Many of them are in very difficult circumstances socially, financially and healthwise. It cries out for action and I appeal to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Skills to engage humanely on this issue.

I am glad the Deputy clarified that and that he is not making a political point, in that some of these cases went through when a number of Government were in situ. The European Court of Human Rights found the State has liability in cases of sexual abuse in day schools and primary schools in specific circumstances. These circumstances are where there was a prior complaint-----

No.

That is not correct.

-----and where the case was not statute barred.

What about the first victim?

The Government put in place a process to provide compensation for all victims of sexual abuse who qualify under these criteria.

The Taoiseach is not quoting the court judgment.

The Government is following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights-----

That is not the ruling.

-----and the approach the Government has taken has been upheld in the Irish High Court in a recent case.

No, it has not.

As an aside from this, yesterday the Government approved radical reform of the courts system in the country for the first time in more than 150 years-----

That has nothing to do with it.

-----to be conducted by Mr. Justice Kelly.

The Taoiseach is going well there.

Deputy Martin can nod all he likes. He had his question.

What does that have to do with the question?

Another ten years.

We are talking about the ex gratia payments.

I know the Deputies are bursting with information.

In December 2014, the State Claims Agency, which manages such cases on behalf of the State, was mandated to offer out of court settlements in current and future litigation were the circumstances of the case come within the terms of the European Court judgment and the case is not statute barred, and offers of €84,000 with costs have been made by the State Claims Agency in a number of cases. In July 2015, the Government agreed an ex gratia payment of up to €84,000 plus a specified amount for costs be offered to those who initiated and subsequently discontinued their legal proceedings against the State where it is established their claims were not statute barred prior to the case being discontinued and where they can establish a prior complaint to the school authority or an earlier school authority of sexual abuse by the school employee who abused them when they were children either in primary or post-primary schools. Survivors can submit the details to the State Claims Agency. Where plaintiffs institute claims against the State for historic child abuse which are not statute barred and which come within the terms of the Louise O'Keeffe ruling, the State Claims Agency is authorised to make settlement offers. I cannot comment on individual State cases, but this information may well be relevant to some of the names mentioned by the Deputy or maybe not.

I have all that. That is not helpful at all.

Can I just point out to Members that Standing Orders of the House, not invented by me but ordered by the House, provide for eight minutes for each question. This question has taken 12 minutes.