I record my support for Louise O'Keeffe regarding recent media interviews and how she has been treated by the State over successive years. She has demonstrated, not only on her own behalf but on behalf of other abuse victims, tenacity and a thirst for justice over many years. She took her initial complaint in 1997 and went to the High Court in 2004, the Supreme Court in 2006 and applied to the European Court of Human Rights in 2009. We have seen this case played out over the terms of three successive Fianna Fáil Governments and, subsequently, this Government. I have no difficulty with the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, coming to the House to explain, but I would prefer a much more detailed brief on where the State Claims Agency sits on this issue with reference to other cases. I understand the Minister has said she does not have all the available information to hand. Therefore, while I have sympathy for the amendment proposed to the Order of Business, I would much prefer to wait for the information from the State Claims Agency. Any abuse victim will say it is never about the money. It is not and should never be about the money in terms of recompense for very grave and difficult situations in which children were placed. However, every victim should be entitled to recognition for what he or she suffered and this is one way in which the Government could make redress to the victims concerned.

On the point raised by Senators Máiría Cahill and Mark Daly about-----

I am sorry for interrupting the Leader, but I omitted to second Senator Mark Daly's amendment. Please forgive me.

On the question raised by Senators Máiría Cahill and Mark Daly, since taking office the Government has sought to provide appropriate redress for those who experienced abuse and mistreatment across the State. In 2012 it established a residential institutions statutory fund to provide housing, health services and educational support for those who had survived physical, emotional and sexual abuse in residential educational institutions. We also commissioned a report to examine what had happened in the Magdalen laundries and in 2013 put in place a compensation scheme and made available medical support for the women whose lives had been irreparably damaged. A redress scheme was also established for survivors of the barbaric symphysiotomy procedures. It is right that the Government has acted to right some of the wrongs of the past. It is even more important that we continue to act to prevent future generations of children from experiencing such abuse. That is why the Government called for the holding of a referendum to enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution which was comfortably passed by the people. It is also why the Government has placed the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing, with mandatory reporting of all child protection concerns. It is the reason legislation is passing through the other House to improve our approach to the vetting of those who have contact with children.

The Senators are right in saying that in 2014 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Louise O'Keeffe and found that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the convention. The court awarded her €30,000 in damages and €85,000 in expenses. The Government did not quibble with this judgment in any way but moved immediately to make the payment to Ms O'Keeffe and publish and disseminate the findings of the court. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, immediately apologised to Ms O'Keeffe and the survivors of sexual abuse in schools for our collective failure to protect a generation of children from such appalling and degrading treatment. The Government also began an immediate examination of the general measures that might be required to meet the terms of the judgment and ensure the safety and protection of all children in the State. The commencement of the Children First Act has been part of its general response. The commencement of the vetting Act will, as I said, be another important step in this regard. The Children First interdepartmental implementation group has been specifically tasked with carrying out a detailed review of current and planned child protection mechanisms in the school system to assess the extent to which issues identified in the judgment have been addressed in the period since 1973.

The judgment in the O'Keeffe case relates to cases in which there was a prior complaint about sexual abuse to the school authority and in which no effective action was taken and children subsequently suffered. There is, however, no strict interpretation of what constitutes a prior complaint. Claimants are not required to come up with specific proof. While the State must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, there was a prior complaint, it does not insist on a strict evidential standard being met in assessing the material put forward by an applicant. An holistic approach in analysis has been taken and that is the basis on which the Government is offering an ex gratia payment to those who suffered historical sexual abuse. Under the approach agreed to by the Government, we have already reached settlements with six other individuals who experienced sexual abuse in school. Payments have been made to each of them.

I know that Ms O'Keeffe disagrees with this approach to a compensation scheme and that her views are heartfelt and expressed only with a wish to advance the cases of those who suffered in school. The State, however, has a broader obligation. While we have to take the view that we have to right some of the wrongs of the past, we also have to protect the resources of the State for investment in the safety of the next generation of children. The Government is taking the proper approach and striking the right balance. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Mark Daly, although I have expressed a comprehensive view on the Government's stance on and approach to the matter. Rather than proposing an amendment to the Order of Business, the Senator might raise the matter for discussion in the Commencement debate if he is seeking further information on it. I am sure the Minister will come into the House to take that debate.

Senator Ivana Bacik welcomed the commencement of the Fines Act, an issue we discussed previously. Rather than have people going to prison, there can now be an attachment of earnings order and other arrangements, which should be welcomed by all. The Senator also called for a debate on penal reform and rightly pointed out that we had seen very positive improvements under the Government in that regard. I do not think we will have time in the next few weeks, but we will try to see whether we can have a debate on the issue.

The cost of child care was referred to by a number of Senators. Senator Paschal Mooney discussed the high cost involved for the squeezed middle and he is right. Although I agree with him that there has been significant State investment in facilities, I can assure him that I have no intention of having a debate in this House on any of the promises or proposals of any political party prior to an election.

I am sorry I was tempted.