Question: What is a hard-hearted Hanafin? Answer: a Government Minister whose actions cause misery and fear, writes Mary Raftery.
There was a time when this creature was known as a Noonan. The Noonan was defined by his cruel pursuit of people dying as a result of hepatitis C and the State's negligence. Last week, the Hanafin pounced. Two victims of child sexual abuse felt her sting.
A mother of two young children is now facing a bill of half-a-million euro as a result of her attempt to make the State take responsibility for the sexual abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of her school principal. And a man who has spent nine years fighting the State through the courts for the repeated rape and abuse he suffered as a small child in a residential institution is to have his agony prolonged.
Louise O'Keeffe's biggest fear is that they could take her house. She earns a modest salary from her full-time job, is separated and provides the main support for her children, aged seven and nine.
Her home is her only asset and she is literally terrified that she and the children could be thrown out on to the street as a result of the decision by the Minister for Education to recover the costs of the court action.
Louise had sued the Minister (Mary Hanafin) and the State for damages arising out of the sexual abuse she suffered when she was eight-years-old. Leo Hickey, then principal teacher at the Dunderrow national school in County Cork, pleaded guilty in 1998 to 21 sample charges of abusing a number of young girls at the school out of a total of 380 separate counts. He was sentenced to three years in jail.
Louise's argument was that, as the Department of Education funds the country's primary schools and pays the teachers' salaries, it has a responsibility to children who are injured by the actions of these teachers.
Perfectly reasonable, you might think. The State certainly has a moral responsibility to ensure the safety of children within the education system. However, legal responsibility is an entirely separate issue, and Louise lost her case in court. Judge Eamon de Valera found that the State was not liable for what had happened to Louise.
The paedophile principal teacher had not been employed by the State (even though it paid his salary), but by the school manager, who was the local priest. The priest had been appointed by the bishop, who was the school's patron. As the Minister for Education did not act as employer, the judge ruled, no liability attaches to the State as regards the behaviour of teachers.
This is an important judgment. It defines with crystal clarity the subservient role of the State in the area of education.
While the taxpayer foots the bills, there is no democratic control over the employment of teachers or their behaviour in schools. That authority rests entirely with the patron, who remains the local Catholic bishop in 95 percent of our national schools.
One might well ask, then, what is the point of having a department or Minister for Education at all, since they just dole out money with little or no control over how it is spent? Well, one answer is that the Minister is there to decide on such issues as to how to make victims of child abuse pay for having had the temerity to hold the State to account.
An excuse given was that the State Claims Agency, and not Ms Hanafin, took the decision to pursue Louise for the half-a-million euro in legal costs.
This claim should be recognised as a cynical diversionary tactic. Regardless of which particular agency acts on behalf of the State, the decisions taken are political ones, and consequently the clear responsibility of the Minister concerned. It was thus with the hepatitis C cases, as it is with Louise.
Spare a thought in the midst of all this for David Connellan, repeatedly sexually assaulted from the age of five at St Joseph's Industrial School in Kilkenny.
Last week, David won his case against the State (yes, the Minister for Education again, among others). He was awarded €300,000 in damages. This has major implications for the level of awards being given by the Residential Institutions Redress Board, which have been criticised for being much lower.
The decision by the State to immediately appeal the finding to the Supreme Court catapults David again into years of uncertainty. He also may face enormous bills for legal costs.
It should be remembered that the State (through the Minister for Education) has taken full responsibility for the abuse suffered by children in industrial schools, by virtue of providing an indemnity to the religious orders which managed them.
This is in sharp contradiction to its attitude to the abuse of children in day schools, as evinced by its robust pursuit of Louise.
The Hanafin would do well to remember the fate of her close relative, the Noonan. Ministers who are hard of heart sometimes, eventually get their comeuppance.