Last week the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill passed all stages in the Dail, and will come before the Seanad early in the new year. The Act is part of the package of responses by the Government to the outcry about the institutional abuse of children sparked by the States of Fear programme. But many victims feel it will leave them worse off. The Irish branch of Survivors of Sex Abuse (SOCA) called for the Bill to be opposed, on two grounds. They objected to the fact that physical abuse was excluded from the scope of the new legislation, and also to the wording of the section dealing with the time limit on the statute of limitations. This will now run from the time victims became psychologically fit to take legal action. The issue of physical abuse is being considered by the Law Reform Commission.

Referring to the changes relating to the statute of limitations, SOCA says it would mean that victims of, for example, teacher Donal Dunne could not take civil action because they reported the assaults in the 1980s. They could therefore be said to have been psychologically capable of taking civil action within three years of reporting the abuse, and have therefore run out of time - even though they were barred from taking action at the time.

The issue of the statute of limitations has dogged victims of child abuse for a long time. It received its most sustained exposure during the Sophia McColgan case, where she sued the North-Western Health Board and local GP, Dr Desmond Moran, for failure to protect her from abuse by her father. The case was eventually settled out of court.

However, before it was settled counsel for the health board and the doctor argued that the case was "statute barred", that is she had run out of the time allowed for the taking of civil action for compensation for an injury received. That time limit is set at three years, and she should, they argued, have taken action within three years of reaching the age of majority.

Her counsel, Mr James Nugent, made the case that the effect of the abuse was to make her mentally incapable of taking action within the time set under the statute of limitations. A number of experts gave evidence that the effect of such a degree of sexual and physical abuse was to make a person mentally incapable of managing their affairs, especially in areas which impinged on the abuse.

Because the case was settled the High Court did not rule on the matter, so there is no case law clarifying this issue. The new legislation is seeking to deal with it by starting the three-year period from the point at which the person is able to make a reasoned decision to take an action.

However, this could rule out many victims. Let us say a 30-year-old victim went to a solicitor four or five years ago seeking to sue the institution in which he (or she) was abused. That solicitor could have advised at the time that he could not take the case because he had run out of time and was statute barred.

Meanwhile the perpetrator of the abuse has died, so no criminal case can be taken. If, under the new legislation, this victim seeks to take a new civil case in order to expose what happened, he could face the argument that he had acquired the capacity to take a case many years ago, and was now - again - statute-barred.

Ms Jan O'Sullivan of the Labour Party, Mr Charlie Flanagan of Fine Gael and Mr Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party all tabled amendments seeking to the answer some of the objections of SOCA to the Bill, but these were voted down last week. However, the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, indicated he would consider what could be done before the Bill is brought before the Seanad.

A spokesman for his Department said there were legal and constitutional difficulties with allowing people who made efforts to take action before to benefit from this legislation.

He said there were legal principles at stake, including that of legal certainty - a case should be finally decided when a court makes a decision which is not appealed. He also said there was a problem of double jeopardy - of exposing people to being sued twice on the same set of facts.

"At the same time there is popular concern that the people who brought this issue to public attention should not be excluded," he said. "The Minister wants to have exhaustive consultation, and is now consulting with the Attorney General on this. There is a general wish to do what can be done to meet the concerns of these people."

One possibility would be for the State to pay compensation because these people were caught up in a specific way, according to a lawyer who has represented victims. "It could be argued that the State failed them and the State should now compensate," he said. He said there were already a number of compensation claims against religious orders settled out of court.

But Mr John Kelly of SOCA would not be happy with this. "Blanket compensation is not the answer. I know there are deals being done through the back door already. But how are we going to uncover the truth?

"Because about 80 per cent of the perpetrators are dead or plead guilty, there is no criminal trial. The only way we can get at the truth is to take civil action. I need to know who knew what was going on, what they knew, and who kept quiet."

Part of the answer, at least, may lie with the Commission on Child Sex Abuse set up last May. High Court judge Ms Justice Laffoy was appointed to head it, and it will hear victims' stories. It is understood she has put proposals to Government about its powers and terms of reference.

Mr Kelly is concerned it will not have the power to investigate fully what went on and why it was allowed to continue.

"Justice Laffoy is a woman with integrity and if she gets the power she will uncover the truth. But we don't think she will get the power to go in and order the handing over of the records, for example. This is not about money. It is about uncovering the truth. Why did the State allow the institutions to do what they did? I want accountability and I want atonement."

Ensuring the Laffoy Commission has all the powers it needs to investigate this issue may be one way out of the legal quagmire.