Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 2009

Vol. 672 No. 3

Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the draft Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 (Section 5) (Specified Period) Order, 2009, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 22nd January, 2009.

The operation of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is governed by the terms of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and the amended Act of 2005. Under section 5(5)(a) of the principal Act, the commission is statutorily obliged to publish its report to the general public within the specified period. The current specified period is due to expire on 31 January 2009 and this extension is required in order to allow the commission to comply with its statutory obligations and to publish its report during the specified period.

As prescribed by the Act, the Department has consulted the commission on the requirement and timeframe for the extension. The commission, which is independent of the Department in the performance of its functions, has requested an extension of four months to the end of May 2009 to allow for completion of the report and to make the necessary preparations for its publication and release to the general public.

The chairperson, the honourable Mr. Justice Seán Ryan, in a letter to the Department dated 19 January 2009, has confirmed that the commission is currently finalising the report, which is expected to consist of up to 3,500 pages. The current position is that more than 90% of the material is being given final approval by the commissioners and the remainder will be completed before mid-February. At that time, the report will be sent to the printers and the printing and proofing process will begin.

When the previous extension was sought in May 2008, the commission had indicated to the Department that it hoped to be in a position to forward the report to the printers by the end of November 2008, with a further period of two months being allowed in which to finalise the printing and proofing process. Consequently, the previous specified period was extended to the end of January 2009 on foot of those advices received from the commission.

However, the chairperson has now indicated that the work and time involved in the printing, proofing and publication of the report was underestimated. All focus to date has been on completing the writing of the report but the commission is now in a position to be more accurate about the schedule of work required leading to the publication of the report. Under the terms of section 5(5) of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000, an order to extend the term of the Commission must be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

One of the primary functions of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is to provide those, who previously had no such facility, with an opportunity to discuss their experiences of childhood abuse to an experienced and sympathetic forum. For many former residents of institutions, this therapeutic process is all that they require of the commission. However, many others have sought to have their allegations of abuse inquired into.

To ensure that both strands could be accommodated, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 provided for two distinct committees, the confidential committee and the investigation committee. In providing these two separate fora, this has ensured, on the one hand, the right to confidentiality of those who wanted only to access the therapeutic role of the commission and, on the other hand, the right to natural justice of those persons accused of abuse.

The confidential committee has provided a forum for 1,090 victims of abuse to recount their experience on an entirely confidential basis. The investigation committee investigated complaints and allegations made to it and provided a forum for 900 victims to be interviewed or to attend hearings. Therefore, the investigation committee has a dual role in facilitating victims who wish to recount their experiences and to have allegations of abuse fully inquired into.

The investigation committee also held public hearings into a number of specific institutions. Evidence has also been submitted to the investigation committee, at public hearings in relation to various Departments including the Departments of Education and Science, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

On completion of its investigations, the commission will publish and release its report to the general public. The final report will be based on the findings and subsequent reports of both the confidential and investigation committees. The Act provides that, in its report, the commission may identify institutions in which abuse occurred and the persons responsible for such abuse and may make findings in regard to the role and responsibility of management and regulatory authorities. The report, however, following the recommendation of the commission, will not make findings on any individual case. The commission's report may also contain recommendations on actions to address the continuing effects of the abuse and actions to be taken to safeguard children from abuse in the future.

I urge Deputies to approve this resolution by supporting the motion. By doing so, they will enable the commission to fulfil its statutory obligations by publishing its report within the specified period. By supporting this motion, they will provide a legal basis through which the Government and this House have previously decided the commission would report.

I must interrupt the Minister as the time allocated for this motion is limited.

We have got the message.

In the limited time available to me, I must register my protest at the fact that only 20 minutes has been allowed for the debate on this serious matter in the House tonight. When I last spoke on this matter last May, as did Deputy Quinn and others, I asked if we were giving the commission enough time to allow for its report to be published and printed. I was told on that occasion that the time stipulation, which at that time was the end of January this year, was sufficient. Under this motion, we will give the commission more time on the basis of a request from Mr. Justice Ryan, the chairperson of the commission, and I fully understand the reason for that.

The commission is a creature of this House. It has been caused to be established by this House and its terms of reference are a matter for this House. The notion that in 20 minutes Members can make their contributions on this motion is unacceptable.

Are we giving the commission enough time to complete this work by providing for an extension of another four months? I would like the Minister to reply to that question. What is the problem in extending the specified period even further? If the commission publishes its report within three or four months, that would be fine and if not, what would be the problem? Why does the Minister not set a date of the end of October, November or the end of the year for the specified period? There is nothing that precludes the commission from publishing its report before that date. I repeat a point I made last May, namely, that we are setting a time limit for this work that may well be unrealistic.

The second reason I cite this point, and this is the more substantial issue, is that the Minister must be aware that since the judgment of Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill, the terms of reference of the commission have been effectively extended in terms of those who can now seek compensation, namely, those who were over the age of 18 in residential care at the time of this entire saga. I am aware the Government has appealed this matter to the Supreme Court and it is a matter for it to determine, on the basis of legal argument and judgment, the veracity of the O'Neill judgment that was given last October.

By giving the commission an additional four months to complete this work, are we flying in the face of a serious judgment given by Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill in the High Court? His argument in that judgment, which is currently law, is that those persons over 18 years of age — between the ages of 18 and 21 — should have been included in the terms of reference because at that stage, in terms of Irish law, they were regarded, effectively, as minors. Are we putting the cart before the horse? By the granting this restrictive additional four months, which the Minister is proposing to the House, are we saying, effectively, that case is null and void? We cannot make that judgment, I submit, until such time as the Supreme Court has come to a determination on the High Court ruling. I understand the Minister's dilemma on this issue but I suggest to him, and I ask him to reply to this substantive point, that it would be more sensible to allow us more time than the four months.

We are in a financial crisis. If ever there was an example of the most reckless, disgraceful, Fianna Fáil cute hoor deal in this country it was the deal struck by Deputy Michael Woods and the Fianna Fáil Government in 2002. That deal effectively allowed the religious orders to walk away with a liability of €128 million. I understand that at last count the total cost of this will be in excess of €1.2 billion. We are looking for cuts of €2 billion this year and already, in this case, the State stands liable for €1 billion because of the disgraceful deal that the Minister's Government negotiated in its dying days in 2002, a deal about which the Department of Finance at the time had severe reservations. It was railroaded through for some reason nobody has been able to explain. I submit it was a disgraceful deal and the people have been paying the price ever since.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. I shall take four minutes and perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might let me know when one minute remains. I very much support the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Hayes. I will address my comments as quickly as I can in order to facilitate my colleague in Sinn Féin.

This motion gives me the opportunity to discuss another State agency created to respond to the outcry over child abuse in State institutions, namely, the Residential Institutions Redress Board. As Deputy Hayes said, the deal signed by the then Minister for Education, Deputy Michael Woods, is unacceptable in terms of what we now know. In view of time constraints I do not wish to repeat what he said. It is worthy of my support.

I will say the following in support of this motion, which my party will support. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is a worthy effort by the State to provide explanations and accountability in respect of abuses which happened under its authority. The involvement by the Catholic Church in these abuses is a legacy of the particular dynamics of church-State relations during most of the 20th century. However, although efforts have been made to overcome this legacy, there is still, sadly, plenty of evidence in modern Ireland to show that this complicated relationship fails to put victims of abuse first. For example, we have had the recent revelations in the diocese of Cloyne where the bishop clearly failed to report cases of child abuse. We have also seen the case of Louise O'Keeffe, where the State claimed it was not responsible for the abuses she suffered. These are signs that even ten years after the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was set up by the State, the State still has a lot of soul searching to do when it comes to accepting responsibility for the abuses caused by the church-State relationship.

It is reasonable to grant time with regard to this matter although I am in line with Deputy Hayes that there should be some flexibility. Perhaps this will spur those concerned to act. I do not get any sense that the modern church has learned from mistakes of the past. I would like the Minister to indicate in his response what course of action, if any, he and the Minister of State with responsibility for children and young people, Deputy Andrews, propose to take with regard to the non-compliance with State law by members of certain dioceses.

I thank Deputy Quinn.

Sinn Féin supports the motion that will allow an extension of the specified period for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. We are conscious that the report that will be produced by the commission is on a subject whose complexities should not be taken lightly, or rushed. The difficulties of conducting such investigations are not underestimated by me or by my colleague Deputies. Although the commission has offered a forum for victims of abuse to recount their experience and avail of counselling through the health services, the report will not solve the issues arising out of abuse in this State, including the fact that many people who were abused during the decades of collusion between the State, the church and the Garda are not entitled to compensation under the residential institutions redress scheme.

Sinn Féin welcomed the recent High Court ruling that those who were abused in residential institutions up to the age of 21 will be entitled to seek redress. We believe, however, it is equally immoral that we are still witness to cases where people are excluded from redress schemes due to the location of their abuse, such as the case of Marie Therese O'Loughlin, who embarked on a hunger strike outside this building in order to have the Morning Star hostel added to the list of qualifying institutions under the Act. I wish to send good wishes from this House this evening to Marie Therese.

We call on the Government to take note of this, and to implement the long overdue robust scheme of child protection and prevention of child abuse, in order that such commissions will not be required in the future.

I thank all the Deputies who contributed and I shall try to respond as best I can to some of the issues they raised.

The judgment which Deputy Hayes mentioned refers to the Residential Institutions Redress Board and not to the commission. With regard to the report and the four-month extension, that request came from Mr. Justice Ryan. He indicated clearly that over 90% of the report has been completed and that he is satisfied he can complete the rest of it by mid-February. It will then be sent for printing. At this stage he is happy that the report will be ready at the end of May and indicates that this period will give sufficient time to the commission to complete its work. In terms of people working on the report, Mr. Justice Ryan indicated that during that period paralegal people will be employed in finalising the work. He feels justified in looking for the four extra months which will give him more than adequate time to complete the report.

With regard to the Louise O'Keeffe case it is appropriate to say that the court held there was no employee-employer relationship, de facto or otherwise, between the teacher and the State defendants. I advise the Dáil that the issue of costs is to be heard this week.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will not press them?

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

The Government will bankrupt this woman.

Let us hear what the courts decide and we will then look at that issue.

The interpretation section of the Act defined the term "child" and other cognate expressions as somebody who had not attained 18 years. This operated to exclude the applicant who was over 18 when initially placed in the institution. However, at the time the applicant was placed in the institution, she was regarded under the prevailing law as a minor as the age of majority at that time was 21 years. "JD" subsequently took a judicial review to appeal the decision of the board's review committee. The State is appealing this case to the Supreme Court and we are awaiting confirmation of a date for the hearing. In the circumstances I believe the Deputies will understand it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on any detail of the case pending the outcome of that appeal.

In the report produced by the Committee of Public Accounts in March 2005 on the indemnity agreement, it was noted that the Government decided to establish a statutory redress scheme regardless of whether the religious orders would contribute to that scheme, and that in securing a meaningful contribution from the congregations, the Government achieved its baseline level of €128 million.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share