On behalf of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, I welcome Mr. Timothy O'Rourke and Mr. James McGuill who have asked to make a submission on the Commission to Inquire into the Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005. Before we begin, I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against persons outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now invite Mr. O'Rourke to make a presentation on behalf of the group.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2005: Presentation.
I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. My submission is an attempt to look at the issue of institutional and school abuse in the context of the emergence of abuse generally in Ireland. Against this background, I hope to show some of the difficulties encountered by people such as myself in arriving at this point and why the proposed amendment, if passed, would further alienate an already marginalised group of people. During the Second Stage debate on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, stated that the aim of the public hearings on the emergence of abuse was "to establish, on an historical basis, how child abuse as an issue emerged in the State". The hearings clearly did not achieve this aim.
There are two changes in the Bill before the committee that cause particular concern for people like myself. The first is the sampling of witnesses and the sampling of the evidence to be heard from those witnesses who may get a full hearing. Guaranteeing complainants a one hour interview is not a substitute for the loss of a full hearing. The proposed removal of the requirement of the commission to make findings that individuals committed abuse is the other main concern. Both amendments, if enacted, would be a complete reversal of promises made to complainants and a further injustice to them.
I have attempted in the past to report the problem of sexual abuse in schools and institutions. While trying to report what happened to myself and many of my friends in a national school. I was told by reliable people in the education system and in political life of their knowledge and concerns about many other cases where sexual abuse was believed to have occurred. In several of these cases, teachers had been removed from their jobs. It would be wrong to say people did not talk about sexual abuse until recently. In the case of Mr. Donal Dunne, parents and pupils complained about his sexual abuse in every decade from the 1940s to the 1990s.
Sexual abuse has been also known of in law. I refer to the book Time to Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Clergy in Ireland by Ms Helen Goode, Ms Hannah McGee and Mr. Ciaran O’Boyle, which mentions the Carrigan committee report. This book states “In 1931, the Carrigan committee reported that, according to the Garda Commissioner, there had been an increase in sexual crimes, in particular, such crimes against children in Ireland.” The report was circulated to the Government in 1931. It continues:
The Department of Justice attached a cautionary memo to the report warning that the allegations made therein were damaging to the standard of morality in the country. The Department also advised against publication of the report.
It states:
Failure to publish the Carrigan report meant that sexual abuse did not become an issue of public debate and the potential of the report to increase public awareness was never realised.
The Tuairim report of 1966 was more critical of industrial and reformatory schools than the previous 1936 Cussen report. Also in 1966, the Commission of Inquiry on Mental Health recommended that the problem of industrial schools should be examined. The Kennedy report of 1970 was described by Ms Mary Raftery as "one of the most damning indictments of the operation of any State system ever recorded in this country". In 1966 Mr. Dunne arrived in Walsh Island national school. After three years of sexual, physical and emotional abuse he was sacked by the parish priest with the knowledge of the bishop. He immediately left but not without what Tullamore gardaí described as a "glowing reference". He went to Castlecomber and resumed his career as a paedophile teacher.
In 1973 the case of Mr. John Hannon was reported by parents to the Department of Education. The inspector who dealt with the complaint concluded that the parents were unreliable. Mr. Hannon moved to Clara, County Offaly, where he raped pupils. Also in 1973 I heard of allegations of abuse at Letterfrack. Later in 1983, the Sunday Independent published an account of a book by Mr. Mannix Flynn called Nothing to Say in which he wrote of his time at Letterfrack, saying “Letterfrack was gangs smoking bootlaces and turf mould. It was rape by certain members of the staff, Christian Brothers, who made sexual advances.”
The first set of guidelines on the protection of children were published in 1978 by the Department of Health. When Ms Mary McLoughlin gave evidence on behalf of the Department on the emergence of abuse, she was asked whether any reference was made in that document to sexual abuse. She replied "No, none whatever". This is incorrect. A letter to me dated 24 May 1983 from the office of the Minister for Health, Mr. Barry Desmond, states "non-accidental injury included sexual abuse". A Sunday Independent article on incest by Ronit Lentin, dated 16 January 1983, quotes an Eastern Health Board psychologist who each year sees about a dozen new women patients with psychological problems resulting from the effects of incest and a lawyer who had only four or five cases in his 40 odd years as a criminal lawyer. The Department of Health clearly knew about sexual abuse long before 1983.
In 1979 Dr. David Finkelhor in his acclaimed book Sexually Victimised Children identified an incidence of sexual abuse of Irish-American boys by unrelated adults as being three times higher than for other ethnic groups.
I apologise but a vote has been called in the Dáil.
Okay.
We must suspend for ten or 15 minutes. Mr. O'Rourke can continue for another five minutes, at which point we will interrupt him.
The SAVI report of 2002 supports Dr. Finkelhor's findings, stating that 3.9% of men and 0% of women reported abuse by religious teachers while 1.3% of men and 1.1% of women reported abuse by non-religious teachers. Boys were eight times more likely than girls to experience abuse at school. The Kincora case of 1980 led to an understanding of how abusers operated, the damage they perpetrated against their victims, the vulnerability of children in care and the need to monitor child care institutions no matter how respected their managements were.
The ICCL working party on child sexual abuse began its study with funding from the Department of Health in 1983. In 1986 Ms Clodagh Corcoran, who headed the study, resigned because of a disagreement about the content of a report. The 1989 report states that, after this disagreement and "after discussions with the Department of Health, the working party decided to revise its draft chapters". In a letter to The Irish Times on 27 February 2002, Ms Corcoran wrote of her time with the working party. She stated, “My brief from the Department of Health was that under no circumstances was I to approach or report back on members of the police, military or religious against whom complaints were being made.”
When the working party started its study, I wrote to them about sexual abuse. My letter was meant to be an introduction and I expected a reply but got none. When I began to report what had happened to myself, I immediately became aware of other similar cases of sexual abuse. By 1983, I had been told of ten or 11 cases. In at least half of them, the alleged abuser had been removed because authorities in the education system believed sexual abuse had occurred. Most of these were teachers in ordinary national schools. Along with the knowledge I had relating to Daingean and Letterfrack, I concluded there was a significant problem. Possibly the most disturbing aspect of this was the lack of record-keeping or co-operation between the Church and the Department of Education to prevent these people getting other jobs working with children as Mr. Dunne had managed to do.
When I met Mr. John Boland TD in 1982 and told him about what I then knew, he was very concerned. He wrote to me after our meeting of 10 June and said the problem I had raised "was a serious one indeed and one which is worthy of deep consideration at the highest levels within the Department of Education". He went on to say he was "having discussions with the Secretary of that Department concerning the entire matter" and that he hoped "certain safeguards may not only be contemplated but implemented" as a result. On 27 October 1982, Mrs Geoghegan Quinn said to Mr. Boland in the Dáil "if the Deputy knows of any instance where parents or children have not been given satisfaction he should outline it". Mr. Boland replied "I take them up with the Secretary of the Department".
We will leave it at that for the time being and will refer back to Mr. O'Rourke. I apologise for this.
On 27 October 1982 Deputy Michael Keating asked questions on sexual abuse by teachers. The Department confirmed that in two cases teachers resigned when charges were put to them. I had written a letter of complaint about Donal Dunne dated 24 May 1982. By 27 October 1982, the day of the Dáil debate, my letter had been seen by three principal officers, one divisional inspector and one higher executive officer. Despite that, Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn told the Dáil,"There are no such outstanding cases." I do not attach any blame to Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn personally for this inaccurate statement. In 1983 I wrote to the then Minister for Education, Gemma Hussey, and the then Minister for Health, Barry Desmond, telling them the replies on a number of cases were incorrect.
In 1983 I began to research the problem of sexual abuse in schools and institutions. I was told about the Fourth International Congress on Child Abuse which was held in Paris in September 1982 and the Third Congress which was held in Amsterdam in 1981. I summarised my research in a submission titled "Sexual Abuse in Schools and Child care Institutions" and sent it to the then Minister for Health, Barry Desmond, who had stated his intention to update the Children Act 1908 in a Bill to be published in late 1983.
My knowledge of institutions related mainly to St. Conleth's Reformatory in Daingean. There was no mention of sexual abuse but after my experiences in 1966-67 six miles away in Walsh Island national school my perception of Daingean Reformatory changed. Given what had happened in Walsh Island, where children had parents to go home to, I did not have any difficulty understanding the possibility that sexual abuse could have occurred. In 1987, in a memo to the secretary of the Department of Health and Children, the assistant secretary, Dr. Joe Robins, stated, "There have been far too many exaggerated comments and statistics put out by people such as Dr. Moira Woods, Ms Anne O'Donnell and Ms Clodagh Corcoran who are turning child sexual abuse in particular into an industry".
The ICCL report of 1989 stated there had been an alarming increase in the number of sexual offences of all types against children and adults. Page 37 of that report quotes an important piece of research "A Comparison of Intra and Extra Familial Child Sex Abusers" 1986. The data are drawn from a random survey of 50 out of 200 sex abusers seen by Mr. N. F. Lowe in Dublin. The comparison clearly shows that at the time information was available which wouold have allowed those in charge of schools or institutions to understand the danger to children from abusers and the emormous potential for both the incidence of abuse and the number of victims.
By the late 1980s the abuse of children in schools and institutions had been reported to the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and the ICCL study, yet nothing was done. Ms Christine Buckley, MsLoretta Byrne and I had made efforts to highlight the problem by then.
The Law Reform Commission report in September 1990 provided another opportunity for the institutional abuse problem to emerge. The report quoted research on the abuse of boys which stated boy victims were more likely to be abused by an adult in a caretaking role such as a teacher, coach or babysitter, and that boys were more likely than girls to be victimised in conjunction with other children and less likely to be abused alone. It agreed with the ICCL conclusion that factors which discouraged reporting generally applied even more strongly to boys. The SAVI report confirms this, stating "the results also show lower levels of disclosure by men for both child and adult forms of sexual abuse."
By 1986 there was enough evidence for some investigation to have taken place into institutional and school abuse. The drafting of the Children Bill which would have led to research on all types of abuse was well under way within the Department of Health and Children. By 1986 figures on sexual abuse from the Garda Síochána and the Rape Crisis Centres had shown an alarming increase. Anyone who knew about the Kennedy report or had an interest in children's welfare could not avoid the inescapable conclusion that sexual abuse had occurred. Important information on sex abusers, the kinds of institutions where abuse had flourished and the systems which had allowed abuse to occur undetected was well understood by then.
The media had dealt with the physical and sexual abuse of children. In 1981 three children died as a result of non-accidental injury. Convictions followed in the cases of Patrick O'Brien and Sandra Sutton. On 15 July 1982 former Deputy Alan Shatter asked the Minister with responsibility for health, Deputy Michael Woods, to inquire into the death of Sandra Sutton.
The 1996 Madonna House report stated:
There is no real tradition of child abuse inquiries in Ireland, unlike the U.K. where there have been approximately 50 such inquiries in the last 20 years. Since the mid-1980s in the UK there have been seven independent inquiries and four reviews into residential child care.
Problems such as those that occurred at the Rotunda Sexual Assault Unit had happened in other countries. To extend criticism to include the Rape Crisis Centre and Ms Clodagh Corcoran's work with the ICCL as Dr. Joe Robins did was inappropriate and alarming since it came from the highest levels within the Department of Health and Children. The Madonna House report showed that the basic information available on abuse in schools and institutions was available at a time when, had it been acted on, would have dramatically changed the lives of victims who today wish to appear before the commission. The delay is attributable to failures on the part of the State, not the victims.
The Government acted quickly following media exposure in 1999. Counselling was to be provided while funding was granted to allow victims' representatives to search for former residents of institutions. An apology was issued, the Statute of Limitations was to be amended and an inquiry set up. The research and knowledge that had led to this was available in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Placing restrictions on the number of witnesses or the extent of the evidence to be heard from those witnesses would constitute another injustice on people abused as children and who were failed again as adults. The sampling of witnesses and evidence at the hearings into the emergence of abuse did not work. Important evidence, my own included, was not heard. This is not what the Oireachtas had intended when the legislation was enacted. The hearings should have set the background against which the institutions could have been examined. The commission is required to make recommendations for the future. Without a thorough examination of the past it will not fulfil this part of its remit. Repeating recommendations from previous inquiries such as mandatory reporting will not be enough to lead to implementation without the weight of evidence behind them. The witnesses appearing before the commission are only a sample of those abused. The position of complainants from day schools needs to be clarified. The commission will examine only a fraction of the cases that led to more than 20 teachers being convicted for sexual abuse.
I ask members of the joint committee to consider the findings of the SAVI report on the commission's work. The number of complainants from institutions is similarly only a sample of the approximately 5,600 people who have applied to the redress board. The fact that abuse was so widespread and that the State failed for so long to deal with the problem cannot lead to a further abuse of people's rights. The commission is now more important than ever because it still has the potential to provide for fairness and justice which complainants for whom criminal proceedings are not an option desperately need. Many victims feel if findings are not made, the entire exercise will be called into doubt by those who operated the institutions. It will be said abuse is not proven without evidence that named individuals perpetrated it. General findings that abuse occurred will not be enough to counter the denials to which we have become accustomed. A report without findings against perpetrators of abuse will not end the controversy.
Judge Mary Laffoy, in her letter of resignation, repeatedly criticised the Department of Education and Science. In its third interim report the commission stated the Department of Education and Science had not adopted a constructive approach to dealing with its role in the inquiry. According to Ms Mary Raftery and Mr. Eoin O'Sullivan, authors of Suffer the Little Children, this lack of support has been apparent before. Judge Eileen Kennedy received the same lack of response to letters requesting information on complaints made about reformatory and industrial schools. The conduct of the Department of Education and Science requires an investigation. The roles of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science in the emergence of abuse need to be examined. It is clear there were frequent and massive failures to deal with the problem.
While the Kennedy report of 1970 was important, it did not reveal the horrific abuse of children since proved in the courts. The joint committee would do well to consider whether the current inquiry will deal with all aspects of the problem or whether it too will leave many unanswered questions and further issues to be resolved, possibly in a European court. The sampling of witnesses and evidence and the removal of the requirement to make findings which this amendment proposes would allow those involved in the operation of the institutions to avoid facing up to the realities of their actions or inaction. If this happens, it will once again be at the expense of those who suffered.
I thank Mr. O'Rourke. I propose that we take questions and comments from members of the committee, following which the delegation may respond.
I have a few brief questions. Will Mr. O'Rourke clarify the issue of the reduction of samples? It is stated on page 11 of the submission that only a figure of 7% remains? How did he come to that conclusion?
Mr. O'Rourke mentioned that, according to the Madonna House report, there had been seven independent inquiries and four reviews in the United Kingdom from the mid-1980s. I presume they have long since concluded but Mr. O'Rourke might inform us as to how they were able to conclude in a more timely fashion than the Laffoy and Ryan inquiries.
Is Mr. O'Rourke concerned that the Bill, as now proposed, as distinct from the original Act, will further limit the powers of the commission to investigate not just the role of perpetrators but also that of the Department of Education and Science; the health boards; in some instances, even the courts and perhaps the Garda? The Bill will come before the committee next Tuesday and proposed amendments must be received by Monday.
Mr. O'Rourke referred to the issue of sampling, a phrase Mr. Justice Ryan has not used. How does Mr. O'Rourke believe it should proceed if not on the basis outlined by Mr. Justice Ryan? If the inquiry continues for another ten or 11 years, some elderly people will not have an opportunity to tell their stories.
I thank the delegation for coming before the joint committee. It is useful for us to hear its submission. Deputy Enright has raised the main issues about which we would like to ask.
One of the concerns of both Mrs. Justice Laffoy and Mr. Justice Ryan has been the fact that if the inquiry was to proceed in its current manner, it could take 11 years or more to complete. I am aware that both justices made specific proposals on how this timeframe could be shortened by holding parallel hearings and so on. Assuming all of Mr. O'Rourke's recommendations were taken on board, how could the timeframe issue be addressed to ensure there would be an end to the investigations and definite conclusions arrived at?
Mr. O'Rourke made a request for the inclusion of day schools in the inquiry. Is this covered under the current framework; would it be a separate module or how would it fit into the current work programme of the commission?
To follow on from Deputy Enright's question about the Department of Education and Science and the courts, this committee was contacted by a group which wants it to examine more intensively how the courts system referred children. I am interested in Mr. O'Rourke's views on how legislation might be amended in this regard.
Some of my questions have already been asked by other committee members.
I am struck by the assertion that there was a conspiracy of silence around child abuse. I note the submission refers to the Kennedy report of 1970 which was described by Mary Rafferty as one of the most "damning indictments" of the operation of any State system ever recorded. It seems most of the documents in the gathering of information for the report were subsequently lost.
The institutions in Daingean and Letterfrack were mentioned. When I was growing up, I knew many young people who had been placed in those institutions. Much of what emerged in recent years came as no surprise to me because many of the young people who came out of the institution in Letterfrack spoke about the abuse to people who lived on my road. If one talked to anyone who was in one of the institutions in question, he or she cited cases of abuse but official Ireland did not accept this.
I find it interesting that the allegations made in the Kennedy report were deemed to be damaging to the standard of morality in the country. That was the view until the 1980s when society began to change. The conspiracy of silence was real. One could argue it is similar to the situation in Garda stations. To this day, it is not widely believed people have been beaten up in Garda stations. However, if one talks to people who were young in the 1970s and 1980s, they will say they were assaulted by members of the Garda Síochána. That is the reality.
The cost factor is the main reason for suggesting the sails of the commission should be trimmed. There is a widespread acceptance that child abuse did take place in State institutions and people are worried about where the inquiry is going. The investigations will cost a considerable amount of money.
One of my worries is that the commission does not deal with day pupils. The Act seems to suggest that where the State was acting in loco parentis, it had more responsibility towards the child. However, if a child was abused, it does not matter whether he or she was a day pupil or a boarder; the State still had a responsibility towards that child.
Many points were raised by committee members. There were 165 day pupils who applied to give evidence to the commission. Under the original Act, Mrs. Judge Laffoy stated she could not hear cases where there was only one complainant against a perpetrator. This eliminated 93% of day pupils from the inquiry. That was unusual and completely different from the position in respect of institutions where there were a number of complainants against a perpetrator. Out of the 165 day pupils who applied to give evidence, 7% remain, which means a mere handful from day schools will be permitted to appear before the commission. I do not wish to take from the suffering of those who were in institutions but at least they are now closed. That is not the case with those who were in day schools.
It can take the Department of Education and Science up to five years to deal with a case where a teacher is accused of sexual abuse or has committed sexual offences. That is not good for the victim of abuse, a person falsely accused of abuse, the Department or school management boards and must be examined. As the Teaching Council will take responsibility for this area, it must be addressed. If the commission does not examine the day pupil issue, it will be a lost opportunity because the point of the inquiry is to examine the past to learn for the future.
Another issue is that of mandatory reporting, recommended by the ICCL report, the Law Reform Commission report and the Madonna House report. Mandatory reporting was a priority policy of the last Fianna Fáil Government and the Taoiseach promised that it would be introduced when he made his apology to victims of abuse in 1999. However, it has not been mentioned since. I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Ryan will re-examine the issue but if he does not have the weight of evidence behind him to indicate that mandatory reporting is necessary, it will not be implemented. I wrote letters to Barry Desmond in 1983 about the mandatory reporting of abuse, about which I had heard in America, where it has been policy since 1966. In Ireland we go around in circles on issues and do not get to the point.
What is the cause of the slowdown on the mandatory reporting policy, of which I know some social workers are not in favour? What is the position of departmental officials, church officials and those who knew about the existence of files on child abuse? What would their position have been ten years ago if the Government had introduced mandatory reporting? Would they have been obliged to hand over files or admit that they knew about the abuse? These are questions that must be answered. If the commission is to move forward and do something for the children of the future, the issue of mandatory reporting must be dealt with.
I am not sure how the UK inquiries were conducted but I do know that there were far more of them. Furthermore, it was not assumed in Britain that if somebody conducting an inquiry made a mistake, everything he or she did was bad. In every country in the world that faced up to child abuse mistakes were made, as everybody would acknowledge. However, that did not mean the entire process was flawed. In Ireland there is a tendency for those with right-wing views to seize on mistakes and use them as an opportunity to say there is no child abuse in this country. Such persons were so vociferous in the 1980s that we did not get anywhere or advance at the same rate as other countries in dealing with child abuse. In fact, we are still going around in circles on the issue.
The changes in the Bill will limit the ability of the commission to operate. The problem with sampling evidence and people is that one cannot decide in advance which evidence is important. It is not acceptable to have justice by lottery, where some are allowed into the process and others are not. When I started my campaign in 1998, for example, the issues I raised were different from those I am raising today. The story develops and one moves from one point to another. If the inquiry is not hearing from people, it will not get an overall picture. It will not arrive at conclusions that will be substantial enough to make a real difference. The commission has to make a difference.
I understand the concerns about costs but a bad inquiry will cost a lot of money. If it is a bad inquiry, it is no good. We will end up repeating history, examining mandatory reporting and other issues and still not having recommendations implemented. If we are to do the job properly, it will cost money. All of the victim groups are willing to reduce costs as far as possible. There are many good innovations in the Bill that will save money. They include the commission not having to hear evidence already heard in court and being allowed to hear people as a group. We are prepared to take any action which will reduce costs and speed matters up.
Many have waited a long time for justice. Many who describe themselves as survivors are not surviving very well. Tremendous distress is being caused to people who waited a long time to receive promises now being broken. I will not see myself as a survivor until I complete this process. I remain the victim of a system which did not give me an inquiry or the right to have a say. As a teacher, I did not have the right to complain to the Department of Education and Science. In 1982 I received legal advice that, because of the Statute of Limitations, I could do nothing. People manage as well as they can but suffer distress.
The problem will not be solved if the financial cost is looked at before the human one. The Kennedy report brought positive results but did not deal with the issue of sexual abuse. Documents then disappeared. This inquiry must not avoid certain areas or leave questions unanswered or else money will have been misspent on it. I applied to give evidence to the hearings on the emergence of abuse because I had important matters to relate but I was not allowed to do so. I regard them as a waste of money because they did not examine in detail the emergence of abuse. Rather than conduct a sampling process, it is necessary to collect all the evidence and investigate the entire problem.
Mr. James McGuill
I wish to make some legal points in support of Mr. O'Rourke. It is difficult to explain to anyone who is aware of the constitutional provision for equality before the law that he or she will not be heard. It is also difficult to explain that an inquiry will not assess all available evidence. This offends against first principles and will result in an unsatisfactory and unsustainable report.
Deputy Enright raised the issue of the timeframe. While this is a concern, parallel hearings on discrete issues might speed matters up. The process may be sensible rather than expensive. However, it will be slow if each respondent denies every fact or if there is obstruction by any party. We are all aware of Mrs. Justice Laffoy's criticisms in this regard. The victims of abuse will not be at fault in this matter. Their abuse is compounded by the denial of an inquiry.
Deputy O'Sullivan remarked on day school pupils who are in a particularly bad position because the commission was the only place to go. They were excluded from the redress board and may now lose out in the raffle to determine who will be assessed before the commission. This is unsatisfactory. The policies of the courts are clearly material, given the current Oireachtas debate on anti-social behaviour orders. Lessons on the criminal justice interface with children are to be learned from the industrial school experience. It is a pity the opportunity to do so may be lost.
Deputy Crowe noted the conspiracy of silence, about which there is significant concern. Would the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform permit offenders to draft a criminal justice Bill? The Department of Education and Science is drafting the Bill to inquire into its own stewardship. It will not be surprising if it will not cast light on its failures. Former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, in response to Mr. O'Rourke's personal situation acknowledged that the response of the Department had been woefully inadequate by the standards of the time. Failure to provide for a comprehensive inquiry would also be woefully inadequate by today's standards but the Oireachtas may make this mistake. Sails may be trimmed by other methods without compromising the integrity of an inquiry. Issues may be dealt with in sensible ways such as grouping them in parallel hearings or developing easier admissability tests for evidence.
It is a question of equality before the law. There is a cynical belief on the part of the Government that the provision of compensation in respect of industrial schools through the redress Act is sufficient to solve the problem. It hopes the problem will go away after throwing a few euros at it and conducting a financial deal with the church. It will not go away because inquiries must be made into the integrity of Government.
The most important objective for people in recovery is to learn and understand the truth of events. Mr. Justice Ryan did not allow me a hearing at the emergence of child abuse inquiry, which made me angry enough to re-examine the entire matter. Through understanding events, I am increasingly able to come to terms with my own failures to have the abuse problem dealt with. Those who made reports, of whom I was one, felt guilty because they had failed. No member of the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform appears to feel guilt at his or her failure.
It is time a fair say was allowed in an inquiry. We stuck our necks out at a time when nobody wished to discuss the issue but we have not yet received an inquiry. Truth, not money, sets one free. One is not kept awake at night by thoughts of money. I reported events in the 1980s and often blamed myself for mistakes. However, they were not my fault; they were failures on the part of the State which must bear the ensuing cost. While we will endeavour to reduce the cost, this cannot be the priority for an inquiry. There must be justice and fairness. People are stressed and disappointed at events which have taken place since 1999, particularly the forced resignation of Mrs. Justice Laffoy. While I do not make ciriticisms of any member of the inquiry because work must be done, we are in danger of missing an opportunity.
My thanks to Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. McGuill for their presentations which have been of benefit to our considerations.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 May 2005.