I now welcome Colm O'Gorman, director, and Deirdre Fitzpatrick from the One in Four group. I again remind visitors that while comments of members of the committee are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not so protected. I invite Mr. O'Gorman to make a presentation to the committee.
Presentation by One in Four Group.
Mr. O’Gorman
I thank you, Chairman, for inviting us to address the committee, especially at such short notice. Our committee and chairman were grateful to be given the opportunity to address our concerns to the committee. With your agreement, I will read a brief statement which has been circulated by the committee secretariat. At that point we will answer any questions. Our concerns about the legislation are specific, so our presentation should be brief.
In considering the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, the One in Four group has been informed and guided by the stated opinion of the Information Commissioner and the wider public debate. It is, however, the report of the Information Commissioner that particularly addresses our concerns. On the question of a request for personal information, the commissioner's report states: "The Bill provides for the word "contain" to be substituted for the words "relate to" where records are concerned, thus pre-commencement records may be accessed under this provision only if they contain personal information about the person seeking access to them." Such an amendment will result in people seeking to validate the truth of traumatic experiences as children being unable to gain access to records and files currently available under the 1997 Act. It is an essential part of the healing process for people abused in childhood to be able to reclaim their stories, to name what was done to them and to name their experiences.
Often help and social care or educational files will contain information essential to that process. Such files may not be specific to the person concerned, but may refer to the institution, profession or authority involved in, or responsible for, the abuse. So often in dealing with long suppressed memories of sexual abuse and the social and public denial of the rape of children in sexual abuse, it is only by uncovering such supporting evidence that the woman or man who has experienced abuse will finally feel able and empowered to name the experience. It is only by naming it that any real healing is possible. Simply put, a wound that cannot be acknowledged or named cannot heal.
In the opinion of the One in Four group, the impact of this amendment on those of our citizens in industrial schools will be severe. Many who have already had access to childhood files under existing legislation have found it an impossible and often hopeless process. Often at the end of it they are told that files are no longer in existence, that they have been destroyed in fires or floods. For many, such a result reinforces the reality of the authoritarian State that always, in their experience, acts to disempower, manipulate and abuse them and that then seeks to cover up such abuse. It is surely within all of our capacities to understand why they might feel this way. It is our collective moral responsibility to ensure that we do our utmost to facilitate the reclamation of the childhood and histories that were stolen from them by the State when it placed them in such institutions.
While the impact of the proposed amendment is perhaps most evident in relation to those of our citizens abused in industrial schools and institutions, it will, in our opinion, have similar effects on people abused in other settings. Take, for example, a case involving a woman sexually abused at the age of seven by a health care professional. In her forties, this woman began to feel the need to address what has happened to her. However, given her age at the time of the abuse and the nature of what had happened, it was difficult for her to put words to her experiences. She found herself questioning her memories and her sanity and she became depressed and suicidal. Finally, she heard that others had reported similar abuse perpetrated by the same alleged offender. She also discovered that health board files existed that might contain information relevant to her case. She made a complaint to the Garda, but following a DPP decision, there is to be no prosecution. She is now left feeling dismissed and disbelieved and is again depressed and suicidal.
Under the current legislation, this woman might well be able to get access to health board files that will validate her memories and experiences, and with appropriate therapeutic support she can move through this experience and work towards her recovery. If the amendment is adopted she will not be allowed access to such files as they will not name her directly, but they may clearly contain information relevant to her. We believe this woman has a right to such information and that such cases powerfully demonstrate why a robust freedom of information process is essential.
In case the members of the committee or any Member of the Oireachtas might believe that such cases are isolated incidents, it is perhaps helpful to point out that 27% of Irish citizens, one in four, are sexually abused in childhood. Each of these almost one million individuals may rely upon information contained in records and official documents to name and make real their long-denied and hidden trauma. We cannot overstate the importance of such files - often they are the only evidence, the only validation that exists of brutal and hidden crimes.
The passing of this amendment will, in the opinion of One in Four, further silence and suppress the already isolated voices of children and adults who have been sexually abused. In a modern and progressive society that purports to care for its most vulnerable citizens, this cannot be allowed to happen.
I thank Mr. O'Gorman for his presentation. The Taoiseach has on several occasions stated that the Freedom of Information Bill, as proposed, has no implications for personal information. What we have heard today from the representatives of One in Four is very important: in their experienced view, as members of an organisation dealing with the people who have been the victims of sexual abuse, whether in institutions or by agents of the State who may have been employed in State institutions, there will be a very dramatic change in the right of access.
I also have a letter, which I presume was also received by other members of the committee this morning, from the Adopted People's Association. I note that the Taoiseach has acknowledged in the Dáil in answers to me that there are some 30,000 people, still alive and probably living in this country, who were in institutions for considerable periods of time, plus many more thousands living in the UK. The association points out in its letter that since the passage of the Adoption Act in 1952, more than 40,000 people have been legally adopted in Ireland. These people have made extensive use of the FOI Act. I know the Chairman is working to a Government imposed deadline, but the Taoiseach himself told the Dáil that there was no implication in the Bill for people who sought personal information. Yet perhaps the most important category of people seeking information under the Act, due to our unfortunate history, are those whose lives were destroyed in institutions, and to this we must now add another set of people, those who have been adopted, along with their adopted and birth parents and their siblings, who also have an interest. I ask the Chairman to arrange for the extension of the consultation process to allow these people's voices to be heard.
Of the people seriously affected by abuse in institutions or by agents and employees of health boards down the years, how many, according to Mr. O'Gorman, have come to the point at which they may have used the Act or come forward to talk to an organisation or a therapist? How many are still out there, listening in to this debate and to the work of the various committees and tribunals, who might yet come forward to find out about themselves? Does he think the changes proposed in the Bill will dramatically deter them and affect their rights to obtain information?
Mr. O’Gorman
First, I support much of what Deputy Burton has said in relation to the impact this will have on people who were abused in institutions. The Deputy's question, however, is almost impossible to answer. The very nature of childhood abuse, particularly childhood sexual abuse, is isolating and silencing. It is impossible to know how many people out there have been sexually abused. The figure we quoted of 27% comes from research carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, presented last year, which is probably one of the most authoritative pieces of research done in Ireland and possibly internationally. According to these figures, almost a million people in the Republic of Ireland have been sexually abused as children. In relation to people abused in institutions specifically, the Taoiseach has acknowledged that there are 30,000 people who have survived institutional care in Ireland.
I have been in contact with many people, not only through our organisation but through partner organisations with which we have worked. We must remember that it was the State that placed these people in institutions, so there is a reluctance to come forward and engage with the State. Interaction with the State had a devastating impact on these people's lives, so for them to come forward, the level of trust required is extraordinary. The Taoiseach's apology in 1999 went a long way towards building that. Unfortunately, in the time that has passed since, little has happened - in fact, much has happened to result in a pull back from this position - and people are again feeling quite distrustful.
The introduction of an amendment such as this to the Freedom of Information Act will have a huge impact on people's belief in the State and its integrity and in the desire of the Government to deal with this appropriately. People immediately suspect that there is an agenda: to deny them information, to deny them their stories and the chance of coming back to rebuild their lives. I believe it will have a huge impact on people and in fact, the process has already begun. Many of the people who have contacted us have already used the Act to try to obtain access to records but failed because their records had been destroyed. It is already incredibly difficult and this will make it next to impossible for most people. The impact on them will be huge.
I thank Mr. O'Gorman for his very clear presentation. Since he first expressed his concerns more than a week ago on "Morning Ireland", has he been contacted officially by those who are drafting amendments to this Bill about how his point of view could be accommodated and his concerns allayed?
Mr. O’Gorman
Up to now we have had no interaction at all with anybody who was drafting amendments to this Bill.
Mr. O'Gorman has probably seen the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. In this, the Government seeks to present this change as simply clarifying that a personal record created prior to the date of commencement of the Act can be assessed if the information in the record satisfies the definition of "personal information" contained in the Act. It is being presented here as a matter of clarifying existing law as opposed to a dramatic change in the law, as Mr. O'Gorman has presented it. Has he seen any presentation to suggest that it is simply a clarification? The two terms are very different: "relating to" clearly opens up all records of an institution if it might relate to a person's individual experience, whereas "contains" dramatically reduces the number of records that could be opened. Has Mr. O'Gorman seen or has anybody offered him an explanation for how this change could possibly be construed as a clarification of existing law?
Mr. O’Gorman
Like the Deputy, I have heard those proposing the amendment in the Government say that their intention is only to clarify. I accept that may well be their intention. However, the reality is that it will be a dramatic change. I am prepared to accept that this is an oversight or a lack of thought about the impact of any such change. I do not believe the Government intended to reverse all the work it has done since 1999. It would have undermined the Government's frank apology to people who were abused and I am certain that is not the case. I hope this will be clarified, but I have not seen anything to suggest this so far.
I suspect that when we come to this section we will be directed to the other element of the section, which deals with existing records that need earlier records to assist in clarification. What is Mr. O'Gorman's view of the extent to which that provision might deal with his concerns? Does he think the Government could defend its position by saying that if a person requires a record from after the introduction of the Act, he may have access to all related records that predate the Act? Is that a possible defence that would hold water in Mr.O'Gorman's view?
Mr. O’Gorman
The previous legislation was unambiguous and clear. It gave people the right to come forward and seek information. The changes do not do that, which is bound to be regressive and difficult. This provision will not substitute or adequately recompense for the changes, which will be hugely damaging.
I am not seeking examples, but, to the best of Mr. O'Gorman's knowledge, have there been any specific cases in which this relating provision was used or where one might suspect official Ireland felt this was going toofar? Did that provoke this change? Does Mr.O'Gorman know of any such cases?
Mr. O’Gorman
There are those who suggest that the whole issue and the culpability and responsibility of the State for abuse, particularly in institutions, may well have been part of the reason some of these changes were adopted. I am not party to the Government mind on how this has worked, so I do not know if that is true or not. In relation to specific cases, I am not aware of any that would raise this directly. However, I am certainly aware of dozens, perhaps hundreds, which could do so if that was the mindset of Government at the time.
I thank the delegation for coming. Having heard them speak several times, they are always well-balanced and avoid expressing the anger I would expect when discussing this matter. It is strange that anger often seems to be directed towards the group for raising these issues publicly. I support the group in regard to the latter. There is still a huge veil of secrecy over child sexual abuse in Irish society - not just on the part of officialdom but also on that of health professionals and members of the general public, who find it uncomfortable when this issue is raised. I support the delegation's work and hope nothing happens in the Oireachtas to make things more difficult for the group, the people it represents or for those who will be abused in the future. I commend the delegation on its work.
I feel strongly that the committee should make a recommendation on the submission being made by One in Four. As a Government Deputy, I say this advisedly. However, this area of the Bill needs clarification. Guarantees should be given to this group that the Bill will not affect them or the other groups involved adversely. I deal with up to 50 people in my constituency who work with this organisation and who have been victims of abuse, institutional or otherwise. This is appalling and must be addressed urgently. The group can take it that I will be raising this with the Minister directly and hopefully getting it raised formally by way of a motion from the committee or a communication directly from the committee to the Minister.
I support Deputy Lenihan's comments and I commend this group and others on the courage they have shown. One of the greatest acts of the Government has been to take responsibility for these claims. The State was the employer in these institutions and it is one of the achievements of the Government to take full responsibility for the claims put forward by those who have been abused. I do not agree with the Opposition position.
It is very important for us to clearly understand the changes here. The commissioner restated the point about records and personal information and we are here to see justice is done on behalf of the citizens of Ireland.
Am I allowed to give my personal opinion on the fees?
I am proposing to complete discussions on the specific points we are dealing with and then we will continue our discussion on the remaining matters.
A fee charge on someone who has been abused should not be imposed. I feel strongly there should not be any attempt to stymie someone from getting information. As a cross-party group, we should be clear and unanimous that the right thing is done regarding the Freedom of Information Act.
My understanding is that people who may be going before the Laffoy commission can access information - because of the Government's establishment of the tribunal - via their solicitors. There is also an issue regarding Barnardo's holding some files and providing a general service.
One problem I have found among people seeking information from the services is that the individual is a very small figure vis-à-vis the State organisations and religious orders which ran the institutions. There are also issues regarding the quality of records and the approaches of different orders to making information available. Many people have found the whole experience so traumatic that they go to solicitors just to get information, with the result that some solicitors charge what appear to be high fees. Perhaps the work is detailed and difficult, but if these changes go through many more people will be required to use solicitors. Not only will one have the cost of the inquiry the State will charge, it will be far more technical regarding one’s right of access.
I attended the Project theatre last night for Mannix Flynn's "James X" show and one of the things he gave the audience was a copy of the files he had procured, largely through FOI but also with the help of solicitors. The general public does not often appreciate how long and difficult a road it is for people to access information and how expensive it can be if one has to use a top solicitor.
Mr. O’Gorman
In relation to people specifically abused in institutions, there are a couple of things to bear in mind regarding their efforts to rebuild their pasts and reclaim their lives. In many cases they were absolutely deprived of education and any process that is bureaucratically or administratively difficult is going to be an almost impossible burden for them anyway. The number of walls and boundaries to reach a point where they can break through to seek information is massive. They must be prepared to name and allow their abuse to emerge into their own consciousness, which is incredibly difficult, as once it is there one has to deal with it. One can dismiss it or pretend it is not there but once one has admitted it, there it is. That is a huge barrier.
We then look at literacy and lack of education. If the Act becomes more bureaucratic, it will become impossible. Fees are another issue that will prevent some people who were abused in institutions and who are still in difficult situations from obtaining their files. Engaging with solicitors means in many cases engaging with an authority figure. This is something of which many people are frightened. Their experiences as children, of the law and solicitors, are of being in court or being placed in care. It is a fearful process for most people and one with which they cannot deal. As a society we must facilitate people's ability and empower them to come forward rather than disempower them, which I believe the Act will do.
I hope the committee will hear that our concerns do not just relate to people who have been abused in institutions, even though it is in many ways the most powerful example of how people will be impacted upon. Nor do they relate to people coming forward specifically to make claims for compensation or undergo some court process in order to get some sort of acknowledgement for their abuse. Let us take the example of a person who has been abused within the family who has kept silent all their lives. I will give a synopsis case rather than a specific case. There are dozens of similar cases of people who have been abused by a member of their family and who have finally decided to come forward to try to deal with the matter. The first thing must be to put the matter in some type of context. There is nothing in place to support people to do that, yet there may be records in health and social care files that will help them to do so. It is not about making a case for compensation, even though that is entirely appropriate in so many cases. It is not about undergoing any kind of legal or civil process. It is about allowing people to reclaim what was done to them and to name it so that they can begin to recover from it. It does not just apply to people in institutions.
Some one million people in the Republic have been sexually abused. One quarter of people in this society have been sexually abused. For a large number of these people, the only evidence that will exist when it becomes a historical crime will be in social and health care files. The Act must facilitate people's access to the files so that they can begin to challenge what happened to them and perhaps take it forward in a legal process where necessary.
Could Mr. O'Gorman restate the figures?
Mr. O’Gorman
According to research undertaken for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre by the Royal College of Surgeons and sponsored by the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children, some 27% of Irish children will be abused in childhood.
Like other speakers, I thank Mr. O'Gorman for spelling out in detail the implications of this process. However, he is possibly not reading the situation correctly when he said that the substitution of the word "contained" for "relates to" might be an oversight on the part of the Department of Finance. I can assure him it is not. On Second Stage, in particular, and on Committee Stage last week in the Seanad, the Opposition parties fought vigorously to point out the implications and radical consequences of such a change, but to no avail. The measure was voted through by the Government. Tomorrow we will be taking Report Stage and unless there is a change of attitude on the part of the Minister for Finance, the proposal will remain part of the Bill. I am pleased to hear Deputy Lenihan say that as far as he is concerned he is prepared to make the strongest possible representations and to take a stand on this issue. Mr. O'Gorman has now given us anecdotal evidence in this regard. Up to now what we have been doing is spelling out what we saw as the implications of the proposal. To be given anecdotal evidence of the possible implications of the proposal is very helpful and we will certainly use it.
Is it correct that Mr. O'Gorman has essentially been dealing with the Minister for Education and Science in regard to the question of redress?
Mr. O’Gorman
Our main dealings have been with the Department of Health and Children. We have not been directly involved in redress. We came along a little bit late for that process.
On the basis of the dramatic change that will occur in relation to freedom of information, has Mr. O'Gorman gone to the Minister for Health and Children to try to bring some pressure to bear in this regard on his counterpart, the Minister for Finance?
Mr. O’Gorman
We have ongoing discussions with both the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and we intend raising these concerns with them. Like many people, we were not aware of this review or what the implications of the amendments would be. This has been our first opportunity to voice these concerns.
In regard to the Bill, you have emphasised in particular your concerns relating to the consequences of the legislation. Have you any other concerns in regard to the Bill?
Mr. O’Gorman
This is our primary concern, particularly in regard to the work of One in Four. On a broader level, any legislation that seeks to weaken the Freedom of Information Act is not something any of us would welcome. However, our concerns are very specific.
I thank Mr. O'Gorman and Ms Fitzpatrick for their very informative and helpful presentation.
The witness withdrew.