JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 2008

Western Health Board Inquiry Report: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Margaret Kennedy, consultant; Ms Fiona Neary, director, Rape Crisis Network of Ireland; Mr. Patrick McGinley, director, Mr. Seán Conneally, sector manager, Ms Fiona Coffey, head of training, quality and evaluation, and Dr. Mary Davis, Brothers of Charity Services, Galway; and Dr. Kevin McCoy, consultant, Mr. Seamus McNulty and Mr. Ger Reaney, Health Service Executive.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, 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 they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members may ask questions after the briefing. I ask Ms Kennedy to commence the presentation.

Ms Margaret Kennedy

I will say a little about myself. I am from Ireland and moved to England to study nursing at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. While my background is in nursing, I moved into social work after doing learning disability work with learning disabled children who were also blind. I spent a long time in the disability field and for nine years managed a project for deaf children who had been abused. I then moved into the area of independent training and consultancy on disability and child protection issues. I am regarded in the United Kingdom as somewhat of a specialist in this field, since the Department of Health asked me to write a training pack on disability and child protection issues in 1993, which was the only one available at the time. I was asked to go to the Brothers of Charity to train the staff because they knew of my reputation. I very much enjoyed my time there, although I was concerned about some things there at the time.

We are here to talk about whether the inquiry undertaken in the last few years was sufficient or rigorous in its 2007 presentation. What I have done is put down what I feel are the salient issues that must be addressed when an inquiry is made. If I were a parent of someone with learning difficulties, I would like to know who was responsible for what happened. There is a failure of independence and of transparency and rigorousness. I find in the report that there is an inadequate analysis of what actually happened. There is a lack of substance and comment. There is a failure to call to account anybody who was responsible for the wrongdoing and I found it quite difficult to track each case. I was trying to find out how it had all happened and it was very difficult to grab hold of what had happened. In addition, there is no reference in the report to international documents of importance which could have been reflected upon and which could actually have enhanced the recommendations on what we need to do in Ireland.

Under the heading of failure of independence and transparency, I would like to raise a couple of issues. It is important to realise that there may have been failures of local bodies which were responsible for the Brothers of Charity as an institution — for example, the Western Health Board and the Health Service Executive, as it is now. It is difficult for me to understand why it was not an independent inquiry by senior counsel, such as in the case of the Ferns Inquiry report. I am wondering whether the fact that this inquiry was headed by a doctor, while the Ferns Inquiry was headed by a senior counsel, has anything to do with the fact that this case involved learning-disabled people. Throughout the report we are not told how many victims there are, although 22 are named. We also know that 135 went to the redress board. We do not know who the Brothers of Charity are because they are not named. This is actually a failure because we cannot track whether they were in Cork, Liverpool or anywhere else. Some brothers were sent to Thingwall Hall in Liverpool where they abused others.

The Murphy-Mulvihill report is an auxiliary report to the McCoy report but has actually been left out off the scrutiny agenda. The report also leaves out quite a bit. I am actually quite surprised that the Murphy-Mulvihill report allowed someone, in the appendix, to describe me as grossly unprofessional. This is also mentioned in the text of the report. While on a personal level I am not very bothered about this, it does suggest to me that it was not independent or unbiased when someone was allowed to make a comment about me on which I did not have a right of reply. I mentioned the analysis. As I said, we do not know the movements of the sex offenders. One would not be able to see all of them, but it is one way to think about what was happening and we do not get that.

Another thing of which the McCoy report did not do enough was to inquire of the Western Health Board and the Garda what they did at the time. They are not interviewed in the report, although the corresponding bodies were in the Ferns Inquiry report. Thus, we do not know where the failings were in these two institutions either.

The report reads very much like a narrative. We know what happened but do not know who did what, why it happened, who moved whom and so on. We do not have anyone to "blame" for this because we do not know who did what and when.

Given that many learning disabled people have communication impairments I was surprised that at the beginning of this process a helpline was created. The last person to pick up a phone would be a learning disabled person. He or she might do so but it is not the easiest forum for a learning disabled person. Ms Murphy and Mr. Mulvihill interviewed seven learning disabled people in a restaurant to discover how their lives were today, but I do not feel it is appropriate in any inquiry to interview learning disabled people in a restaurant.

Case by case, I did not perceive a strategy for how this was to be done. Ms Laverne McGuinness says the HSE asked the Brothers of Charity in 2005 to examine the files from 1965 to 2005 to identify concerns and relay them to the Garda. I suspect these files were not looked at by Dr. Kevin McCoy and I am worried that the institution under scrutiny should look at the files rather than someone else.

International reports are very important as this is how we learn to move forward, broaden our perspectives and emerge from an insular realm. However, some reports were not mentioned. The 1990 report on sexual offences against the mentally handicapped by the Law Reform Commission stated that those who abuse mentally ill people should receive a harsher sentence for the breach of trust. I am not sure that this was looked at because the report by Ms Murphy and Mr. Mulvihill says the Brothers of Charity did not have the legislation to deal with some of the matters relating to the abuse of adults. In fact the report by the Law Reform Commission dates back to 1990 and recommendations were made so I do not know what happened.

I wish to draw the committee's attention to an important document after which I will give my recommendations and conclude. The Home Office criminal justice system in the UK has introduced a method for police, social workers and the courts to interview learning disabled people. The method uses a professional called an intermediary who is trained to help learning disabled people give evidence. This is a new approach but it is powerful and interesting and the Oireachtas ought to consider how learning disabled people are interviewed. I would like to know who interviewed the learning disabled people for the McCoy report because I would like to know that there was objectivity with separation from the institution involved.

The report raises many questions and there are over 200 of them in a critique I gave the committee. I recommend that we move forward with a truly independent inquiry involving a senior counsel and a specialist in the field of learning disabilities. These people should not be attached to an institution and should be independent. We must have a team that is recognised and demands respect from parents and the community. The recommendations should be comprehensive and appropriate and should be made in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Findings on failures and accountability should be noted.

This report did not track the movement around the country of sex offenders in the Brothers of Charity. I will not say too much on this because we do not know their movements but I do know there was movement between the various centres around the country and to Thingwall Hall in England. It worries me that they were not tracked and we do not know where they were moved to and the dates when they were in specific places. We must conduct better tracking to find failures and apportion accountability. This institution is very large to be managed by a small team of managers, though many of the houses are small and homely. It has around 800 learning disabled people and close to 1,000 members of staff. We should move people into the community as quickly as possible.

Learning disabled people need a communication system, such as Lámh, which is a hand sign system that they learn in Ireland. I did not find that this was being used in the Brothers of Charity. It supplements speech because learning disabled people find speech quite difficult. It is a visual system as well as an aural system although I am aware an alternative system is currently being installed.

My recommendation is that all services provided by the Brothers of Charity be examined including those in Lota, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. While it is not be possible to examine the services provided in Thingwall Hall, Liverpool, it is possible to find out who went there and by whom they were sent there.

Chairman

I thank Ms Kennedy for being so succinct. Would Ms Neary like to make a presentation?

Ms Fiona Neary

An inquiry into allegations of sexual abuse which occurred within an institutional setting must have certain critical features if the resulting report is to be of value and use both in identifying any contributory factors to such abuse and informing us in moving forward constructively. Those critical features must include sufficient independence from the institute under inquiry, sufficient expertise and resources, including legal, for the inquiry team and sufficient capacity for a critical analysis and assessment of what is found, such that the inquiry goes beyond the simply descriptive.

The report must be unambiguous in its findings and recommendations, including the assessment of failures where these were found to exist. It must be timely and, if it is to be of further use, include reference to similar inquiries and their findings or legislation which could be useful into the future.

The McCoy report fails when measured against those critical features. Additionally, in its overall tone the report seeks to minimise the failures of those responsible for institutions within which at least 21 children were abused. The report which consists of some 176 pages and documents examples of multiple child sexual abuse appears to include only one comment on the manner in which allegations, disclosures and general child protection was dealt with by the religious order responsible. It states at page 152 that arrangements were far from ideal. This is the only assessment or analysis I can find in this 176 page report, which is far from ideal.

Since the 1990s Irish society has had increasing evidence of the role that religious orders have played in colluding with abuse within institutions run by them to the extent of repeatedly moving known sex offenders so that an offender was unable to perpetrate further child sexual abuse. We have known for sufficient time that religious orders in Ireland elevated the protection of their orders and reputation above that of the protection from sexual abuse of children in their care. It further damages the credibility of this report written in 2007 that it fails in any assessment of a religious order presiding over child sexual abuse in this regard.

The report singularly fails to comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of the response of the religious order to disclosures and allegations of abuse and fails to examine whether collusion by the religious order protected abusers and enabled further abuse. I must stress that this assessment is absent in a report which clearly records intentional interference in and perversion of the course of justice by this religious order when one sex offender is about to be apprehended by the Garda.

The report fails to identify these and other actions as criminal offences on the part of the Brothers of Charity. It further fails to assess whether these actions resulted in further child sexual abuse at the location to which this sex offender was moved. In attempting to paint a better picture, the report is even undermined as a straightforward description as it repeatedly confuses events and practice in the past with current improvements.

The report claims to have examined allegations of abuse made by 21 children in the residential care of the Brothers of Charity. It has not done so. It has described in an inadequate manner a series of events and provided neither commentary nor useful assessment in this regard. The report does not refer to the fact that an inquiry commenced in 1999 failed to report until 2007, nine years and six months later. It fails to comment on the fact that there appears to have been a six-year gap in any action having been taken during the lifetime of the inquiry.

The sufficient independence of the inquiry is undermined by the fact that the terms of reference were agreed with the institution to be investigated. From this point on, the involvement in the report of the institution under inquiry is unclear. At no point does the report name who was present at inquiry hearings or in what circumstances these were carried out. The report does not consider the appropriateness of these circumstances.

In keeping with its terms of reference the report could make recommendations regarding legislation, legal reform and child protection in Ireland. It could have made a strong recommendation that offences relating to abuse of a position of trust, where a child is in residential care of an institution as per the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003, be enacted and implemented in Ireland.

Chairman

I thank Ms Neary. Will Mr. McGinley address the committee and introduce his team?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I am the chief executive of the Brothers of Charity services in Galway. Dr. Mary Davis is our head of psychology and she will share the presentation with me this afternoon. Mr. Seán Conneally is our sector manager for adult services in Kilcornan, Ballinasloe and Gort and Ms Fiona Coffey is head of training, quality and evaluation.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make this presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. I am acutely aware that serious sexual and physical abuse took place in the Brothers of Charity in the past. The victims of this serious sexual and physical abuse were boys and girls, as well as men and women with intellectual disability. On behalf of the services, I unreservedly apologise to the boys, girls, men and women who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused while in the care of our services.

I deeply regret that this abuse took place and I am aware that no words can adequately express the deep shame and anger we feel at the way in which the trust was so blatantly disregarded and how the lives of some of the most vulnerable children and adults were horribly impacted by persons of authority and trust within the Brothers of Charity services.

On behalf of the services, I and many others — including the most senior representatives of the congregation in Ireland — have repeatedly, publicly and unreservedly apologised to any boy or girl, man or woman who was abused while in the care of the services. In doing so, both they and I are completely aware that we can never adequately apologise for the shameful abuse experienced.

I have worked with the Brothers of Charity service since July 1977. As part of an overall change in the structure of the services last year, a lay board of men and women directors from County Galway was appointed for the Brothers of Charity Services Galway Limited, and I became chief executive and company secretary. I have also served on the board of management of the Holy Family School in Galway, including a period as secretary and a longer period as chairperson.

For adults with a learning disability, I have consistently promoted that service provision should be underpinned with the principles of community inclusion and connections which are important to all of us. I have always believed that the work of a service provider should be open, transparent and fully accountable. I have always had a firm conviction that the safety of those who use our services is of paramount importance.

I take this opportunity to offer some clarity on some of the statements made by Ms Kennedy in her report to this committee, and I have asked Dr. Mary Davis to address the committee as well.

On 8 December 1998, on becoming aware of a number of serious allegations of sexual abuse which had taken place in the past, I met Superintendent Tony Finnerty, Detective Tony Reidy, Alex MacLean, who was the child care manager, and a social worker for the Western Health Board in a Garda station in Galway. Within a couple of days of that I held a meeting with Ms Priya Prendergast, then general manager of the Western Health Board in Galway, and Mr. Alex MacLean, who was the child care manager.

It was at that meeting around 8 December that the first idea of having an inquiry into the past of the Brothers of Charity services was raised. Within a couple of days of the meeting, Alex MacLean sent me draft terms of reference for such an inquiry and I made very little alteration to the draft, which I attached in my letter to Mr. Seamus Mannion on 22 December 1998. I have included this letter in the appendix. I asked Seamus Mannion "to chair and coordinate an Independent Inquiry into abuse which may have occurred to some individuals who attended Holy Family School or any other Brothers of Charity Service." As I had requested this independent inquiry on behalf of the Brothers of Charity Services, I believed it was perfectly proper and appropriate for the Western Health Board to consult me about the terms of reference. I was in substantial agreement with the draft terms of reference which were sent to me by Alex MacLean.

In her submission Ms Kennedy questions the reality of the independence of the inquiry. No staff member of the Brothers of Charity was a member of the inquiry and I wrote to all members of staff asking them to co-operate fully with the work of the inquiry in a prompt manner. In this regard, I assure the joint committee that the Brothers of Charity completely respected the independence of the inquiry and our staff interaction with its work was completed at arm's length, in a fully supportive manner and without any interference. I have no doubt the imminent Hynes report will concur with this view, as does the McCoy report.

I am aware that Ms Kennedy accuses the Brothers of Charity Services Galway of being oppressive and acting in secrecy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our service is particularly open and transparent. As direct evidence of this openness and transparency, appendix 3 lists 28 external evaluations which the Brothers of Charity Services Galway requested and facilitated into every part of the services in the past 12 years. These evaluations were given promptly to the Western Health Board.

One of the 28 reports presented to the Western Health Board which was carried out by Brian McClean and Dermot Courtney is the document Ms Kennedy states was secretly given to her by a member of staff. There was absolutely nothing secret about the report in question. It had previously been issued to members of the families of service users in the challenging behaviour programme in Kilcornan and staff working in the programme. The word "issuing" in the context of this report means Brian McClean and Dermot Courtney went through the report line by line with a detailed explanation of every sentence. Far from being a secret report, I accepted at the time an invitation to be interviewed on the matter by Keith Finnegan live on Galway Bay FM and there were headlines in the local newspaper. In offering the handling of this report as an example of secrecy which was being practised by the brothers, it is obvious Ms Kennedy was seriously misinformed as to what had actually happened to the report.

The document I have circulated describes developments in the Brothers of Charity Services in Galway in recent years, during which it moved from the institutional settings of Holy Family School and the Kilcornan centre. I agree we need to move quickly away from institutional service provision and strong leadership was given in moving from institutional settings. One result of this strong commitment and leadership by the Brothers of Charity in moving steadily towards small, local, community based services is that there is clear evidence that for many years a much smaller percentage of people with intellectual disability reside in institutional care in counties Galway and Roscommon than in any other two counties of similar size.

Ms Kennedy was never an employee of Brothers of Charity Services Galway but was engaged on a sessional basis as an external trainer to run a series of client protection courses with our staff. She played a useful role in our services in delivering courses on client protection and provided 26 two-day courses attended by more than 500 of our staff. In her critique of 20 January 2008 she refers to being sacked as a whistleblower. She was not an employee of the Brothers of Charity and was not sacked. Her role as a trainer was discontinued because she wrote a letter marked "Private and Confidential" to Deputy Micheál Martin, the then Minister for Health and Children, on 18 December 2003 and sent a copy of that private and confidential letter to The Irish Times. In her letter, Ms Kennedy stated:

The Brothers of Charity facilitated 17 residents going forward to the Laffoy commission. However I am told that the Brothers of Charity "dragged their feet over others and missed the deadline" (comment to me by Dr. Elizabeth Healy who heads the WHB Inquiry). I believe this was a deliberate ploy to keep the numbers down and to avoid media and Laffoy scrutiny. If it is not deliberate then it certainly is irresponsible and a dereliction of "duty of care". I believe "cover-up" may not be too strong a word.

Ms Kennedy did not seek to meet me or to communicate with me in any way before she sent this private and confidential letter to the Minister for Health and Children with copy to The Irish Times. Because Ms Kennedy chose not to check with me how we had behaved in respect of the Laffoy commission, The Irish Times quoted her directly on the subject within a couple of days.

Ms Kennedy's accusations of irresponsibility, dereliction of duty of care, cover-up and deliberate intent to keep the numbers down are very serious for me and for the Brothers of Charity services for two reasons. First, they are extremely serious because I believe it is a criminal offence to interfere with anyone's entitlement to go before the Laffoy commission. Second, Ms Kennedy's accusation in respect of our service and the Laffoy commission is serious because it is totally without foundation and untrue. I attach in Appendix 5 a log of actions of the Brothers of Charity Services in Galway in respect of the Laffoy commission. The strong, proactive and continuing support for the work of the Laffoy commission shown by me and by the Brothers of Charity Galway are clearly established in this log of actions, most notably by the fact that on receiving our first communication from the Laffoy commission on 18 August 2000, no fewer than 31 letters and other communications were issued to and from my office within one week. The importance with which we held independent communication between service user and solicitor and between service user and the Laffoy commission is indicated in my memorandum to the senior social worker who was convening a team to support people going forward to the commission. I beg the committee's indulgence to read a small part of that memorandum.

It is really important to have a clear handle on what is involved in supporting an individual who is going forward to the Laffoy Commission. Basically, what needs to happen is that the service user needs to sit down with and speak to the Laffoy Commission directly. If they are choosing to have legal representation with them, then we have to ensure that we are in second place to that solicitor all of the time and on every point. Where there is any possibility that the service user and the solicitor can go forward to the Laffoy Commission without our support, then our support should finish at the door. It is crucially important that staff members of the Brothers of Charity services intervene as little as possible (ideally not at all) in the business that is transacted between the service user and the Laffoy Commission. The objective of the support person then is to try to ensure that the service user's journey, both physically and metaphorically, is made as easy as possible and made as least stressful as it can be, while at the same time maintaining the lowest possible profile. It has to be really clear at every stage that the support person has no role being there for the Services as such. This cannot be overemphasized. The service user has asked to go to the Laffoy Commission, support staff will help them to get there.

We believe no other service in Ireland, whether a health board or a voluntary body service, acted as strongly, as proactively or as consistently as the Brothers of Charity Services Galway did in respect of the Laffoy commission.

Ms Kennedy referred in the letter I mentioned earlier to a "reign of terror that appears to be part of learning disabled people's lives in Irish institutions." Many of our staff members who had undertaken the training course with Ms Kennedy were deeply hurt by what they perceived to be her description of their dedication to their work as a participation in a "reign of terror", and they lost their entire trust in her. I lost my trust in her, as did the management of the services. We were surprised that, in line with best professional practice, she had not first sought to discuss her views with me and our management team before communicating with the Minister for Health and Children and sending a copy to The Irish Times. This was very unhelpful and could have proved to be a significant national barrier to the work of the Brothers of Charity Services at a time when we exercised leadership in providing person-centred, community-based services. This happened at a time when we were completely open about our desire to ensure what had happened could not happen again. This was evidenced by our request to the Western Health Board for an independent inquiry, our commissioning of 28 external evaluations and the issuing of their findings, the development of our policies, guidelines and procedures and our engagement of an external UK-based trainer to give courses on client protection, attendance at which we made mandatory for all staff.

I will hand over to Dr. Davis who will give evidence on our absolute and consistent commitment to offer safe, quality services in County Galway.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McGinley. Before we go to Dr. Davis, I would prefer if we focused on points of principle, rather than personal issues.

Dr. Mary Davis

I welcome the opportunity to attend this Oireachtas joint committee meeting and focus attention on abuse prevention, particularly as it affects persons with an intellectual disability who are particularly vulnerable. I plan to summarise the service's client protection initiatives outlined in the written submission.

With regard to our client protection policies, all staff take very seriously the mandatory client protection requirements in the service. We have consistently revised the service's client protection policies during the years to ensure consistency with the Children First national guidelines, trust in care and our duty to care. We also have clear procedural mechanisms that require the HSE and the Garda to be given written notification of allegations of abuse of adults. These were already in place for children under the Children First national guidelines. The service has also developed good practice guidelines to ensure protection against abuse. These were described by the HSE as "an excellent document and sets out the standards of safe care for service users". The guidelines cover topics such as good practice in intimate care, positive communication and recognition of abuse. Training on the guidelines is delivered to all staff teams by managers, social workers and psychologists.

We have provided mandatory client protection training for all staff since 2000. Staff receive training on recognising the signs and symptoms of abuse and reporting procedures in workshops provided by the head of social work and other qualified trainers. In early 2005 we developed a personal development, relationships and sexuality education programme for adult service users. This is an ongoing 15 to 20 week programme attended by six to eight service users at a time. It is very popular and to date, 100 adults with a learning disability have participated.

In terms of preventing and de-escalating challenging behaviour, we run a mandatory three-day training programme that focuses on positive supports and helping staff understand how they, or the environment, can contribute to a service user's level of distress or frustration.

In 2002 we introduced the personal outcomes measures across the service. It is an American quality system that measures how well our services support service users. The US based Council on Quality and Leadership has been requested to audit the Brothers of Charity's Galway services in June 2009 to examine compliance with the quality system.

Another initiative is our strategic plan which is designed to guide the service and all members of staff in promoting safety, ordinary life experiences, choices, citizenship, and connection to family, friends and community. It was developed through a thorough information gathering and consultation process that included the participation of service users, family members and external stakeholders.

In 2007 the Brothers of Charity's Galway Services established a human rights committee which ensures the rights of persons in receipt of services are protected. Members include four external persons, a barrister who specialises in human rights, a head of social work from another organisation, a person who has worked with Inclusion Ireland for many years and a retired consultant paediatrician. A service user and senior staff are also members and a family member has been invited to participate.

In summary, we are acutely aware of how badly the service failed children and vulnerable adults in the past. We are keenly focused and committed to our carefully developed continuous improvement culture. Driven by the leadership of the chief executive, Mr. Patrick McGinley, and the Galway services senior management team, there has been persistent focus on enhancing prevention of abuse systems, client protection procedures and quality improvement initiatives. Key components of these initiatives have been the involvement of service users, their families, staff, advocates and external reviewers.

Chairman

Thank you. Perhaps Dr. McCoy or one of the HSE representatives would like to address the committee now.

Mr. Ger Reaney

I am responsible for a number of disability services within the HSE. My interest in this regard stems from my responsibility within the HSE for liaising with the Brothers of Charity and other services in respect of following up the recommendations contained in the McCoy report. Dr. McCoy is the author of the report and Mr. Seamus McNulty is the assistant national director with responsibility for disability services within the HSE.

The information which we submitted to the committee outlines some of the events which led to the establishment of the inquiry and the proposed follow-up in that regard.

Ms Margaret Kennedy

I must explain that I wear two hearings aids as I am partially deaf and I am unable to hear Mr. Reaney. May I have a copy of Mr. Reaney's script if it is available?

Chairman

We will arrange to have the script circulated. Perhaps in the meantime Mr. Reaney will speak up a little, please.

Mr. Ger Reaney

My submission to the committee outlines the background to the establishment of the inquiry, details in respect of the inquiry in terms of the number of people who came forward and so on, some of the actions taken by the HSE prior to completion of the report and, subsequent to the report, follow-up in respect of its recommendations. I hope in the first instance to address some of the issues raised by Ms Kennedy. Dr. McCoy will then deal with the issues relating to the actual nature of the inquiry.

The inquiry was established following a number of complaints made between July and September 1997 to the then Western Health Board. Some of these complaints were made by people in Ireland and others were made by former service users of the Brothers of Charity resident at that stage in the UK. Following initial investigation by a social worker employed by the Western Health Board which involved travelling to the UK to meet complainants, it was established that the allegations referred to a number of former service users in the Holy Family school and other adult residential services run by the Brothers of Charity in Galway. The allegations also related to a number of staff, including brothers and lay staff.

This led to the establishment in early 1999 of an inquiry by the Western Health Board. Mr. McGinley has outlined some of the liaison with the Brothers of Charity and the Garda Síochána prior to that. The inquiry team was multi-disciplinary in nature and consisted of individuals with experience in child protection and disability. The terms of reference included the investigation of allegations of abuse of clients by adults which may have occurred in the Holy Family school and Brothers of Charity residential services in County Galway between 1965 and 1998; to assist any individual who makes a complaint to the Garda; and to make any appropriate recommendations which may arise from the inquiry, including examining policies and procedures in place in the service.

Prior to the establishment of the inquiry, a telephone helpline was set up by the Western Health Board and extensive advertising in this regard took place in Ireland and the UK. In particular, the advertisement was forwarded to each director of social services in the London borough in the UK which had been identified as a place former service users of the Brothers of Charity might be resident. A total of 96 calls were received by the helpline over a two week duration. Independent professional counselling was offered by the Western Health Board to anybody contacting the helpline.

In response to one of the queries raised by Ms Kennedy, all of the individuals who manned the helpline had experience in the area of disability and had a relevant professional qualification. All staff were employed by the Western Health Board, not the Brothers of Charity.

In accordance with the terms of reference, the inquiry team investigated all the allegations, a process that involved personal interviews with those who directly or indirectly requested to meet the inquiry team, as well as other relevant individuals. An opportunity was presented for past or current service users of Brothers of Charity services and care givers and staff to meet members of the team. Any interviewee who wished to make contact with the Garda following this was to be supported.

A total of 28 current or past service users were interviewed, along with two relatives and 47 staff. This led to complaints by 26 people, of which 21 referred to the terms of reference of the committee with regard to abuse by adults of individuals. All those interviews were complete by 2001.

In 2004, the chairman sought assistance with the completion of the report and Dr. McCoy, a former chief inspector of the Northern Ireland Social Services Inspectorate, was commissioned by the Western Health Board to assist in working with certain areas of the inquiry. In 2005, following the establishment of the HSE, the reporting relationship with the chair was directed to the local health manager in Roscommon. Subsequently, the HSE recognised the chair was not in a position to complete the inquiry and Dr. McCoy was engaged in April 2006 with a view to finalising the report and findings of the inquiry.

Prior to completion and publication of the report, the HSE took several actions to assure itself in terms of current safety policies and procedures. There was a review of all allegations, concerns and complaints received by the Brothers of Charity Services in Galway, which was later followed by dedicating a senior child protection individual within the HSE to review all these files and ensure appropriate follow-up.

In addition and it was referred to earlier, two professionals with extensive experience in disability and child care services and external to the Galway area were assigned to review current systems for the protection of clients. These became known as the Murphy and Mulvihill reports and are currently on the HSE website.

With regard to Ms Kennedy's concerns on the interviewing of clients, it is worth noting that Murphy and Mulvihill were not to carry out an investigation but a review of the current systems for the protection of clients. Their terms of reference included reviewing policies and procedures and it would not appear to be appropriate that they would liaise with clients in an informal setting, with regard to giving informal feedback as to how they found services, as a way to corroborate other evidence.

Plans that had already existed for the closure of the Kilcornan centre were to be progressed and an independent psychologist was employed to review the individual service plans of each of the individual service users in the Kilcornan residential centre.

The report was submitted by Dr. McCoy to the national director of PCCC services in the HSE, Ms Laverne McGuinness, on Friday, 23 November. A copy of the report was then submitted to the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children and the Minister of State, Deputy Jimmy Devins. The Department of Health and Children was briefed on the report by HSE management on 4 December 2007 and the report was presented to Cabinet on 11 December. On the same day it was launched in Galway at a press conference at 2.30 p.m. From that day it has been on the HSE website.

In preparation for the publication of this report, a supportive counselling service and helpline was put in place and 31 calls were received by the line. In line with best practice, all appropriate action was taken to follow up those calls.

The HSE fully accepted Dr. McCoy's report and the wide range of recommendations which are relevant to the Brothers of Charity Services and other services in the statutory and non-statutory sector for people with disabilities. We have actively engaged in the interim with the management of the Brothers of Charity Services and other agencies. I will deal with this in more detail.

With regard to the Brothers of Charity services in Galway and elsewhere, a programme of action based specifically on each recommendation from the McCoy report has been put in place. Regular meetings have been and will continue to be held with the Brothers of Charity Services at national and local level with regard to monitoring, on our behalf, the progress in implementing these recommendations.

In the wider field and in line with specific recommendations of the McCoy report, we have progressed a new service level agreement, which we were working on anyway, to ensure that had a strong quality and risk management framework in it to guarantee clear accountability between any agency or organisation providing services on behalf of the State for people with disabilities and the HSE.

We have prepared guidance documents for residential services for both children and adults. Members are probably aware that responsibility for standards in this area lies with the Health Information and Quality Authority. While the authority is working on draft standards, these will not be in place until 2009 at the earliest. To address this gap we have, in the interim, prepared guidance documents we are in the process of rolling out with all service providers.

In consultation and co-operation with the Department of Health and Children and service providers, we have established a steering group to prepare a plan to review all campus based settings similar to the Kilcornan centre, with a view to relocating clients to community based settings in line with the sentiments outlined by Ms Kennedy and Mr. McGinley. We are working with the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies, which represents organisations such as the Brothers of Charity, to initiate a review of all child protection issues, including all concerns and allegations made in all services for people with intellectual disability as well as the policies and procedures in place.

Ms Kennedy refers to the need to review other Brothers of Charity Services. We have taken several actions in this regard. In December 2007, prior to the publication of the McCoy report, senior child care personnel in each area in which the Brothers of Charity are based, carried out a review of their files on child protection issues. This followed from the letter, to which Ms Kennedy referred, from Ms Laverne McGuinness to the Brothers of Charity asking for information. The Brothers of Charity supplied the information requested and the HSE followed up by undertaking a service by service, file by file review to ensure we were satisfied with the procedures in place and that all appropriate action had been taken.

The review of child protection issues the HSE is carrying out with the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies will cover all services run by all organisations, including services run by the Brothers of Charity and those run directly by the HSE. As I indicated, the HSE meets representatives of the Brothers of Charity at national and local level to discuss the implications of the recommendations of the McCoy report for each of their individual services.

Ms Kennedy's reference to Home Office procedures for interviewing clients with learning disability is interesting and welcome. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána are working with the Health Service Executive on piloting similar procedures here. However, such procedures were not in place at the time the individuals in question were interviewed.

Ms Kennedy also raised questions regarding the interviewing of those who came forward. The 28 individuals in question were all interviewed by members of the inquiry team who were psychologists with extensive experience in the areas of disability and child protection.

Ms Kennedy also refers to the period between the commencement of the inquiry in 1999 and the completion of Dr. McCoy's report in 2007. Members will probably be aware that in December 2007, following publication of the report, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Jimmy Devins, requested Mr. John Hynes, an eminent public servant, to carry out a review of all matters relating to the period in question. For this reason, it would be inappropriate and disrespectful to Mr. Hynes and the individuals with whom he has liaised as part of the review to comment further on the issue. I will give Dr. McCoy an opportunity to speak on specific issues arising from the inquiry.

Dr. Kevin McCoy

Having listened to the various comments and criticisms relating to the report, I will make a short statement about the limitations that were placed on me in writing the report. Although they are covered in the preface to the report, I will read them out: "In April 2006 the Health Service Executive asked me to review all of the work completed by the Inquiry Team to date and produce a report based on the Inquiry Team's work." I was faced with producing a report on the lines of the terms of reference the inquiry team had been given and not any other terms of reference. In addition, no new work was to be undertaken.

The report was prepared following a review of the documentation and work carried out by the chair and inquiry team in the preceding period. This involved a detailed, careful review of a large amount of documentation and a large number of records which had been generated by the inquiry. It was also necessary to seek appropriate legal advice with regard to the application of fair procedures and natural justice. That was particularly so because of the non-statutory nature of the inquiry. It was conducted in private and the evidence taken by the inquiry was unsworn. On completion of this report, where possible, relevant extracts were furnished to appropriate parties to ensure natural justice was observed. All observations and responses were considered in full and, where appropriate, were included in the report. With regard to adults who were deceased at the time of the inquiry, the allegations could not be put to them.

It is important to bear in mind that the report was not intended to make findings as to the culpability of any one individual or body, nor did it do so. The inquiry was not set up to do that. The situations that were noted are as recorded in the records and interview notes held by the inquiry team, and the report is based on that information alone. I did not undertake any further investigation or examination of individuals, either people who made allegations or accused persons. It is important to emphasise the nature of the inquiry and the limitations that were imposed by the terms of reference.

Chairman

I thank Dr. McCoy. Do any of the delegates from the other groups wish to make any further comment for the information of members before we go to questions? No.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I thank everyone who has made presentations to us today. I do not want to comment on them but to raise some questions, as I think the committee may have to consider on another day what we have heard today and give further consideration to all the documentation that has been furnished. To a degree I sympathise with the position in which Dr. McCoy found himself. He was called in April 2006 to complete a report based on documentation and records in circumstances in which the report should have been completed by others many years earlier.

I will attempt to be brief in my questions. The original inquiry team was set up in March 1999. Of the members of this team, Ms Dawn Glynn, who is referred to as an acting senior clinical psychologist, returned to her original post on 28 August 2001; Ms Siobhan Burke, a clinical psychologist, returned to her post on 25 June 2001; Ms Pat Melody-Dunne, residential centre manager, took a career break on 1 March 2000; Ms Jill Osborne, a social worker, resigned from the team on 11 May 1999; and Ms Ann Wall, who was appointed as a social worker to the team from March 1999, departed on 31 August 1999.

By the time we got to August 2001, the entire team appointed in March 1999 had left or resigned, with Dr. Elizabeth Healy, the chairperson, the only person left. I understand she had difficulties in completing any work she could do. I listened to and was impressed with what Mr. McGinley said about the need for transparency and accountability, and I appreciate that the HSE has now taken over responsibility for the Western Health Board, but I presume there are some records of what was happening. Is it accepted on the part of the HSE that there was an obligation to produce a report with reasonable expertise and speed and having consulted with the relevant persons? Can I have an explanation as to why the entire team appointed had resigned within two years of their appointment without any report being published? This is not an issue of timeframes but of what happened to this team of people.

When they departed, why were no other persons appointed to the committee? Not recognising the essential rights of those persons who had been abused to have their situations addressed comprehensively was a gross failure of responsibility. If the effort of appointing a team failed, why was an independent person not appointed to conduct an inquiry, as happened in Ferns when Mr. George Bermingham, senior counsel, was appointed?

I appreciate that Mr. Hynes is conducting an inquiry at the Minister's request as to why it took from December 1999 to 2007 to publish this report. That inquiry resulted in my raising this matter in the Dáil in December 2007. It is not an insult to Mr. Hynes for the HSE, which was created in 2005, to give its perspective on the reasons for the delay.

I am curious as to why only 28 persons were interviewed. My understanding is the same as that of Margaret Kennedy. More than 130 persons suffering from disabilities, who are the alleged victims of sexual abuse in residential homes run by the Brothers of Charity, have applied to the redress board for compensation. How were the 28 people chosen and why were more of those who received care under the aegis of the Brothers of Charity at the time or earlier not interviewed? What efforts were made to bring these people into the inquiry process? These are legitimate questions relating to the comprehensiveness of the inquiry.

I genuinely appreciate the position Dr. McCoy was in and I feel, whatever the limitations of his report, as described by Margaret Kennedy, he was somewhere between a rock and a hard place. I suspect that if Dr. McCoy had not been introduced to this process there would not have been a report but, in a sense, it was unfair to him that he was introduced in this way. Ultimately, his report had to have certain limitations.

I appreciate Dr. McCoy may not have had certain information available but there are valid questions relating to the movements of religious members of the Brothers of Charity and its non-religious employees who were identified as alleged abusers of those in their care. What was done to trace the movement of these individuals from one institution to another? Mr. McGinley and Dr. McCoy may not know the answer to this. What was done to ensure that as these individuals moved from one institution to another, all those in the institutions known to have had alleged abusers in their presence had an opportunity to give evidence to the inquiry? I have huge concerns that a substantial number of people who were victims of abuse have fallen outside this report. They have not had their stories told and, as a consequence, there may be gaps in information required by the Brothers of Charity and the HSE to ensure there is no repetition of these events. These are important issues.

I have many other questions but it would be unfair to other committee members to raise them now. I would welcome responses to the questions I have raised. There is one final question to raise with Mr. McGinley. I appreciate that Mr. Ger Reaney was not there at the start of this. For an inquiry to be meaningful it must do a number of things.It must give an opportunity to those who are victims of abuse to tell their story and for the full facts to be made known. It must ensure that ultimately recommendations are made which ensure systems are put in place to prevent repetition of these events. Also, it should, if it is to be meaningful, provide within its terms of reference that those conducting the inquiry may determine where responsibility lies, be it with individuals as managers running institutions, Western Health Board oversight or other oversight that would be normally required.

There is a huge gap in the report in this regard, for which Dr. McCoy has been criticised. I appreciate his telling us the terms of reference did not permit him to go there. I believe Dr. McCoy's being brought into this process in April 2006 made it impossible for him to go there, even if the terms of reference had allowed for it purely in the context of constitutional and natural justice, because he did not conduct the interviews. There is a huge problem in terms of the manner in which this was dealt with and with the final content of this report. Any enlightenment as to why it was dealt with in this way would be greatly appreciated.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

I thank the delegation for coming here today to discuss what is quite a complex matter. I would like at the end of my contribution to ask a question about the reviews referred to in the course of the presentations.

I want first to focus on the terms of reference of the inquiry. I will try not to ask the same questions asked by Deputy Shatter. Dr. McCoy in his introduction stated: "While the report is limited in its scope, it is hoped its implementation and recommendations will ensure.....". This is a clear acknowledgment by Dr. McCoy that the report is limited in its scope. He has already told us that it was non-statutory and unsworn and that the evidence was taken in private. My first question, which is to everybody, is what was the purpose of the inquiry?

The inquiry was established in 1999. I became a Member of Dáil Eireann in 1998 when the revelations in respect of child abuse were receiving extensive coverage in the media and following which the Taoiseach issued an apology to those involved. At that time, I was Labour Party spokesperson on law reform and had put forward legislation in regard to the statute of limitations. That legislation was taken on board by Government and subsequently became law and led to the setting up of the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.

Why did this investigation, which was set up in 1999, have such a narrow scope? Its terms of reference appear to have been quite constrained. Why was not a senior counsel or other legal person given responsibility for the report as was the case in respect of other issues related to child abuse which arose at that time? A question I was going to ask and which was put forward by Ms Kennedy was partially answered by Mr. McGinley.

In relation to questions asked during the investigation, Mr. Reaney stated that this task was carried out by psychologists. Was consideration given to Ms Kennedy's suggestion that intermediaries or people used to obtaining information from people with an intellectual disability should have carried out that task? Did the investigation require such input? Was international expertise, as referred to by Ms Kennedy, sought and would it have helped in terms of ensuring a comprehensive inquiry?

I am also concerned about the issue of tracking. It was mentioned that the HSE and the Garda Síochána appear to have been somewhat involved. I am not sure of the extent so perhaps somebody could expand on that. If there were issues which it was deemed should have been referred to the Garda, was there an attempt to find out if the individuals in question had worked in other areas of the service or other institutions altogether?

Much of the concern around this issue deals with ends that have not been tied off, the possibility that individuals may have been in other places and abuse may have occurred which we still do not know of. That is essentially the basis of much of the concern. What efforts were made in tracking individuals we know committed abuse? We know abuse occurred and people listening to this will welcome that it has been openly acknowledged and an apology has been made. What has been done to find out what has happened exactly?

Other issues were raised by Ms Kennedy, including tracking and the exact role of the HSE and Garda. In 2005, Ms Laverne McGuinness asked the Brothers of Charity to look at files from 1965 to 2005 to identify concerns and relay them to the Garda. This issue has been raised but it seems extraordinary that the Brothers of Charity — or any organisation — would be asked to look at its own files to see what should be referred to the Garda. Will the witnesses comment on why this happened?

With regard to the terms of reference, Ms Neary referred to whether it is appropriate that terms of reference are agreed with the organisation being investigated. I know Mr. McGinley was fairly vociferous in dealing with that issue and he felt his organisation did not alter the terms of reference in any significant way. It appears to be a general principle that terms of reference given to any inquiry, generally speaking, should be objectively decided.

This goes back quite a long way but who decided the initial terms of reference put to the Brothers of Charity? Was it a Minister or the health board of the time? Who was consulted or why were the terms of reference as narrow as they were? I will leave it at that as I do not want to hog all the questions.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

I welcome all the witnesses. Every one of us shares the regret that anybody on this island, male or female, adult or child, was abused while in the care of any service. While we are dealing with the Brothers of Charity Services today, it is important to put in context that there were other institutions run by religious orders where abuse took place.

Although abuse can never be condoned in any shape, make or form, it is important to clarify there were very many good people in all of our institutions run by religious orders, both clergy and lay people, who provided an excellent service. It would be unfair to them not to put on record the good work they did and the contribution they made to society. They should not be stigmatised or labelled in all of this.

Somebody made the point that it was important to identify the abuse and equally important to move forward in a constructive manner so the possibility of abuse would be prevented in future. That is the vital point. Whereas the report may have limitations, if we did not have the report we may not have known the extent of the abuse. I concur with what Deputy Shatter spoke about when he talked about reports having meaning.If reports are to have meaning and if we are to learn and benefit from them, they must be produced in a timely manner and within a specific time frame.

In the past ten years Ireland has made major and welcome strides in the area of child protection. However, this is work in progress which must be constantly monitored and reviewed. The issue of tracking the movements of individuals must be examined because persons who are alleged to have perpetrated abuse of this nature should not be in a position to repeat their offences. Last week, in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, an 86 year old woman was abused in her home by somebody who had a conviction. Irrespective of the nature of the conviction, whether it is for institutional abuse or another offence, it is extremely important to track abusers.

The number of people with intellectual disability who need to be institutionalised continues to decline. This welcome advance is the result of a changing model of care in which we move towards using community based services. Nevertheless, community services also present certain challenges, for example, in the case of ongoing abuse of elderly people.

I would welcome the development and use of a specific learning tool for dealing with people with an intellectual disability so that they will be able to communicate their views during interviews. They deserve to be treated with dignity and need to be interviewed in a proper manner. No one present would deny them that right.

A secret report was mentioned. I learned early in life that if one wants to keep a secret one must not tell it to anyone or put it in writing. If something was secretive, it would not have been put in writing. That is a valuable lesson we have all learned. I welcome the presentations and thank our guests.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

Most of my questions have already been asked. As the delegations will be aware, the report relates to my local area. Before making personal observations, I note that we have experienced many similar cases down the years which create extreme difficulty for the families of those who have been abused. The very sincere apology I have heard Mr. McGinley give on several occasions in recent years will not be of any use unless steps are taken to prevent the abuse taking place again.

As one who comes from the area in which these events took place, I am fully aware of the positive actions undertaken by the Brothers of Charity. Ability West is the other main service provider in the area. While I have some profound questions regarding some of the things I have heard and observed, I believe the Brothers of Charity now provide a professional service and I am heartened by the checks and balances currently in place.

As a long-standing Member of the House, I will never accept an assurance that something will never happen again. Events always repeat themselves when people take their eye off the ball. While I am not a psychologist or social worker I have sufficient knowledge to form judgments about the people with whom I meet and deal.What is put in place might be good enough in changing circumstances in five or ten years' time. However, there are many people in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies who hold the Brothers of Charity in such good stead that they are sorry they do not have twice the money to use because they just cannot provide the services that many of my constituents want. Despite this awful saga in the history of the Brothers of Charity, which was a desperate time for their victims, it appears to me that the people I meet — the parents of boys and girls with disabilities who use the service — have full confidence only because of the checks and balances we are being told about today. If they were not there I do not think anyone would use the service, and they would be right not to do so, to put it bluntly. However, this is not the case, and it appears there is great confidence locally. Naturally, like any other TD or elected representative I have found the service to be nothing short of professional from the time I knew it, but most of what happened was before I had anything to do with politics.

I will not delay the meeting, but there are two things the public is finding it extraordinarily difficult to understand. I find it difficult. How could an investigation take eight or nine years? No matter how one looks at it and what the answers are, and no matter how difficult the investigation is — all these things are extraordinarily difficult and multi-layered — I do not understand how it could take so long. I do not know whether the health board, the Brothers of Charity and others involved understand this, but the ordinary members of the public cannot accept that a body would take nine or ten years to come to a conclusion. In this case it is not even a real conclusion, because it has now gone back to Mr. Hynes. "Wake up and smell the coffee" is a term used nowadays. It is certainly time to wake up in this regard.

Deputies Shatter and O'Sullivan asked worthwhile questions about tracking the abusers. Can the representatives give us an undertaking that the abusers are not in the service of the Brothers of Charity or of any other body providing such services? It is very important that such a commitment be given. The question of what happens to them afterwards, as abusers, is not my role here. The general public will watch this on television tonight, as Deputy Shatter mentioned. Let us have a guarantee, in the words of the representatives, and a commitment that those people have nothing whatsoever to do with services dealing with children.

I was delighted to have the opportunity to listen to the author of the McCoy report. At the time I could not understand why the inquiry was not conducted under a senior counsel, as most other inquiries had been. Would Dr. McCoy prefer, in hindsight, that it had been a senior counsel?

Deputy James Reilly

I thank everybody for coming here today. The Brothers of Charity have done fantastic work for our society and for us. It causes them and everybody terrible sadness, I am sure, that these abuses occurred in their service. It has also taken great courage for both Ms Kennedy and Ms Neary to be here today to raise certain issues and I thank them for doing so.

Certain issues concern me and members have raised some of them so I will not go through the full gamut. I find it strange that there should be agreement on the terms of reference of an inquiry from these being inquired into. This should have been a sworn inquiry but perhaps there were complications in this respect of which I am not aware. The fact that no culpability is to be attributed to anyone in the terms of reference seems to me a glaring gap and this obviously put Dr. McCoy in an invidious position.

Can we be sure that all of the alleged abusers were interviewed by the Garda? In case 767, adult G alleges he was raped twice by an individual but there was no conviction. What is the status of these people, given that, as Deputy Shatter pointed out, only 28 people were interviewed, despite there being 130 claims from different individuals?

Deputy Shatter outlined what he felt the inquiry should achieve and I would like to go over this again. It should identify if abuse took place and identify the offenders and bring them to book. This is a major part of what we are discussing today. The inquiry should compensate the victims and ensure a new regime is put in place that minimises the chances of this occurring again. We all know there will always be bad people that do bad things, though that may sound juvenile. People with criminal intent will always be with us and we must protect against them as best we can. The two key issues are why the terms of reference were set by agreement, as they were, and whether we can be sure that all of the alleged abusers were interviewed by the Garda.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

I welcome the three groups that have made presentations as they made for interesting, if not pleasant, listening. This subject should be exposed as much as possible. The main issues are the location of the offenders and ensuring they have no contact with children — I am sure they no longer work within the services of the Brothers of Charity. Can we be sure they no longer have access to children or work in children's services? The inquiry and today's meeting are intended to ensure this cannot happen again. Did Mr. Reaney say vetting procedures are still only being looked at?

Mr. Ger Reaney

No.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

Do we have a national vetting procedure in place for all areas?

Mr. Ger Reaney

There is a national vetting procedure in place for all services that employ people with disabilities.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

That is not quite what I am asking. Is there a vetting procedure in place for all people who work with children? Is the Garda involved?

Mr. Seamus McNulty

It is part of the recruitment process that anyone entering the service, whether voluntary or statutory, must be vetted by the Garda.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

What service is Mr. McNulty referring to?

Mr. Seamus McNulty

All services, whether HSE services or agency services provided on behalf of the HSE, must ensure that staff who are recruited go through the Garda vetting process.

Chairman

Members of the House visited the Garda vetting unit yesterday.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I was there yesterday.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

How long has the Garda vetting unit been in place?

Chairman

We will get the answers at the end.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

How long has the Garda vetting unit been in place? Has everyone who works in the system been cleared by this unit? Must a person who has worked in the area for 20 years go through the process? I think this is important.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Lynch. I think many of the questions may fall to Mr. Reaney and perhaps he could clarify whether convictions were secured in respect of any of the cases that were investigated.

Mr. Ger Reaney

A wide range of queries have been raised. I will be quite happy to come back in later to respond to any questions I do not answer now.

On tracking perpetrators or people against whom allegations have been made, all of the individuals against whom allegations were made were tracked. To the best of my knowledge — Mr. McGinley can clarify this — none are currently employed by the Brothers of Charity Services. We understand some individuals have moved to the UK. Every effort was made to ensure the safety of clients availing of services in which particular individuals were working. We are satisfied no risk exists within this jurisdiction. The appropriate authorities in the UK were notified. Many of the individuals concerned have retired and some have died.

A number of prosecutions arose out of complaints which form part of the inquiry, some of which led to convictions.

Deputy Alan Shatter

There is a particular problem at the moment in Irish law in respect of a person suffering from a disability giving evidence in regard to allegations of abuse. In so far as Mr. Reaney is aware, is this the reason convictions were not obtained in some instances?

Mr. Ger Reaney

I am not familiar enough with the details of the inquiry to answer that question.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I appreciate Mr. Reaney may not have that information. However, it is a particular area of difficulty at the moment because our law has not been updated in the same way as has been legislation in the UK.

Mr. Ger Reaney

While I agree with Deputy Shatter's surmising of the difficulty, I cannot comment on individual cases. As to whether these individuals abused other service users in other institutions, I will reiterate for Members some of the information provided earlier. We reviewed all files in other Brothers of Charity centres. We continue to work with the Brothers of Charity to ensure that the best procedures are in place and that they are implemented.

I agree with those who said it is important we minimise the risk of this happening again and with those who said complacency is our difficulty. We are working with the Brothers of Charity and all services to ensure the greatest awareness possible of all the indicators of abuse. This relates to current and historic abuse. We are working with the Brothers of Charity to ensure greater awareness of concerns that may arise in respect of vulnerable individuals.

Deputy Shatter asked about the original inquiry, why people resigned and were not replaced and why an independent person was not appointed in this instance. Once the HSE became responsible for the inquiry it was brought to a reasonably rapid conclusion. Dr. McCoy was brought on board to complete the report. All that was possible was done once we took responsibility for the matter.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Did the HSE have information in respect of what was going on from 1999 to 2001 that resulted in every person but the chairperson, as appointed by this committee, leaving the inquiry?

Mr. Ger Reaney

I do not have that information.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Mr. Reaney does not know why that happened.

Mr. Ger Reaney

No.

Chairman

I presume that will form part of Mr. Hynes report.

Mr. Ger Reaney

Yes.

Deputy James Reilly

Were all alleged abusers interviewed by the Garda Síochána?

Mr. Ger Reaney

I cannot be sure if all alleged abusers were interviewed by the Garda but all reports were passed on to the Garda Síochána and it is then a matter for the Garda to follow up on them. I cannot tell the Deputy whether they were all interviewed.

Deputy Shatter stated that only a relatively small number of people were interviewed. A total of 96 people contacted the helpline. Some of those who contacted the helpline did not make allegations of abuse but asked questions and offered their congratulations in respect of the establishment of the inquiry. Some 25 people volunteered or were persuaded to go forward and give information to the inquiry. A further 31 made allegations but refused to give their identity, so it is not possible to follow up in regard to those.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Were all the people who were interviewed identified through the helpline?

Mr. Ger Reaney

No. Some 25 were identified in that way. A total of 28 were interviewed. The majority were identified through the helpline.

Deputy Alan Shatter

The majority were identified through the helpline in circumstances where one was dealing with people who suffered from serious disabilities who may not have found a helpline a user friendly way of communicating.

Mr. Ger Reaney

In some cases——

Deputy Alan Shatter

There was no tracing back in interviews of all persons within the residential care of the Brothers of Charity over a specified number of years. What was relied upon essentially was a call-in through the helpline.

Mr. Ger Reaney

Some relatives of individuals came forward where the individuals may not have been comfortable using the helpline. On whether we followed up each service user individually, more than 500 individuals were involved. It is a moot point whether that would have been a wise course of action as distinct from being a feasible course of action.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I apologise for interrupting and I promise I will not do this continuously, but does the fact that approximately 130 users of the service have claimed compensation from the redress tribunal not indicate that this inquiry was completely unsatisfactory and did not succeed in talking to the vast majority of victims?

Mr. Ger Reaney

We are satisfied that everything possible was done to give every individual who wanted to come forward and tell his story to the inquiry the opportunity to do that.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

Was there any attempt to contact people other than by way of the inquiry line?

Mr. Ger Reaney

There were advertisements in both written and electronic media.

Chairman

Does Mr. McGinley wish to comment on that aspect?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

There were several ways to try to persuade people to come forward to the inquiry team, to the Laffoy commission and to the redress board. Brother Alfred and I managed to get an interview with Mr. Jim Fahy on RTE during which we said directly to people that if they or a family member were in the Brothers of Charity Services or in the Holy Family school they should go forward to the inquiry and to the Garda Síochána and tell their story. We did the same thing on Galway Bay FM. In addition we placed advertisements in 19 newspapers. We made our designated files and all our files available to the inquiry team. I wrote to every staff member to the effect that where there was any reason to believe somebody should go forward to the inquiry team or had something they would like to speak up about they should be supported to do that.

There is one other fact I will mention, if I may. The terms of reference of the redress board were very different. It was possible for people who attended Holy Family school who did not have a complaint in regard to physical or sexual abuse to go forward simply on the basis that they attended Holy Family school.

Deputy Alan Shatter

The redress board's remit to make compensation payments is based on persons having suffered sexual abuse.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I believe the terms of reference are wider than that. We have supported people to go forward on the basis that they may have suffered educational neglect.

Mr. Ger Reaney

Deputy O'Sullivan raised issues in regard to what we saw as the purpose of the inquiry. Reading from the terms of reference, the purpose of the inquiry could be summarised as to investigate allegations, to ensure every individual is given the opportunity to come forward and tell their story, notwithstanding the discussion we have just had, and to put in place recommendations. If the committee looks at the recommendations and what has been done both within the Brothers of Charity and externally and what is being done, this inquiry has been very successful in that regard and will make a significant difference to both the safety of individuals with disabilities and to the assurance we can have in regard to their safety and quality of life.

The question of the possibility of using intermediaries was raised. To the best of my knowledge, that to which Ms Kennedy referred is an initiative in the British Home Office. Here, the use of intermediaries is still only being piloted and would not have been an option for the inquiry at the time. However, we are satisfied that the two individuals involved had considerable experience working with people with disabilities and would have been able to facilitate them in the context of telling their stories.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

Were there two psychologists involved?

Mr. Ger Reaney

Yes. Each of them had experience in the area of learning disability.

Members referred to the Brothers of Charity being asked to examine their files. In making that request, Ms McGuinness reminded the organisation it had a responsibility to ensure that any information it possessed which was relevant to the Garda was passed on. I stress that we followed up in respect of this matter. That was not the only action taken. With the co-operation of the Brothers of Charity, we reviewed all relevant files. This happened in December 2007 and, in turn, it led to recommendations in respect of record-keeping within the Brothers of Charity which are currently being followed up by that organisation.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

Mr. Reaney stated that the HSE had access to the files and made recommendations in respect of record-keeping. There appears to be a suggestion that the standard of record-keeping was not adequate. Was it not possible to access certain information?

Mr. Ger Reaney

There was no difficulty in accessing information. We judged that the Brothers of Charity would benefit from a consistent approach across all of its services. There were some variations in the services but there was no difficulty accessing information.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

So it was not the case that certain files were not accessible.

Mr. Ger Reaney

Exactly. We were of the view that some benefits could be gained, from the point of view of ease of access, by using electronic files. I reiterate, however, that there was no difficulty in obtaining files.

Several members referred to the terms of reference and raised concerns about the fact that these were discussed with the Brothers of Charity. As stated earlier, I did not hold my current position at the time. However, I understand the terms of reference were originally written by the child care manager at the Galway local health office following a report made to him by a social worker there after a meeting involving the Garda, the Brothers of Charity and the Western Health Board. The terms of reference were submitted to the Brothers of Charity for comment and minor modifications were requested but not taken on board. The person who decided on the terms of reference was the regional manager of the Western Health Board. Effectively, that person held the role of deputy chief executive and had responsibility for disability services within the Western Health Board area.

I have covered most of the points raised. Perhaps Mr. McNulty might respond on the issues relating to Garda vetting.

Mr. Seamus McNulty

There is a process in place for Garda vetting of prospective staff. As Deputy Kathleen Lynch alluded to, an issue arises in respect of members of staff who may have held posts for considerable periods and who may not have been vetted. However, Garda clearance must be obtained in respect of all new staff coming into the service.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

The inquiry began in 1999. I presume that those against whom allegations were made at that stage were immediately removed from the positions they held. Was that the case? Were the people to whom I refer allowed to continue working with children during the period 1999 to 2005 or were they moved elsewhere?

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. McGinley will provide replies to that question and any others which arose earlier and to which he wishes to respond.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

Every member who contributed referred to the terms of reference. These were drawn up by the child care manager and sent to me for comment. I made my comments on them and forwarded them to the regional manager of the Western Health Board. As far as I can recall, the terms of reference that were accepted by the regional manager were almost identical to those recommended by the child care manager. As it was I who had requested the inquiry — this is an unusual feature in that the subject of the inquiry, the Brothers of Charity Services, asked the Western Health Board to conduct an inquiry — it was not unreasonable that the services would be consulted on the terms of reference. The final decision was taken by the regional manager of the Western Health Board, as was perfectly appropriate.

In terms of the alleged perpetrators, I emphasise the extent to which the inquiry and all of its processes were independent of the Brothers of Charity Services. If the inquiry were to identify that persons against whom allegations had been made were in our employment, we were very clear that we should be contacted by the inquiry about such persons. In fact, the people against whom allegations were made were not in our employment at that stage.

The issue of tracking has been comprehensively addressed by Mr. Reaney and I am glad it was carried out.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I am conscious we have subjected members of the HSE and Dr. McCoy and Mr. McGinley to questions. Perhaps Ms Kennedy or Ms Neary, having heard the responses we have been given, have something to add before we complete the hearing.

Chairman

I had planned to do ask Ms Kennedy and Ms Neary to comment. Are there any outstanding questions to be addressed?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I would like to address the question posed by Deputy Connaughton as to whether anyone against whom an allegation had been made was still employed in the services. To be clear on this matter, there is no one in the employment of the Brothers of Charity Services against whom an allegation of sexual abuse has ever been levelled.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Under its terms of reference, does the Residential Institutions Redress Board have access to Garda files and reports? Is it permitted to refer to discoveries that have been made when awarding compensation? Whereas compensation claims have been filed with the redress board by 132 people, only 26 people were interviewed in compiling the report. Does the redress board have access to all available information to assist it in making compensation awards to alleged victims?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

The Residential Institutions Redress Board typically asks the Brothers of Charity for a great volume of information regarding all of those who have contacted it. We supply full information to the redress board in respect of anybody they question. I understand that under its terms of reference the redress board is available to all those who believe they were educationally disadvantaged by having attended the Holy Family school, apart altogether from whether they believe they were beaten, hit or abused at the school. I do not know whether this fact accounts for a proportion of the figure to which the Deputy referred. We have strongly and proactively tried to inform people about the work of the inquiry team and the importance of going forward to the inquiry. This also applies in the case of the Laffoy commission and the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Were any offenders prosecuted?

Mr. Ger Reaney

While I do not have the full facts available to me, I understand there have been prosecutions.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I believe two people were prosecuted and convicted. I do not know if anybody was prosecuted and not convicted. I agree with Deputy Shatter's remarks in this regard. When persons with an intellectual disability make an allegation against a staff member, I am not sure the judicial system, Director of Public Prosecutions or the Garda Síochána take them as seriously as they should be taken. Such allegations deserve to be taken perfectly seriously. I have seen several people who I thought would make great witnesses, but once a person has an intellectual disability his or her evidence is sometimes not taken seriously. There is a serious need here and I would love to see some reform in the law in that regard.

Chairman

The committee could well have a look at that in the very near future.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

I wish to raise points on that.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

I wish to clarify an issue. When allegations were made, were the people in question removed immediately from their posts? I know that if an allegation is made against somebody in an educational establishment today, that person is immediately removed from his or her post, an investigation is carried out and whatever proceedings are necessary follow down the line. Were the people against whom allegations were made immediately removed or allowed to continue in their work?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

The people against whom allegations were made were immediately suspended with pay pending investigation.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

That is fine.

Chairman

I will bring in Ms Kennedy. On the point being made, we really need to engage as a committee very quickly on this issue of law. If the law is inadequate in protecting people with disabilities who are already seriously disadvantaged, it requires clarity.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I am aware of a court case some months ago in which charges were dismissed in circumstances where evidence was not accepted from someone with an intellectual disability. There is urgent need for radical reform of our law in this area. It deals with the manner in which such people are deemed to have capacity to give evidence and it is not just a question of the people being assisted. There is very specific legislation now in place in the United Kingdom that we could, with great benefit, simply introduce to our law.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I wish to make a follow-up clarification for Deputy Conlon. One person in the employment of the Holy Family school was suspended following an allegation. The matter was referred to the Garda, which decided not to prosecute, and the Department of Education and Science, curiously, decided to have a tribunal. The person was cleared by the tribunal and was required to be returned to work. He returned to work having been cleared by the tribunal and after the Garda decided not to go ahead with a prosecution. That was a person against whom there were further allegations and he was suspended a second time at a later period, and he did not thereafter return to work.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

The difficulty in that case is the damage has been done to that person by virtue of the fact he has already been suspended, with an allegation disproved.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

I wish to clarify a matter. I asked Mr. McGinley a while ago if there were any people, in the interregnum between 1999 and 2005, when the inquiry was completed, still working with children. He said very clearly nobody was working at the school at the time the inquiry was asked for.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

That is correct. This clarification——

Deputy Alan Shatter

Mr. McGinley subsequently said somebody was suspended with pay.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

That case was in 1989, with the subsequent complaint in 1993.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

There is such a thing as being innocent until proven guilty as well.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

I am sure there is. We are not deciding guilt or otherwise; we are just inquiring.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Apparently the point was the person, having not been prosecuted and having had a tribunal determine that the person should return to work, had a second allegation made against him. As a result of this, the person did not return to work, having been suspended. That was the point. I thank Mr. McGinley for clarifying that.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

Yes, I was unclear on that.

Chairman

I am anxious to conclude if possible.

Dr. Kevin McCoy

There are two points, with one following up Deputy Shatter's point about the small number of people coming forward. They were a self-selected group and despite the best efforts of the Brothers of Charity and others to publicise the establishment of the inquiry, only the small number came forward. That is quite in common with other organisations that seek applications for redress. For example, the numbers going forward for redress would certainly not be a very high proportion of people who have been in institutional care. Likewise, the numbers coming forward to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, of which I was a member for two and a half years, were not a high proportion of people who were in institutional care.

Deputy Alan Shatter

There seems to be a large discrepancy between the numbers who sought compensation from the redress board and the numbers talked to here. That so many sought redress indicates that there are more victims of abuse than may be apparent from this report. I assume — and Mr. McGinley may be able to confirm my assumption — that some of the people who were missed in this report may, by now, have told their story to the Ryan commission, formerly the Laffoy commission. We might get further insight into the history of this when the Ryan commission publishes its reports.

Dr. Kevin McCoy

That is a fair point.

It is important to bear in mind that vetting is limited. It will only pick up convictions and not the soft information about individuals who may have committed an offence but, for whatever reason, were not convicted.

Deputy Alan Shatter

The vetting system operating here would pick up people who have been convicted of an offence or who have been prosecuted, whether for sexual abuse or other offences, and where there has been a "not guilty" finding. The factual background to such cases would be reported. There is a problem with soft information. There is an even greater problem in another area. The Garda will report prosecutions or convictions to the HSE but if the HSE takes children into care because it is believed they have been the victims of physical or sexual abuse within a family environment, there is no cross current of information whereby the outcome of child care cases with allegations of that nature are furnished to the Garda for inclusion in their vetting system. There are huge gaps in that area. It is one of the areas the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is looking at.

Chairman

Thank you for that information, Deputy Shatter.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

A person with an intellectual disability, particularly if it is profound or severe, would not be able to describe abuse. Was an attempt made to facilitate people who might have witnessed abuse? Was that encouraged.

Mr. Patrick McGinley

People who reported witnessing abuse were referred onward to the Laffoy commission and to the redress board. We have several people who have little or no speech and will not be able to tell their story. This is a very complex part of the work of the Redress Board. I discussed this matter with our solicitor only yesterday.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

Was that part of this inquiry?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

I do not know of any person who had no language or speech and who went forward to the inquiry.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

Did anyone go on behalf of such a person and give an account of witnessing abuse?

Mr. Patrick McGinley

Any allegation made known to us would have been brought forward to the inquiry.

Chairman

Ms Neary or Ms Kennedy, would either of you like to make some brief concluding remarks.

Ms Margaret Kennedy

I thank the committee for exploring this issue quite thoroughly. However, I am still concerned that not everything has been covered. We have not looked at the ad hoc or planned inspections of institutions. I am doing research into clergy who abuse adult women. Some of these clergy abuse children and adults. We need to think about the crossover between abusing children and abusing adults. That was a part of some of the abuse in the institution of the Brothers of Charity and needs to be unpicked some more.

The Murphy-Mulvihill inquiry expressed alarm at the number of waivers police were giving to certain staff, and I am also alarmed. I do not understand the waiver system, which relates to vetting, as we do not have such a system in the UK. It was said tracking was done but I did not see that clearly and succinctly enough in the McCoy report. I still do not know the timelines of who went where and when and who sent them. Tracking may have taken place but it was not sufficient.

Deputy Conlon said we should look forward but if we do not learn what happened, down to the last inch of the story, we will not keep institutions safe in this country. When I tried to raise some of the issues in 2003 I was told this was not uncommon in institutions in Ireland. That statement is damning of institutions for learning disabled people in this country. I am disappointed that Mr. McGinley decided to spend a proportion of his time critically examining my role. The Kilcornan report was given to me secretly by a senior member of staff. It was not given to me "above board" as a specialist invited to teach and train staff. It may have been given to parents and others but it was certainly not given to me.

I want to focus only on what has happened to learning disabled people. A person does not recover from sexual abuse. I have worked with survivors of sexual abuse for the past 20 years while running survivors' groups for those abused by clergy. People tell me they do not recover and that it amounts to soul murder. Learning disabled people may not have understood what was going on or realised the enormity of it all but they will have been damaged by the experience. Even if a person is learning disabled or intellectually impaired he or she will not escape the damage of being raped, buggered or beaten with bats and fists. I am alarmed that Dr. Kevin McCoy referred to beating with bats as "sanctions" in his report. I believe it is a criminal offence to beat somebody with a bat.

I thank the members of the committee for allowing me to be present as it has been a long journey to uncover what was going on. I do not believe we have yet got to the bottom of it and I hope this is only the beginning of the process and that we can thoroughly look at all institutions as this meeting has repercussions for them all. I hope courage will be shown by the committee to start something really positive to make sure no learning disabled child, with Down's syndrome, autism or Asperger's syndrome, ever goes through this again.

Survivors tell me apologies are not enough and are too late as this should never have happened. In the appendix of my critique of the McCoy report I sent a message to parents and to victims. My message to victims is "You did nothing wrong — it is not your fault and it should not have happened". It went on for too long and so did the inquiry and that brings shame on this country and its institutions. I thank the committee for inviting me and exploring the issues. I hope more work will be done.

Chairman

I thank Ms Kennedy and I am sure we will return to this matter on the publication of the Hynes report.

Mr. Ger Reaney

I acknowledge Ms Kennedy's summary of the awful impact on victims. I will comment on two matters of factual interest. She refers to the inspection of institutions and I refer her to the role of HIQA, which is currently preparing draft standards. There will be a public consultation process on those standards in September and they will be finalised before the end of the year. The only people who can inspect institutions are in HIQA. I have talked about what we have tried to do on an interim basis through guidance, documents, etc.

Ms Kennedy also referred to learning for all institutions. I again refer the committee to the audit we are organising in respect of which it is intended to tender for a person with appropriate expertise to audit complaints across all institutions, all services and also policies and procedures to ensure they are appropriate and to ensure that the extensive learning for this is maximised and put in place.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Reaney. Thank you all for your presentations and for answering the members' questions so succinctly. This has certainly been an informative process for the committee and one to which I hope we will return on publication of the Hynes report.

Deputy Alan Shatter

In the absence of Deputy Reilly, I inform the committee that the proposal was to return to the issue when the Hynes report is published, giving us all an opportunity to consider the documentation received today and the submissions made to us.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 July 2008.