While I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, it is regrettable that the Minister responsible for this sorry saga is not present. I thought the Minister for Education and Science would come to the House and take the opportunity to clarify the misinformation emanating from his Department and provide accurate information to the public regarding what happened in the past. Unfortunately, he has failed to do so and I ask the Government to take responsibility for this issue from him and his Department because everybody will question the independence of the commission, given the trauma that has been caused over the past few months.
While the Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated that this was the first Government in 30 years to address the issue, there must be a realisation that Fianna Fáil was in single party or coalition Government for much of that time and failed to take action. To verify and consolidate that stance, the Government and long-serving personnel in the Department of Education and Science, who knew about the disturbing features of institutions over the years, have failed to release pertinent documentation into the public domain. There has been collaboration between officials and for that reason I ask the Government to review the continuation of the process within that Department under the auspices of the Minister for Education and Science.
While the Taoiseach's apology was made in good faith, its sincerity rings hollow in the current climate. From the moment Ms Justice Laffoy resigned the chairmanship of the commission to inquire into child abuse on 2 September, the Government has engaged in a campaign of concealment to hide the misgivings of the commission, its role and funding. The victims of child abuse deserve better. The Government mishandled the commission from the beginning. It has serious questions to answer but nobody can get a reply.
Unfortunately, the Taoiseach, the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform – the latter having been the former Attorney General – and the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, have all had their say in recent weeks but the position is still far from clear. Contradictions, accusations and counter accusations are the order of the day. Ms Justice Laffoy has been damning in her criticism of the Government. She stated there was no real engagement by the Department of Education and Science with the commission and she was worn out by expressions of contrition on the part of the Department which were not matched by delivery. That is one of the reasons I call for the removal of responsibility for the commission from the Department and the Minister for Education and Science.
Ms Justice Laffoy claims the Department, under the direction of the Minister, did not co-operate with the commission established by the Oireachtas. This is an appalling charge against the Minister and, unfortunately, no member of Government has attempted to explain adequately why Ms Justice Laffoy felt obliged to resign her position. The contribution of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs does not indicate whether further insight will be provided into the reason Ms Justice Laffoy resigned. During recent meetings of the Joint Committee on Education and Science to discuss her resignation and the crisis facing the commission, the Minister for Education and Science could not answer critical questions that needed to be addressed. He was provided with an opportunity then and he has been provided with an opportunity today, but he is still foundering on this issue.
Why did Ms Justice Laffoy feel she had no option but to resign? Why did she say she was worn out by the Department's approach to her commission's work? Why was her request for additional resources handled in such an awkward and obstructive way? Why did the Minister decide to review the commission's remit? Having completed one review, why did he decide immediately to conduct another? This was another planned obstruction to the work of the commission and it was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of Ms Justice Laffoy's continuing as chairman.
It is a shocking indictment of the Government that she wrote: "The Commission has never been properly enabled by the Government to fulfil satisfactorily the functions conferred on it by the Oireachtas." This judgment is all the more damning of the Government when it is considered that it was passed by the person it chose to inquire into institutional child abuse. Ms Justice Laffoy is highly respected as a High Court judge and her independence and integrity have never been called into question. She does not have an axe to grind and she was merely seeking to do the job she was asked to do by the Oireachtas.
Ms Justice Laffoy, in her letter of resignation on 2 September, listed the principal ways in which the Government thwarted the work of her commission. The issue of compensation for the survivors of abuse, although raised in July 2000, was not dealt with until 2002. The issue of payment of legal costs to persons involved in the investigation committee, also raised in July 2000, was not dealt with until 2002. I refer to the decision to review the commission's mandate, which stalled its work, and the slow and contradictory way in which the commission's request for resources were handled. Ms Justice Laffoy proposed to allow the investigation committee to work as four committees instead of one. This would have incurred greater initial expenditure but would have resulted in a much more expeditious process for the victims of abuse. This would have alleviated the concerns expressed by the Minister, which ring hollow, and brought the work of the commission to a conclusion by 2005 and not 2011, by which time many people would have passed on, according to the Minister. That is not the case. If the resources were provided, four strands could work together and the matter would be cleared by the given date of 2005.
Before I continue, I wish to state that the Government has disputed the timescale for completion. It based its calculations on the work rate of the commission since its establishment, but it failed to allow for the obstructions and delays for which it and the Department of Education and Science are responsible. If the commission had been given the additional resources it requested and had been assisted in its work by the Government, its work could have been finished by 2005. It should not have been harassed by the Government and the Minister.
On 5 September 2002, Ms Justice Laffoy was told by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, that the Government agreed in principle to the provision of additional resources. The Minister stated that the commission should proceed with the process of filling new posts in a gradual fashion and on a temporary basis. However, he said that it should employ additional staff on short contracts of about six months. How can it be said that this attitude seriously assisted the commission? Ms Justice Laffoy required long-term commitments to provide the resources needed to speed up radically the work of the investigative committee.
The matter was further complicated by the Minister's announcement, in December 2002, of a review of the commission's work. The Minister said that he planned to conduct a review of the remit of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, to be completed in February 2003. Ms Justice Laffoy wrote in December 2002 that "while the Government decision contemplates a completion of the remit review process by mid-February, its [the Commission's] experience to date does not give it great confidence that this time limit will be met". This was a clear advance reminder of Ms Justice Laffoy's doubts. She stated that there was a very real risk that the review would take longer than anticipated to conclude its work. She pointed out that amending legislation would be required if the review recommended that the remit of the commission be altered, with consequent delays. Ms Justice Laffoy stated that the investigation committee felt it was placed in an impossible position. She had flagged this development time and time again, but nobody cared to pick up on the notice she had given of the difficulties that had arisen.
Ms Justice Laffoy was correct. The review was not completed on time and the commission found itself in the impossible position it had dreaded. The investigation committee was to press ahead with hearing cases and gathering information under the commission's existing remit. If that remit was later changed, however, the commission would leave itself open to the charge that it wilfully wasted public money by continuing with an expensive investigation in the knowledge that the review was taking place.
Ms Justice Laffoy contacted the Department of Education and Science to say she feared that if the commission pressed ahead before the findings of the review became known, it might gather a large amount of information that might subsequently become useless. The Department's response was to state that the investigation committee must continue to discharge its statutory duties and to operate within its existing remit. While the Department was conscious of the resources mentioned by the Minister in her address today, it said that the investigation committee must continue to spend money for a purpose that might transpire to be useless after the review had been completed.
In effect, Ms Justice Laffoy was told not to concern herself with wasting public money. When she pursued the matter, however, she was told in July of this year that it was manifestly in the public interest that costs did not continue to be incurred in respect of matters that might not ultimately be investigated. Is that not confusing? Is it not a contradiction? These events led to the frustration about which we know. Which advice should she have taken? She had no option but to seek legal advice on how to proceed. She received clear advice from a senior counsel who said that there was a strong case to the effect that the committee would be acting ultra vires in making any further discovery or production orders under one statutory remit in the knowledge that the results thereof would be likely to be used only in a significantly different statutory regime. He went on to state that this could be argued to be an improper purpose. The advice of the senior counsel is still valid and will have to be considered by the new chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.
Where now for the work of the commission? Ms Justice Laffoy asked for additional resources to speed up its work, but the delays faced by the commission have been multiplied further as a result of her resignation. Legislation must be passed by the Oireachtas to make Mr. Seán Ryan a High Court judge to enable him to become chairman of the commission, which is in crisis. Amendments to legislation will have to be considered if changes are suggested following multiple reviews of the work and the remit of the commission. It is certain that this will take time. The Government is delaying the process which it intended to speed up. It claims that the slow pace of the process has caused the difficulties that have arisen. The Minister initiated a review in December 2002 and he went to Cabinet with the heads of a Bill in April 2003, but we have not yet seen what is being proposed.
I did not have time to mention the deal that was agreed with the various religious orders. The deal is nothing short of madness. The response of the orders to what happened in the past involves the payment of €128 million, of a total cost of €1 billion. The Comptroller and Auditor General, who mentioned the figure of €1 billion, is the only public figure to have engaged in a long investigation into this matter. One should take into account the fact that officials from the Department of Education and Science refused to make available letters that were sent as part of the Department's communication with the Attorney General and the commission. What can one say about progress when such action is being taken within a Department?
I will conclude by reiterating my absolute request and demand that we remove responsibility for this matter from the Department of Education and Science in the interests of fair play for those who have suffered for so long. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has failed miserably to be constructive in any way during his term of office in the face of the problems that have arisen in this instance. The Department of the Taoiseach should be asked to deal with this matter in an independent manner. This is important so that we can ensure that those who have suffered so much can have the opportunity of telling their stories at least. I hope such people will be heeded and not impeded.