Senator Kitt was in possession and has 11 minutes remaining.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Statements (Resumed).
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. When discussing this issue yesterday, I referred to the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy. I joined the Minister in paying tribute to her for her work and I wished her very well in the future. I welcomed Mr. Seán Ryan, SC, as chairperson designate of the commission. He has gained a wealth of experience from his law practice and also because he chaired the compensation advisory committee and acted as counsel to the Ferns inquiry.
I referred to the Joint Committee on Education and Science that sat during the term of the last Dáil. It invited different associations to outline their views on setting up redress committees and investigative committees. I was impressed by the number of associations that took up the invitation, particularly Right of Place and Survivors of Child Abuse. It was quite significant that we had applications from associations and organisations in Great Britain, particularly London, which addressed the committee on a number of occasions. It obviously put them at a considerable disadvantage to have to travel over and outline their views on how they felt a commission should operate. It was very interesting to note that those organisations were, by and large, very anxious to have the right to speak to a committee or commission about their experiences. Some of them were anxious that we would have a timeframe whereby decisions would be made as quickly as possible. They pointed out that many of their members were elderly and did not want a decision to be made which would be too late for their purposes. Furthermore, they did not want an adversarial process, which would involve their having to go to court. They were anxious to tell their story and have closure on this very sad chapter of Irish life.
There has been a very welcome response by the Government regarding a review of the commission. The Minister has spoken about amending legislation and I hope he will be able to give us further information on this and introduce to the House as soon as possible the amendments he considers necessary to alter the way the different committees operate.
The Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated yesterday that the expected compensation figure would be in the region of €508 million. The Comptroller and Auditor General estimated it would be approximately €1 billion. Only time will tell which is correct. The contribution by the religious organisations was completely voluntary and, as the figures indicate, it would represent about one quarter of the total sum the State envisages it will have to pay in compensation. I will return to this issue later.
We should concentrate on the fact that the Government, through the Taoiseach, issued an apology on behalf of the State. The then Minister, Deputy Woods, said that the State had to take responsibility because it was responsible for the fact that very young children had to enter institutions.
I was very interested in correspondence I, and no doubt many other Members, received this morning from Mannix Flynn or James X as he describes himself. He was just one of many children admitted to institutions and his story is very interesting. He talks about going to Goldenbridge at the age of six. He was then transferred to St. Joseph's industrial school in Galway and later to St. Conleth's reform school in Daingean. From 1965 to 1972, he spent time in Marlborough House in Dublin, a place of detention for boys under 16 run by the Department of Education. He was also in Mountjoy Prison, St. Patrick's Institution and Dundrum Central Mental Hospital. Mr. Flynn's statement outlines his history of physical and sexual abuse in all those centres. His story shows that religious orders and Departments were involved. His history is that of just one person but it shows very clearly that the Government was correct in stating that various Government agencies and Departments put young people into institutions run by religious orders or run directly by Department staff.
Let us return to the question of the timeframe about which the Minister spoke. In November 2002, the commission spoke about a timeframe of eight to 11 years on the basis of the existing caseload at the time. The report showed that the timeframe would be too long for many of those for whom the commission was established. It is important that the Minister quickly explains the current position to the Oireachtas and his proposals for addressing this aspect.
On "Questions and Answers" on Monday night, Fr. Seán Healy of CORI suggested that there should be an audit of the property and assets of CORI. This will put into context the sum of €128 million agreed between the Government and the religious congregations. People have said the congregations got off lightly. Fr. Healy made clear he was not involved in the negotiations, but he spoke for many when he suggested there should be an audit. The results of a full audit could mean that the proportionate financial burden to be borne by the religious congregations may rise from what I understand is approximately 25% at present to 40% or 50%. In view of this, I hope the Government will again consult them.
It is also important that the Government consults with the various organisations who have spoken to the relevant Oireachtas committee and the commission. While they may hold different views, we all want to ensure that the Government's commitment to bring healing and closure to those who suffered abuse is honoured and that it is true to its word.
I thank Senator John Paul Phelan for allowing me to speak in his slot and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad this debate has been so thoughtful. Having been involved with many of those, both here and in England, who were subjected to both sexual and physical abuse in the past, it is good that speakers in this House have expressed such concern and been so compassionate in their response.
I recently wrote to the Minister for Education and Science expressing the view that the section of the commission dealing with the vaccination trials should have been removed from its remit and dealt with separately. It was unfortunate that the commission began to assume the role of a catch-all for any problem that appeared to have arisen with children in the past. I also raised this matter when the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, decided to add to the remit of the commission the vaccination trials which had taken place in mother and baby homes but from which, to my knowledge, no harm was ever shown and nor was any harm described in the report of the Chief Medical Officer. While I understand why some of those involved in the trials feel that perhaps proper consent was not given, the matter should be dealt with separately. This might help the work of the commission.
I am not the only one to hold this view. When Professor Meehan brought his case to the High Court and then to Supreme Court that he should not have to appear in person before the commission because of his age and, I believe, infirmity, at least two of the Supreme Court judges said they could not understand why this element of the commission had been included in its remit because they could not see how it involved the sexual or physical abuse of children. I hope, therefore, this aspect is looked at again.
During the workings of the commission it is important to consider the lessons we can learn from what happened in the past, but I am not sure this is happening. Some years ago I spoke in the House about the care of unaccompanied minors who come here from abroad. I praised those involved in dealing with these minors because I considered they were given great care and consideration. However, while there were very few of them at that time, there are now hundreds coming into the country every year. I am not sure if the resources are in place to deal with them. We saw in the past how the lack of involvement by the State in the institutions caring for children left them very vulnerable and we now have another group of children who are in a similar position.
When the Child Care and Children Bills were debated in the House I was critical of the lack of concern about the inspection of institutions caring for children placed with them because of neglect or because they were orphans and so on. I said they were not being inspected often enough and that there was insufficient attention paid to the kind of people working in them. The Children Act requires that there be six monthly inspections of institutions caring for children in the custody of the State because they have committed a crime. Such children may well have regular visitors seeking their release, whereas, by contrast, children placed in institutions because of neglect may never receive visits. Yet, these institutions need only be inspected periodically. When I expressed the view that this was unfair, the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, Deputy Mary Hanafin, said there was not enough inspectors.
It must be acknowledged that institutions are being established to care for unaccompanied minors from sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Europe and other parts of the world which are not being inspected as regularly as they could be because there is difficulty getting child care workers. It must also be acknowledged that those working in these institutions may not be properly vetted. While I do not underestimate the problems in this area, I am very concerned when I hear that some children are in institutions with adults where – I can only tell the Minister of State what I am told – on some occasions, there is no staff on the premises between 5 p.m. and the following morning. That is most undesirable. While the health boards face great difficulties, I hope the Minister of State will look into this. If I can provide him with more details, I will do so.
I would be obliged if the Senator would furnish me with particulars and I will look into the matter.
I will do so.
These are serious matters and I will arrange for them to be investigated.
They are very serious, which is why I raised them. If I can get better information I will provide it. At present I can only offer anecdotal information. If the Minister of State can tell me it is not happening, I will be pleased.
It is hard to deal with an anecdote, but if the Senator has particulars I will deal with them.
I will furnish the Minister of State with particulars. Some children are sent to this country in the hope they will be with other family members. In other cultures it is not unusual to send children to families who are considered to be in a better position. However, in some cases it is hard to know if they end up with these families. Some have gone missing. For example, a girl who had been taken into the care of the State was placed in Crumlin Hospital but she went missing. I do not know if the State has managed to locate her, but these situations are worrying. I can vouch for that incident because I know of it from the papers.
This is an area where we do not want to say in five or ten years how we wished we had tried to do more. I realise how difficult it is for the State and the health boards, but we have a duty to these children given that they come into our care under international obligations. The fact that there is a shortage of staff and that we have said we have done the best we can, may appear pretty shabby in the long run. I am aware that the health boards are trying to do their best to get care for these children by advertising, even abroad. However, I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the grave shortage of workers in this area. I hope when what happened 20 or 30 years ago is examined, we remind ourselves that we do not want such children to accuse us in future of not having taken adequate care of them in the situation in which they now find themselves.
There has been so much debate and publicity on this sad period of history that one wonders how one can make any worthwhile or helpful contribution at this stage. On the other hand, I believe that everyone accepts that, until there is final closure on this issue for all concerned, it will continue to haunt us, especially the victims who are our primary concern.
I am especially disappointed by the direction the public debate has tended to take recently. I get the feeling that we are losing focus on who should be the subject of consideration on a day to day basis and are seeking other targets. This is not helpful to the victims because many of them are not young. They are pushing on in years and many of them have made the point that compensation is not their real concern. Obviously it is part of it, but their real concern is justice. Given the confusion created by the type of debate we are having at present, it is not possible in an urgent sense to bring together all the elements of this issue to try to find an adequate and satisfactory solution.
I was a member of the Committee on Education and Science when the proposals of the former Minister, Deputy Woods, were being debated. Many of the organisations acting for the victims came before the committee and discussed them openly and, in the main, generously with us. One man whom I know made a particular impression on me. Even though he put a harrowing tale before the committee, he finished up by saying that he would deem it wrong to tar everyone with the same brush and that to do so would visit a further injustice on innocent members of the religious orders. He did not want that to happen. It is especially important that we bear this in mind. While I accept that not all the groups are of the one voice and that there can be divergence on the way forward for some of them, I noticed in their contributions that, in the main, there was general acceptance of what the Government put forward at the time. They are the people to whom we must listen.
I took time out to meet some of these groups individually after that committee meeting because I felt it was important that we should listen a little more and lecture a little less, although lecturing appears to have been central to the public debate recently. As I watch television programmes, listen to radio programmes and read the extensive coverage in the press, I am beginning to realise that the people central to this issue are being sidelined in the main. I refer not just to the leadership but also the general body of victims who feel hurt and isolated. It is important for us at this stage to redirect ourselves in this regard.
I have not read or heard it but it was referred to on television and I was concerned to hear that a certain well known public person said that, if necessary, we should bankrupt the religious orders. That is of great concern. I see that as an incitement to hatred. For any person to make such a statement without clarifying it is for him or her to take a serious stand. It is an incitement to hatred and I hope it is clarified. It is not helpful.
It is important for us to remember that, if we are to make progress on this issue, it should be borne in mind that the Government provided leadership through the issuing of the apology, the establishment of the commission and the consultation that took place with the relevant groups. It is not correct for anyone at this stage to endeavour to make political capital out of this issue.
I am open to correction on this but there are elements of anti-Catholicism in the media. This is prevalent not only in Ireland, but also in many other countries. This anti-Catholicism which is creeping into a great deal of media coverage is being used for the wrong reasons. The victims of abuse will suffer through the confusion created.
Can anyone genuinely suggest that every one of the people who gave of their time and services to care for the most vulnerable people in society when the State was not capable of doing so is now to be held responsible in some way for the terrible deeds of a minority? If one accepts that logic and takes it one step further, does that mean that all connected with people who betray a position of trust are to be held responsible, ridiculed, sidelined and demonised? I say with much consideration that, if we go down that road, we will do immense harm to society.
We have seen instances of sexual abuse against children in many different sporting organisations. As a result of what happened and even though a tiny minority was at fault, many people have withdrawn from giving community service for fear that they may also be tarred with the same brush. If Members think I exaggerate, we should keep our ears a little closer to the ground and understand the way voluntarism has suffered in such a basic way. This is the case in rural and urban areas and the issue will continue to be erosive in the future. I suggest, therefore, that we refocus our attention on the victims, who are paramount, and the rights of the individuals responsible, which are also important. The idea of focusing only on religious orders and the suggestion that only people in religious life should be held accountable are not right.
Great credit is due to John Waters for his appearance on "Questions and Answers" on Monday night following his article in The Irish Times of the same day. Despite their claims to independence and incisive reporting, few mainstream journalists have even considered doing what John Waters did the other night, namely, broadening the debate and trying to put it into context. Many of us have been thinking about his point that the current debate, which concerns events of 60 and 70 years ago, is taking place in the context of the times in which we live. This does not make sense. For example, on the issue of deprivation, given that most of us suffered an element of deprivation during the period in question, there is no point suggesting we had three meals a day, three pairs of shoes or that we were relatively well off 40 or 50 years ago. We must not allow that issue to be mixed up with the basic issue of sexual abuse. To do so and then to throw them both at the church, the religious orders or even the State creates confusion.
As a layman who does not understand all the legal intricacies involved, I suggest we listen to the individuals concerned and make sure their leaders are telling us what it is they want. I had the opportunity to have discussions with several such individuals in the House and have corresponded with many others. While I am not suggesting their leaders are out of step, I am suggesting that the saturation of publicity and the bent now being given to the issue has left the victims with a less potent voice than they once had. That voice was characterised by a sense of injustice and a demand that justice be done and be seen to be done urgently. My fear is that we may be sliding into a position in which the urgency sought by the Government will not materialise.
I was sorry to see the eminent legal person stepping down from the Laffoy commission. I can understand that the task the person in question took up on her first day was not an easy one. We should be fair and point out that the process is organic, that is, just when we think we know everything, something else comes on stream which must be dealt with also. I have no doubt the new appointee will deal with the position in the same manner as his predecessor.
We must get rid of hidden agendas being pushed by people who have reasons for creating a smokescreen. I appeal to all the victims to come together in an orchestrated, co-ordinated and focused fashion, of which they are capable. Nobody can tell the story as well as the hurt persons and no other person knows their wishes as well as they do. We should get rid of the smokescreen and deal directly with the victims.
A new group of victims is emerging. I have heard the Order of the Christian Brothers being targeted by name in the House. The manner in which assets were liquidated has also been raised and it was argued that morality, rather than legality, should be the main consideration. As a former pupil of the Christian Brothers, I recall an event held about 30 years ago to celebrate the arrival of the order in Cashel. About 1,000 past pupils from all over the world attended the reunion out of gratitude to the Christian Brothers for providing us with education when we could not pay fees. By providing education denied in the past, they enabled people to reach positions of power. This is also true of the nuns and the other religious orders.
We seem to be anxious in this debate to demonise every Christian Brother, nun and teacher from a religious order, which is uncalled for in this day and age. Are we creating a new group of victims which we will revisit in 20, 30 or 40 years once we have left behind the current politically correct environment? Will we then try to do justice to their memory and undo the damage we did to their families? Let us imagine a mother, father or grandparent of a completely innocent member of a religious order walking out into the community today in the knowledge that fingers are being pointed at them for the good work their family member did and the service he or she gave. We are no longer prepared to speak up for members of the religious orders. We need a partnership of morality and human concern which embraces everyone, the victims and those now embroiled in this issue.
I make no case for those who perpetrated terrible crimes against young people not only because they were in a position of trust, but above all because they were dealing with the most vulnerable members of society. On the other hand, if we are to do what is correct in this instance, we must act urgently, in a focused manner and without political expediency. This must be done because it is right, society demands it and, above all, because if we do not correct and somehow compensate for the injustices which have taken place, they will revisit and haunt us again and again in the long run.
I wish the Government well in this matter. I have no doubt the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, acted primarily in the best interests of the victims and that all those who contributed to the process did likewise. Ultimately, no political kudos will be won on this issue by anybody. Of paramount and primary concern are the victims. Let us focus on them.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I listened to most of the contributions, some of which, not least the previous one, were very good. Nevertheless, I take issue with several of the points made by Senator Ó Murchú and will address them later.
I, too, pay tribute to Ms Justice Laffoy who resigned from her position on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. In her letter of resignation she expressed many legitimate concerns which should be raised in every political forum. I object to being accused of playing politics with an issue for raising relevant concerns expressed elsewhere. I and other Members of the Opposition have a role to play in bringing these issues to the attention of the House. We would be in dereliction of our duty if we failed to do so.
I am not a church basher, but a practising member of the Catholic Church who was educated at second level by the Augustinians in New Ross. I pay tribute to them, to the people who played a significant role through the years looking after people for whom the State was not in a position to care and to those who are involved in education and do tremendous work in that sector. We would not have an education system without the contribution of the religious orders over the years.
However, the primary object of our concern must be the people who were abused. There is a danger that, in the course of this debate, we will lose track of the horrendous abuse that was inflicted on them in institutions throughout the country. They must remain central to this debate at all times. I join my colleague, Senator Ulick Burke, in expressing concern that the responsibility for this commission rests with the Department of Education and Science. It is, in effect, a case of the Department investigating itself. Following the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, there is a case to be made for responsibility being taken from the Department of Education and Science and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and given to some other Minister and Department. That should be considered.
I wish to express my concern and disappointment at the position in which Ms Justice Laffoy found herself and her decision to resign. In her letter of resignation she said that the main reason for her departure was the non-co-operation of the Department of Education and Science with the commission. This is a serious condemnation of the Department which has not been given sufficient attention in this debate to date. She also said in her letter that she was worn out by the approach of the Department. That is a damning indictment of the Department's relationship with the commission. It seems to have obstructed the commission by not allocating resources. That point has not been dealt with adequately in this debate either.
The previous Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, spoke about the therapeutic importance for the victims of abuse of being able to tell their story. This is vital. Each individual has the right to tell his or her story and to be heard. The original plan for the commission envisaged the possibility of four committees sitting simultaneously in order that all the victims could tell their stories within a relatively short period of time. Nobody wants a commission that will drag on indefinitely into the future. If the four committees were fully operational, it would reduce the time required significantly.
Other speakers yesterday, particularly Progressive Democrats Members, spoke about the delays associated with the legal procedure. They conveniently forgot to mention the delays associated with the non-provision of resources by the Department. I was particularly struck by the contribution of Senator Maurice Hayes, which was the best contribution I have heard in this House on any issue. I urge Senators from the Government parties to consider what he said. He outlined the moral obligation on the religious orders in this matter. A sum of €127 million is being contributed by the orders but, although the deal has been done, there is a moral obligation on them to look again at the contribution they are making. I do not believe that the religious orders should be bankrupted. That was an outrageous statement. However, they must make a more realistic contribution to the overall cost of the commission.
The recent publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report reveals conclusively what most of us have suspected for some time, that the Government botched its much hyped deal with the religious organisations. It is beyond belief that the Government withheld support from the Laffoy commission and dictated that additional staff be recruited on short-term contracts while, at the same time, it indemnified religious orders at a cost to the taxpayer that could yet reach €1 billion. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, stated that the objective of the review of the commission was to address the issue of costs, with no mention of the need for the commission to work on behalf of the victims of abuse. Contrast this with the Government deal with the religious organisations that exposed the State to potentially enormous liability.
We know from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that in February 2001 the Department of Education and Science estimated the upper liability at €254 million. By April this had increased to €381 million and by June it had increased again to €508 million. At present, the Department estimates the liability at approximately €772 million, which is still almost €250 million less than the figure estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This clearly shows that the estimates for liability are increasing rapidly. However, it is clear from the report that the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Finance agreed in April 2001, when liability was estimated at €381 million and rising, to accept a contribution of €127 million from the religious congregations. They knew this figure bore no relation to the actual liability faced by the State but they agreed the figure regardless.
While the estimated liability was increasing, the Department stuck with the figure of €127 million. Even when its calculations were showing liability could exceed €0.5 billion, it did not revise this figure. The Comptroller and Auditor General has stated that as additional information comes to hand it would be reasonable to expect that the full range of potential costs would be revised. This has not been done. In fact, no revision of the lower estimate of the potential cost was made despite evidence that the number of claimants was rising rapidly.
It is clear from the correspondence between Ms Justice Laffoy and the Government that the potential cost of the commission was of concern to the Government. This is in spite of the fact that the commission was established to bring justice to a large number of people who were the victims of horrendous abuse in institutions throughout the country. However, the Government felt able, without any qualms, to enter into a deal with the religious congregations which may cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro.
Then there is the matter of the legal advice obtained before the signing of the agreement. The Government entered into an agreement potentially worth €1 billion and failed to get adequate legal assistance. When the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, announced in January 2002 that an agreement in principle had been made with the religious organisations, the Office of the Attorney General sought information on the detailed negotiations, including the extent of the indemnity offered. This information was sought on 31 January and 1 February 2002. A full six weeks later, the Attorney General wrote again and stated that unless he was supplied with the requested information he could not give legal advice on the deal. One month later, and ten weeks after the initial communication from the Attorney General, the Minister finally responded.
According to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the talks were held in virtual secrecy. They were attended by the Minister and one colleague. The Office of the Attorney General was not represented at meetings with the congregations and had no contact with those negotiating on behalf of the State from October 2001 to April 2002, a critical period for the discussions and deal making. The Office of the Attorney General was represented until October 2001 but when talks ran into difficulty, legal advice appears to have been suspended. Like so much else in the Laffoy debacle, the review of the commission and the deal with the religious congregations, it is beyond belief that this deal, worth so much money and indemnifying so many, could come to pass without full legal advice being sought at every step.
When the information was finally sent to the Attorney General it was based on what the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to as a "retrospective memorandum" which was drawn up after the negotiations as they had not been documented. It is not standard Department of Education and Science procedure to fail to minute important discussions and meetings, especially if their outcome could be a matter for later Cabinet approval. Yet when the Comptroller and Auditor General sought papers on the negotiations that took place between the Department of Education and Science and the religious congregations, he discovered that no contemporaneous records of them were available. That surely cannot be acceptable or standard procedure at meetings of any Department.
I welcome the opportunity for Members of the Seanad to discuss this important issue. I restate that in no way, shape or form do I wish to jump on the bandwagon and bash the religious congregations. However, a moral obligation rests with them. As Senator Maurice Hayes said yesterday, perhaps they should let down their legal books, take up the New Testament and read from that in their discussions with the Department regarding the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Too much of a legalistic approach has been taken and there has not been enough of a moral stance on the issue. Much responsibility rests there and I hope that a satisfactory outcome can be reached as soon as possible.
I too am very pleased to contribute to this debate. I have listened to many of the speeches and I will echo many of the points raised by others. Ultimately, in the contributions that came from the other side, it seemed that we were "damned if we do and damned if we do not". I have never experienced such negative criticism. This Government was the first to take on the problem of abuse, which has been in our midst for 40 or 50 years. In the past, successive Governments, including coalition Governments of Fine Gael and Labour as well as Fianna Fáil, failed to take it on. However, this Government has faced up to its responsibilities regarding redress for the survivors and victims of abuse. I congratulate the Taoiseach who apologised on behalf of the State for wrongs done. The commission was set up with that in mind.
I have read the history and it seems to me that the commission has two parts to it. There is an investigating committee and a confidential one. The problem arose that so many applicants were coming on stream that members realised it would take the committee between eight and 11 years, or perhaps longer, to fulfil its role. The Minister had to take responsibility and go back to the Government and say that it had to be examined again. We are here to examine how we can review the investigation committee to speed up the process and bring justice to those who have been wronged over the years.
Where do we go from here? We are here to discuss how the committee will be reviewed, how best we can give redress and what compensation can be taken on board. It is in that area that concern has been expressed. We must come forward with new thinking on how the religious orders can face up to their responsibilities. The State has huge responsibility. As we know, in the past the State was responsible for removing such children from their homes and putting them into religious institutions. This was accepted. The agents of the State must have known that they were being physically and sexually abused there, yet nothing was done about it. The State, therefore, bears great responsibility and it has owned up to it. Religious congregations have likewise accepted that there is a responsibility on their part to become aware of the problem.
I will not speak at length on the issue which has been thrashed out. I was at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science last session, where I listened to many of the victims. I came away feeling that it was the first time the Government had listened to the problem and tried to face up to it. It is the first time the Minister entered into a discussion. I compliment the former Minister, Deputy Woods, who dealt with it at the time and I compliment the current Minister for facing up to it. There are no fixed answers on how we can best go forward, so why are we criticising it? We are trying to find the best solution to the problem.
Having listened to "Questions and Answers" the other night, I also felt that perhaps the religious institutions should look again at the question morally and consider coming forward again. I am not saying that they should – there were very fine people looking after many of the young people who had been deprived of their own families. Those few institutions caught up in scandal are the people to whom we must face up. They should come forward and make alternative suggestions to increase their contributions. Perhaps that is not possible and perhaps, as was said the other night, an audit of their assets might be analysed.
However, ultimately we are here to discuss how we can best relieve the trauma endured by those children. There is no alternative to sitting down and trying to give them some recompense for their suffering over the years. Many will never get it. They have put their views forward time and time again. It is out of concern for them that we who are able should listen and produce a solution as quickly as possible – not 20 years down the road or through the courts. Let us find a way to make their situation easier rather than subjecting them to court cases, which would only traumatise people who have already suffered so much. I am here to put a few points across and speak on behalf of the victims. I ask the State to accept its responsibility, which it has done. I also ask the religious orders to sit down once again at talks to see how we can produce a solution to solve the problem once and for all, setting in motion new institutions that will ensure that such events never happen again in our society.
I apologise for my late arrival. I had assumed that the Independent benches would be awash with people wishing to speak. I am reluctant, although I probably will be tempted, to accord political blame on this question. I remember when the issue of redress was being debated and the then Minister for Education and Science came into the House. In response to every question I asked him about things that were not as I might have wished in his proposals, I was told that it was what Ms Justice Laffoy wanted. I remember that being said on between three and five occasions in this House. I do not wish to appear to be suggesting that it was otherwise, but one has no alternative to accepting the Minister's word. I fully accept that he believed matters to be so. However, I now realise that there is every possibility that what the Minister, Deputy Woods, thought and, I feel, sincerely believed, Ms Justice Laffoy wanted was entirely different from what she said to him. Government Ministers have a capacity to filter opinions expressed to them to convince themselves that what people are saying to them is what they want to hear. I do not believe that Ms Justice Laffoy was one of those people who would have tempered her opinion. Her subsequent interim reports seem to give lie to any suggestion that the Department of Education and Science and the Minister were co-operating enthusiastically and efficiently with her investigations.
I remember the experience of my colleague, former Senator Pat Gallagher, in his endeavours to find out the history of a case of abuse by a teacher in his constituency. He could wax eloquent for an hour about the obstacles that were put in his way in the Department of Education and Science to stop him finding out what had happened, what complaints had been made and what had been done about the case. This struggle went on for quite a long time until eventually the then Minister, Deputy Martin, to his credit, agreed that progress would have to be made. It was agreed that the then Senator would be allowed access to the Department's records of this case on condition that he did not make copies. He could read the records but could not copy them. This was meant to be the atmosphere of open, honest dealing with parts of our history for which nobody in the existing Department had any reason to feel culpable; the events had happened a long time previously and there was probably nobody from that time left.
The then Senator kept his word. He went in and did not photocopy anything but he wrote down in longhand large chunks of what he read and published those. The Department was not amused, saying it did not agree to him copying material. He said he did not copy in any technical sense but wrote down the relevant parts.
What does that say about attitudes, values and sympathy when, on a specific case, a public representative – most people who knew him in the Seanad and the Dáil knew him to be a man of considerable passion and conviction – had to go through a series of hoops to deal with an incident from 30 or 40 years ago? The problem seems to be that every institution in the State, in confronting this horrible part of our history, has tried to delay, obfuscate and confuse people. We finally took our courage in our hands and I commend the Taoiseach on his eloquent, unequivocal apology on behalf of all of us. He was not just speaking for the Government but for the people of the country in general. Once that happened, as we all know with any sincere apology, the immediate follow-up had to be generous, efficient and consistent with the spirit of the apology. Without rehearsing all of the details, Ms Justice Laffoy had to reprimand the Department on numerous occasions for its slowness and her request for additional resources was dealt with equivocally, at the least, and was delayed. That request was subjected to reviews and reports with which she felt she was not properly involved. The immediate and unequivocal conclusion one comes to is that somewhere in the system there is a lack of the precise qualities needed to deal with an issue like this – qualities of generosity, understanding and a belief that the issue is important.
It does not matter if the Department had 1 million or 500,000 documents. The Department decided that it did not believe that it should sufficiently prioritise these issues and provide sufficient staffing and other resources to meet the Laffoy commission's deadlines on these matters. I am reluctant to believe that people in the Department of Education and Science decided deliberately not to make this information available; I do not believe that. However, I believe they decided deliberately on the priorities in the organisation and the Minister of the time has a culpability here. This matter had to fit into the priorities and budgets of the Department along with other competing demands. The sort of issue we are dealing with here is so unspeakably cruel and reflects so negatively on our society that the Minister of a properly run Department should not have come to that conclusion.
That brings me to another matter, namely that the Department of Education and Science should not have been expected to deal with this out of its existing allocation. That is either a cop-out from the Minister for Finance, and the Taoiseach by implication, by saying: "We have to be generous but you have to be generous within your already constrained budget," or it means saying: "We do not really want to be generous, we want to talk about being generous." Whichever way it happened, it means handing over all this responsibility with the obvious scale of costs involved and then telling the Department of Education and Science: "Tough. It is important but it is not that important. Other things are more important." I could go into a silly populist comparison between issues on which money was spent and issues on which money was not spent or the matters for which extra allocations were made and for which they were not made.
Judged in the context of a generous and what appeared to be a wholehearted apology, what happened was disgraceful because there was no serious follow-through. Everyone knows that a heartfelt apology, which is not followed by serious action is more hurtful than the absence of an apology because there is an implication of insincerity which runs with the lack of generosity afterwards.
It was not just the Government that was less than generous. I have many good friends who are members of religious orders. I am still a quasi-Catholic and still put my foot inside the church, although one gets to a stage where the continual affronts to one's reason and generosity could push one in a different direction. Nevertheless, many of my good friends who are members of religious orders are among the most radical, genuine and committed people struggling for change in our society. Within all organisations, however, there seems to be an extraordinary capacity to separate what is done on the ground on a daily basis from the way they defend their own property and financial interests. It is worth repeating something my party leader has already said and which is a long-standing view of mine. The portrayal of Ireland in the 1950s which is behind many of the rationalisations for the low level of financial support from the religious orders is that the orders were doing the State's job and that the job would not have been done but for them. That is a true picture of the 19th century, when many of the Irish religious orders were set up, providing educational and other services for children who would otherwise have received no education. However, by the 1950s the dominant power institution in the State was not Oireachtas Éireann but the Roman Catholic Church. People know I am an admirer of both the 1937 Constitution and of Éamon de Valera and I have often said that the pressures de Valera resisted in the way he wrote that Constitution, given the demands of the Roman Catholic Church, were quite extraordinary. What he conceded to the church, he conceded knowingly and what he withheld, in terms of what the church wanted, was quite extraordinary.
The Catholic Church was not a fan of freedom of expression or democracy in the 1930s and nor was it a fan of religious tolerance, as we now understand it. It was a fan of states that were identifiably denominational. It was extremely taken with Franco's Spain and it constructed a concordat with Mussolini in Italy which involved the dissolution, by the Vatican, of the most active Catholic political party. They dissolved a major political party to pacify Mussolini. That was the context in which there was a dominant and triumphant church which, in this country, did not want the State involved in anything to do with the education, welfare or protection of children. It wanted a quiet romantic view of the family in which the father's primary duty was to provide for his children, while the mother had to stay at home and look after them. It was a romantic, very authoritarian and extremely male view of society.
It was in that context that provision for children who could not be brought up within a normal family was made. The Catholic Church was determined that no secular organisation would have the dominant position in that area. It was the religious orders who rallied to the cry to provide residential institutional care to prevent any possibility of State involvement. One should read the rhetoric of the Roman Catholic Church during the mother and child scheme which happened in the same era. The determination to prevent poor, vulnerable Irish women from getting advice about childbirth and related matters from doctors who would not be under its thumb was a singular and central concern of the Roman Catholic Church. To pretend that these were good generous religious reaching out to help a State that could not fulfil this need itself is a complete travesty of history. In terms of the argument now that the culpability is equally shared, as far as I am concerned, the institution which demanded the right to run and monopolise these institutions was the institution which was most culpable.
This is revisionism gone mad.
Acting Chairman (Ms O'Meara): Senator Ryan is in possession and will continue without interruption.
I am sorry Senator Fitzgerald spoke because I would love to hear which part is rubbish. I cite J. H. Whyte's book, Church and State in Modern Ireland, in which he will see the degree to which the Roman Catholic hierarchy demanded subservience from everybody.
I have read better than that.
Taoisigh and Presidents genuflected before bishops and kissed their rings and thought that was the appropriate institutional relationship. If that is what Senator Fitzgerald hankers for, let him do so.
Our leaders were practising Catholics.
Acting Chairman
Senator Ryan is in possession.
My view of the role of religion in society is of service to society, not control, regulation or dominance. It corrupted both church and State. We are dealing today in these issues with the evidence of that corruption and its capacity to allow evil people access to the most vulnerable of our children to abuse them in an institutionalised fashion. I do not believe that all the institutions did it, but it was essentially institutionalised.
Let us remember, in addition to what is under discussion, sexual abuse, there was a tolerance of physical violence in our education system. I do not mean total prohibitions on corporal punishment, but there was a tolerance of a level of physical violence in religious controlled schools which should have been a reproach to any Christian. The point I wish to stress is that in terms of redress and compensation—
Acting Chairman
I ask Members to allow Senator Ryan to speak without interruption.
I thank the Chair for the control of free speech.
Acting Chairman
Senator Fitzgerald, you will have your opportunity to speak. I ask Senator Ryan to continue.
With the Acting Chairman's considerable defensive skill assisting me, the point I wish to make is that the argument that somehow society in the 1950s was at best equally and perhaps slightly more culpable because these poor institutions or religious orders were invited in to do the job the State would not do is a complete travesty of the situation at the time. They insisted on total control and they got it. We did not have boards of management of primary schools because the parish priests wanted a total monopoly until less than 20 years ago. That is the situation. That is why I have no patience with the argument that the State's share of this burden reflects the position.
However, because I believe many of the religious do an enormous amount of good, I accept that a level of settlement which would have bankrupted and closed down those religious orders, while perhaps ethically and morally justifiable, would have been wrong because of the harm it would do to society today and to many good people working in religious communities. However, I will not allow a suggestion to be made that somehow society handed over its responsibilities. They were taken from us.
In terms of society's capacity for denial, about 15 years ago I attended a meeting in my home city of Cork.
Acting Chairman
There is another conversation taking place on this side. I ask, once again, that we hear Senator Ryan without interruption.
About ten or 15 years ago, I attended a meeting and a question arose at the end about young people and their safety. A Garda chief superintendent was in attendance and he said that, in his view, most of the talk about child sex abuse that was heard in Ireland around 15 years ago was put about by people who wanted to undermine the family. That was the view of a huge section of society until brave people forced us to confront what had really happened. This was done by the victims without much assistance from the rest of society. As this was done by the victims and because of the lives that were ruined by all of this and the harm that was done to people, once we finally acknowledged there was a scandal that had been buried for 30 to 40 years, the response, to which they were entitled, was a speedy, generous one, based on protecting the victims from further suffering.
The Government has made an extraordinary mess of Ms Justice Laffoy's investigation and the equivocation, delays and ambiguity have done the opposite. They have made the lives of victims more painful and the view of society and how we deal with our victims even more tainted. I hope that, from now on, the qualities of speed, generosity and justice will determine Government attitudes to this whole shameful event.
We are discussing a difficult and painful issue, but we should at least give ourselves credit that we have the courage to address such an issue openly without fear or favour. In Northern Ireland, the Kincora scandal was a sort of hugger-mugger security investigation that was never properly aired. Admittedly, that was 20 years ago. Other types of residential institutions, catering more perhaps for the privileged than the underprivileged, boarding schools, public schools etc., have not perhaps even begun to confront the fairly endemic physical, not to mention, sexual abuse that took place in some of them. I am not only referring to institutions in this country but to those across the water. In the midst of all the pain this is causing, we should at least give ourselves some credit for the fact that we are trying, perhaps imperfectly and stumbling along the way, to address this issue, in as honest and as principled a way as we can, to try to make up to the victims for some of what happened in the best way possible.
In the contribution of Senator Ó Murchú there has been some debate about the nature of society a generation or more ago. On the whole I would be more an admirer than a critic of what the Roman Catholic Church and various congregations did in terms of providing a range of social services. The key to such provision was that they provided the services at very much less than full cost in the sense that the people providing them were not paid in the way a secular person might have had to be. There was an ideal – it seems far removed now but there was some nobility about it – of establishing a model Catholic democracy here in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. As always, power considerations were intermingled with idealism, and it is very difficult sometimes to unpick the different factors. In regard to the type of society we are talking about, which was very different from society today and had very different norms, we need to separate the habit of corporal punishment from severe physical and sexual abuse, which left more lasting marks. That society, culture and administration were more authoritarian in character, much more so than today, and more secretive. It was not the case that problems were never dealt with when they arose; in many cases they were dealt with effectively, but that would have been done mostly without publicity. I am sure we are talking about a minority of abusers and abuse.
This problem has been with us a long time. One need only refer to characters in literature such as Tom Jones, the novels of Dickens and Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. It is only in this generation that we have begun to tackle the issue in a way that hopefully will prevent more such abuse occurring, but there are other influences, to which Senator Ó Murchú referred, of a much more secular kind. Abuse of children that is secular in nature is a problem, for example, in a certain sporting context, to which reference was made.
The issues relating to the Laffoy commission – I regret Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation – raise wider matters relating to the tribunal method of dealing with and investigating problems, particularly when there is a large number of cases involved. We must reflect on this. Tribunals will be necessary in certain instances in the future as they have been in the past, but there is a need to think ahead and to draw their method of operation and terms of reference reasonably tightly in order that their work can be completed within a reasonable time. I accept that the work of some tribunals may take two or three years, but it is not acceptable, as seems to be the case with a number of the current tribunals, that they continue indefinitely with no end in sight. That does not create justice or closure for anybody. I hope that under the review that is currently taking place and having regard to the new chairman, ways will be sought to try to do this work within a reasonable and finite period.
Having been a civil servant, I wish to point out that regarding the Department of Education and Science, people may have no concept of the vast quantities of papers and files that exist in Departments. It can be quite difficult to find papers from as recent a period as two or three years ago, let alone several decades ago. In theory, there are supposed to be good filing systems, but files were stored hugger-mugger in cellars and other places in the past. One could underestimate the amount of resources and personnel required to find particular pieces of paper from long ago.
With regard to the issue of the contribution of the religious orders, basically two approaches could be adopted by society and the State. One could adopt the confrontational approach that the religious orders are guilty and should hand over the money. Such an approach would have led to endless legal processes. Some commentators and others are acting not only out of concern for victims but because they enjoy attacking the Roman Catholic Church and its institutions and are not prepared to give them credit for anything and would be quite happy to see the church bankrupted. They see this as a way of trying to sideline the church out of Irish life in ways with which I have little sympathy and could not agree.
The alternative approach would be to recognise that the contribution had to be voluntary and negotiations took place. I regard a contribution of €128 million as reasonably substantial. After all the controversies concerning haemophiliacs and hepatitis C sufferers where the State was accused of being excessively legalistic and excessively concerned with finance, this is perhaps one of the first times the State has taken the opposite approach, which is basically a humanitarian approach towards the victims, and it is being criticised of wasting taxpayers' money. I do not believe the worst case scenarios. Much of the media coverage of any subject is based on the worst case scenario. One needs to take that argument with a pinch of salt. The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science was very adamant at the committee meeting last week that the figure was €500 million or thereabouts and I accept that. The figure of €128 million is not so disproportionate.
I welcome the idea that the religious orders might again be examining their assets to see if there is anything more they can do. With the way property values have gone, particularly in the Dublin area, there is no doubt that in some instances the religious orders may be sitting on much more valuable assets than would have been the case even a few years ago. If we try to adopt a coercive approach, it will fail and we will be further back. I understand that to a degree this has happened in Canada, where religious orders were bankrupted and the State had to acquire, at vast cost, institutions that had been run by the Catholic Church. The taxpayer would be no better off in such an event.
I do not accept that the indemnity agreement as concluded by the Government the day before the new Government was formed was defective or that there was an absence of adequate legal advice. The Attorney General is in many ways one of the most powerful people sitting at the Cabinet table even though he is not formally a member of the Cabinet. He would have the right and the opportunity to intervene in practically anything. The agreement could not have been finalised without his participation. I reject the implication that a better deal would have been concluded if in some way or another the Attorney General had not been sidelined. We all know the personality involved and there is probably no one in public life today who would be more difficult to exclude or sideline than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and former Attorney General. That argument is something of a red herring.
I hope we will manage to bring this whole matter forward and conclude it within a reasonable period with, rather than without, the co-operation of the religious orders. I hope they will do the best that, in conscience, they feel they ought to, bearing in mind the many responsibilities they exercise both for their members and the public at large. I would like to think that we would keep a very clear distinction in our minds between a small minority who took advantage of the ethos and structures of the time to abuse young people and children and the vast majority who acted conscientiously by the best lights of the day, which might not always have been the lights we would follow today. One has to make some allowance for the way in which Christian and public values develop.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I have been listening on the monitor yesterday and today to the debate. It has been a good debate and I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution.
As a Christian Democrat, which I am first and foremost, I believe that the primary responsibility of the State is to protect children. Whether in the 1950s or today it is a responsibility we all must share and work towards. There is a great problem in this area when we look back and point the finger at the physical and sexual abuse that took place in the past in our institutions and elsewhere. There could be a smugness in thinking that since the protection of children today has advanced, there is currently no form of child abuse, which is not the case. I reiterate the point that we must always be vigilant in all sectors of society in terms of rooting out abuse and ensuring best practice in the protection of children.
Last week I read in a Dublin newspaper an appeal by the Eastern Regional Health Authority for more foster care parents. It is a disgrace and a scandal in 2003 that, in the most built-up and populated part of this country, we do not have sufficient people to look after vulnerable children who need to be looked after and that would-be parents looking to adopt must go to eastern Europe to do so. In our community we have thousands of children who need to be fostered. No one will foster them, yet when it comes to adoption it is virtually impossible to adopt a child in this country because of the demand. We have young Traveller children on the streets. It is another form of abuse, which is accepted today in our society, that people under the age of 18 live in appalling conditions on roads throughout the country.
We have cases of child labour. Children of 16 and 17 years of age are working all God's hours to make a few euro to get them through the week and no one bats an eyelid. They are not in school on Fridays or Mondays and no one seems to be concerned. If we are talking about child abuse and looking back at the 1940s and 1950s, we must also provoke ourselves into talking about child abuse today and the threats posed to children. We must be aware of these threats and do something about them, rather than simply looking back at times gone by and saying we now have all the wisdom of Solomon and consequently our hands are clean of this matter. We must force ourselves to deal with this difficult issue, to remember the children of today and to do everything in our power to ensure that no such abuse happens in any area of society.
In this saga there has been much discussion about the victims. My great dilemma now in trying to work out where we can go forward is that many of the people involved will be dead in the near future. They have not received compensation and have not been able to tell their stories. It is incumbent on the Houses of the Oireachtas to work with the Government in trying to expedite a new framework which will allow these people to get some closure to the appalling abuse they suffered some years ago. I make that appeal today. This should not be a party political football. We all have a responsibility to move the debate forward and to work with the Government in trying to sort out this problem and get a framework that will work for the victims. That is the best possible solution.
As a parliamentarian, I felt slighted over the summer when the letter from Ms Justice Laffoy to the Government was published in a Sunday newspaper. We are Members of the Oireachtas. It was the responsibility of both the Dáil and the Seanad to establish the commission chaired by Ms Justice Laffoy. We discovered the reasons for her resignation in a Sunday newspaper. Ms Justice Laffoy is not entirely blameless for that. When she decided to resign, as was her right, she had a responsibility to send her letter to every Member of the Oireachtas and not only to the Government. She was given substantial powers by this and the other House and she had a responsibility to tell us the reason she was resigning. I regret I learned of her resignation from a Sunday newspaper.
The Government was wrong not to immediately circulate the letter. I would have had no difficulty with the Government receiving the letter, circulating it to all Members and stating it would reply in two, three or four months. That we learned about this from the Sunday newspapers shows a lack of respect for Parliament which established the commission. Ownership of the issue should rest with the Houses of the Oireachtas. The problem arises from the fact that tribunals and internal inquiries are seen ultimately as being in the ownership of the Government. We have to take control in that regard as we go forward and try to develop a better structure. Ms Justice Laffoy and the Government handled the matter badly. I do not make that point in defence of the Government but to state that members of the Judiciary appointed to particular positions have a responsibility to all Members of both Houses as well as to Government. Otherwise, this type of dumbing down of Parliament which constantly takes place through all Governments will continue. That is something of which we must be aware.
A grave mistake was made in appointing the Department of Education and Science as the line Department with overall responsibility for the commission because many of the papers relating to the issue under investigation were held within that Department. The Government should have selected a more suitable line Department with overall responsibility for funding and progressing the issue. We ran into so much sand at the start because the Department of Education and Science, as a body, was being investigated. I did not hear in the contributions made yesterday or today, in particular by the Minister, anyone refute the arguments made by Ms Justice Laffoy. No Minister has adequately responded to the arguments she made in support of her resignation. Ms Justice Laffoy sought additional resources to expedite the entire inquiry but the Government took some time to reach a view on the matter. That is not acceptable. I have heard no Minister refute in stark detail the points made by Ms Justice Laffoy in her correspondence to Government during the summer. There were unacceptable delays by the Department of Education and Science in providing many of the documents and memoranda sought. I ask the Minister for Education and Science why a dedicated staff were not put in place to deal with this issue and expedite the requests. It is Ms Justice Laffoy's view that much of the work could have been completed by 2005 if the requests had been followed up and the money provided. It is shameful that we, as a State, put greater resources into tribunals relating to planning matters and personal funding of politicians than into the investigation of child abuse. The Government has made no adequate response to the points raised by Ms Justice Laffoy in her correspondence. I await a response in that regard.
I welcome the openness and honesty of Archbishop Martin in his remarks last week. I encourage other church leaders to break their silence and speak out on this subject. We need to hear the church's voice on this matter. While not all the 18 congregations were implicated in this regard it is important they speak out on the matter. We need more church leaders to do as Archbishop Martin did last week. I am not asking the church to defend its position. It needs to address this issue rather than run for cover. I ask the church to reconsider and renegotiate the deal between it and the Government. The potential for the church to increase the fund to well beyond €128 million is real and possible. As my party leader stated in another place, the church has a moral responsibility to renegotiate this sum so that there is a greater fund to provide the victims' needs. The ability of the State to pick up the final amount owed remains questionable. The church has a responsibility to renegotiate the deal and I call on it to do so.
The deal, from start to finish, was shambolic. I find it difficult to understand the points made by the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, when speaking on this subject over the last couple of weeks. I am unable to grasp the points he is making. I do not wish to make an attack on Deputy Woods but it is difficult for him to justify many of the arguments he puts forward in relation to the deal. Many have referred to the fact that the deal was signed off late into the term of office of the last Government. It appears from the evidence presented to date that the role of the Attorney General and his office was sidelined in the context of the discussions taking place. There was, as others said, no assessment of the total wealth or asset base of the church at the time, which should have been done. Anybody in the private sector negotiating a deal involving millions of euro would bring in their lawyers. They are the people one needs to ensure clarity on all the issues. That did not happen in relation to this deal.
The heart of the issue does not rest with the €128 million total liability, it is the terms of the indemnity that matter. The former Attorney General was probably the most political Attorney General in the history of this State. He had views on national stadia, Europe and everything else so the notion that he was a shrinking violet does not wash with me. He believed, in regard to the terms of the indemnity, that it should apply only to those who came before the redress board and that the State should not indemnify itself against every member of the congregation who would come before the courts. The ultimate deal negotiated, which leaves the State with maximum exposure in the courts, is a carte blanche whereby everyone whether or not they go before the redress board is held liable and the State must pick up the cost involved. There will be other cases, of which there can be no doubt. It appears the Government got it wrong when negotiating the terms of the indemnity deal. Whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is seeking an escape clause now or whether this was flagged at the time is a matter on which I presume the Committee of Public Accounts will have to make a determination. His view was sidelined on the matter on the basis of the evidence presented to date and proper appreciation of the issues concerning total indemnity and its terms of reference were not taken into consideration.
The Irish Times reported earlier this week that a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to the Department of Education and Science and the Attorney General's office regarding correspondence on this matter. Most of the letters were not released to the journalists involved, yet two of them were published in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It is important that all the documentation is released now and I question the decision of both the Department of Education and Science and the Attorney General's office not to forward the letters to the journalists from a public interest perspective, particularly when two were published in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
This is a horrible mess and it is the responsibility of the Opposition to work with the Government to sort it out, get to the bottom of what occurred during the dying days of the previous Administration and establish a proper legal framework in order that victims can achieve closure on these issues. That is the most vitally important issue we face.
I welcome the Minister of State. Approximately 29,500 young people born after 1930 were committed by the courts to industrial and reformatory schools. In addition, a significant number, which cannot be accurately quantified by the Department of Education and Science, were committed by parents. Such committals were made because the parents were poor and could not afford to nourish their children. The children were committed at a time when sexual mores and property regulations in society were ruthless and cold. The majority of society was in a stranglehold of puritanism, sexual mores and property rights. The upper class kept children born outside marriage. Throughout history aristocratic young people born outside marriage received titles and honours. However, the Roman Catholic Church, under Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, determined and ruled our lives. I was born in 1944 and the church ruled my life morning, noon and night until I was in my mid-twenties.
Many of the institutions were privately owned by the religious orders but they were regulated by the State. This cold and heartless system continued until 1975 when, eight years after the inquiry chaired by District Justice Eileen Kennedy was set up to deliver a report on reformatory and industrial schools, the last institution was closed. There was a suspicion at the time that this was done because Ireland wanted to present a good face to the rest of Europe. We did not want too close an inspection of this system by the EEC. Where would we be if Ireland had not joined? I had to give up my job in the Civil Service when I got married in 1969. It was not until 1973 that female civil servants who were married could keep their jobs.
I wholeheartedly support the Government's view on compensation. However, I refer to the cover-up that took place. The Christian Brothers commemorated the centenary of the death of its founder, Edmund Ignatius Rice, in 1944. John Cooney, a revered writer formerly employed by The Irish Times, wrote a biography of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid in which he referred to the commemoration. He stated:
These celebrations took place as two senior gardaí at Dublin's Fitzgibbon St. station were prevented from pursuing allegations of abuse by two Christian Brothers of boys at Artane Industrial School. The Superior, the Rev Brother T. M. Lennane, and the school chaplain, Fr. William Kenny, succeeded in hushing up a potential scandal with the assistance of McQuaid and Justice Minister, Gerald Boland. In a climate of opinion hostile to prosecution of clergy the two gardaí were told not to proceed with the case.
This is why the Taoiseach made his comprehensive apology on behalf of the Government and the State to these young people. Gardaí, judges, inspectors and departmental officials who regulated and inspected the schools did not have the courage of their convictions to speak out and identify what was happening. People know abuse was taking place in the schools and nobody had the courage to stand up.
I was 59 yesterday. The older I become, the more I realise how many people are afraid to speak out because they are fearful or are in denial. As Senator Brian Hayes said, this is happening under our noses similar to the treatment of Travellers and young people. I would not like to have been born a Traveller, living on the side of the road. I would be dead and probably would not have lived past ten years of age. We are in denial about those who are incarcerated in our prisons. Only the poor are in prison. The middle classes buy the best legal aid and keep themselves out of prison. We are in denial that those who are in prison cannot afford to pay for legal help. I support Senator Hayes's comment that we are also in denial in regard to other issues in society.
Following the Taoiseach's apology, he introduced two Bills to establish the commission and the residential institutions redress scheme. Subsequently, the Government decided to pay full compensation and the congregations were not requested by the Government to pay. However, the congregations agreed to a payment and many meetings took place involving officials of the Department of Education and Science and the Attorney General's office to hammer out a deal on how much they should pay.
The Laffoy commission had two functions, investigative and therapeutic. Many of those who sought therapy at the commission felt somebody was listening to them at long last about their suffering. I heard a number of them on radio programmes and it was most moving. They were finally able to tell somebody who was open to believing them that they were physically and sexually abused. This element of the commission worked well but the investigative stage opened many legal challenges. As they were accused, the Christian Brothers were entitled to bring in lawyers to defend themselves. In defence of the Government, it decided to review the commission's work because it was facing a bill of €200 million for funding every aspect of the work. It was paying for the lawyers and barristers of the members of the clergy who were being accused.
I agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Department of Education and Science should not have been asked to inquire into the abuse of young people in institutions that were under its jurisdiction. I am fascinated by the fact that the Hutton inquiry in the UK conducted its business in eight weeks. It was able to demand the Prime Minister's attendance. We all saw the reconstructions of the hearings on television. The fact that Irish tribunals of inquiry seem to go on for years is not the end of the world, however, as the more we learn from the tribunals of the behaviour of certain people, the greater the chance that other people will appreciate the need for a high standard of ethics in public life. It would have been better if the Department of Education and Science had not been involved.
I received first class help from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, Mr. John Dennehy, when I was chairwoman of Gaisce – The President's Award. He gave me tremendous personal assistance when I had the stressful experience of being involved with the council. I was asked by President McAleese to try to introduce the award in Northern Ireland and I achieved this, in conjunction with the Departments of Education and Science, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Foreign Affairs. I sent a letter to an official in the Department of Education and Science as chairwoman of the organisation, but I did not receive a response. I assumed that he was making up his mind about what I had requested of him. I became impatient after about three months and arranged to meet the man to whom I had written. I realised at that point that my request was not being dealt with. My letter had been placed in a file. I had thought, innocently, that I had not received a response because a decision had not been made.
One can understand that the Department of Education and Science may have been asked to deal with this issue because it was in possession of the documentation and other material, but another Department would have been more suitable, with hindsight. Senator Mansergh mentioned earlier that the Department has a mind-boggling workload.
In my heart and soul, I believe the State was responsible for the abuse of young people. I have believed from the start of this process that it is right that the State should pay for its lack of vigilance in looking after young people in industrial and reformatory schools. I spoke about this matter at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. There seems to be a vendetta on the part of the Opposition, especially the Labour Party, in respect of issues of costs and money. Given that their lives have been ruined, how must the victims of abuse feel when they hear all this talk about money and costs? Any young person who is physically or sexually abused is damaged for life. They may make a form of recovery, but they are damaged forever.
The Catholic Church has paid a large price for the actions of some of its members. The fact it is on its knees in Ireland and the United States – the Archbishop of Boston has resigned – is a big enough price to pay. There is no doubt that the religious congregations contain some very good people. The hospitals that were managed by nuns were brilliantly run. The ladies who were in charge of training colleges and hospitals did an outstanding job at a time when women in Ireland had little chance of being involved in management, organisation or business. It should be remembered that not everybody was an abuser. Senator Mansergh does not realise how many young people were abused. His contribution gave the impression that only a few people were abused. Some 2,900 complainants, not a small figure, have made themselves known to the investigation committee. The relatives of the complainants should also be taken into consideration.
I do not want to omit any of the points I wished to make. It is sad that the church is on its knees. Why does Ireland top the poll when surveys list countries in terms of alcohol consumption? Ireland is the number one country for binge drinking. Young people have no moral authority. For all its faults, the Catholic Church established the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, for example, to encourage people not to drink. It is a tragedy that the church is on its knees because there is now a lack of moral authority. Anybody who believes that young people listen to their parents, or do what their parents tell them, must be living in Disneyland. An authority other than parents is needed. I know that the church was repressive, but aspects of it were extremely good for social stability, and its downfall is a tragedy.
I do not think it is right to bankrupt the religious orders. The Government decided initially that the orders should not have to pay anything, but they came forward to make payments even though they were under no pressure to do so. I will never forget the moment I heard the Taoiseach's apology on behalf of the nation in 1999. Senator Ulick Burke was somewhat disingenuous yesterday when he said that the Taoiseach's apology rings hollow.
The Senator should not make comments about Senator Ulick Burke as he is not present.
I am very sorry. Another reference was made yesterday – I will not mention the Senator in question – to a deal of "madness". How can one speak of a deal of madness? I fully support the Taoiseach and the apology he made. I also support Deputy Woods, who spearheaded the deal in the presence of officials from the Department of Finance and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy. Justice is being done in the interests of the human rights of people who were deprived. The people in question were seen only as a number. They were not loved and were deprived of the love of a parent. Can one imagine the coldness felt by one who is seen by the Department as a number in an institution? The most traumatic aspect of this matter is that nobody cared about, praised or encouraged the people in question. There was a lack of love in their lives.
I am delighted to be afforded the opportunity to speak briefly on this subject. This has been an excellent debate and there have been some wonderful contributions.
The abuse to which children were subjected in reformatories, industrial schools, orphanages and Magdalene homes is a national disgrace. It was acknowledged as such by the Taoiseach, who made an apology to the victims of abuse on behalf of the State. Every right-thinking person lauded the establishment of the Laffoy commission, which was charged with inquiring into cases of child abuse and giving the victims of abuse the opportunity to have their day in court. The stated intention of the inquiry seems to have been frustrated and hindered by the Department of Education and Science, in particular. This culminated in the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy. I cannot accept the view of a previous speaker, who said it is very difficult to locate specific documents in the Department of Education and Science when required, as there are so many papers in that Department.
What can we do to give survivors a speedy recourse to justice, which was the purpose of the inquiry? A spokesman for Aisling said recently that the people who go through the investigation committee only want to look their abusers in the face and ask them why they did what they did.
The handling of the issue by the Department of Education and Science has been disgraceful. The Government stated that its actions were largely motivated by concern that hearings would take up to 12 years, yet last November when the commission, in a document entitled Framework Procedures, sought resources to hold parallel hearings the Government agreed in principle to provide the extra resources, but failed to provide them on the basis requested. It has been estimated that if those resources had been provided, the commission could finish its hearings by July 2005. Instead of looking for review after review, the Minister should have provided those resources and let the commission do its job, finish its hearings in 2005 and produce its report in 2006. Reviews and reports are regularly called for by the Government. This is another way of delaying and postponing decisions. The Government's inability to act has resulted in the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy.
It beggars belief that the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, went into discussions with religious orders without legal representation when the other side was represented. I will not dwell on this matter because it has been adequately dealt with by my colleagues, particularly by Senator Phelan, and in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I have spoken to a number of victims of child abuse. Some are old and frail. I make an appeal that these people be granted an immediate hearing. All victims would agree that those who are old and frail should have their say at this point. I hope this question will be addressed. The reasons for this inquiry must not be overlooked and the victims must not lose out in the morass of administrative procedure and detail.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I compliment all speakers on their detailed research and the preparation of their statements. I compliment the former Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Government and I compliment the Taoiseach on his full apology to the unfortunate people who were abused in institutions for which the State had responsibility.
On behalf of the people of County Offaly, where there was an institution in Daingean, I apologise for the injustices done to people in that institution in my county. Daingean reformatory had football and hurling teams and I played alongside some of the boys from that institution. Some of the boys were very good hurlers and footballers and I recall one boy who hurled alongside me on the Offaly minor team. Some of the stories he relayed to me and others do not bear repeating.
Certain members of the clergy, gardaí and school principals sought, for very little reason, to have young boys committed to institutions. Problems existed but the solution to those problems was not to put boys into reformatories. Responsibility rests on several such people for what happened. The guilty must put their hands up and apologise to those unfortunate people.
I welcome the financial commitment made by the religious congregations, who bear no obligation. We had a responsibility to deal with problems we ourselves created in not properly supervising the institutions. The contribution of the religious congregations should not be treated lightly.
I recall the stories told by the unfortunate young people from Daingean of having to work hard on farms when they were very young and hungry much of the time. One boy told me he was punished for eating a piece of one of the turnips he was pulling. The regime that existed in those days left much to be desired. It is a cause of sadness to me, as a practising Catholic, that those young people went to Mass every morning and some were abused every night. The Taoiseach was correct to make a full apology to those who were abused and I would have expected no less of a public representative or Taoiseach.
The young fellows from Daingean used to arrive on a cattle truck, already togged out, to play matches. They always played to the rules, although we often suspected they were over the age limit for the competitions in which they took part. I regret having lost contact with some of the boys I got to know particularly well at that time. The Offaly minor hurling team was not as well treated as teams nowadays. We did not have dinner after important matches but thought ourselves lucky to be given a cup of tea with sandwiches and buns. The buns were not even iced. We used to collect the cakes and give them to the young fellows who were going back to the institution. Their only worry was that the buns might be taken from them at the gate as they returned and that they would not be able to give them to the other young fellows. Those were tough times and we regret them. We must have the courage to admit our faults and apologise for what happened at that time.
More than 3,000 complaints have been received. Many of the people who suffered in the institutions have passed on to their eternal reward and we must also apologise for what happened to them. We should thank Ms Justice Laffoy for the excellent work she did while she chaired the commission. I wish the board the very best in reaching a speedy conclusion to ensure that all the young people who suffered at the hands of people for whom the State was responsible are properly compensated. No matter what amount they get, it will not be sufficient to compensate for their sufferings.
I could not put on record the stories I was told by some of the young people who were abused during the era in question. As a person from County Offaly, which had an institution wherein child abuse occurred, I regret that there were not better rules and inspection methods in place, perhaps at a local authority level. Visiting committees from local authorities should have visited the institutions, just as health boards established visiting committees for their institutions more recently. Any institution dealing with young people with any handicap should certainly have visiting committees of elected public representatives to see at first hand exactly what is happening.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for affording me the opportunity to make some brief remarks. I thank the Minister of State for his presence and Deputy Woods and the Government for having taken the stand they have taken, and I hope this matter is resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
I listened with great interest to the previous speaker because he brought a human dimension to the debate. I remember growing up in Foynes, which was ten miles from Glin where there was an industrial school. When I was young in the early 1950s, industrial schools obviously presented themselves as a terrible prospect because I remember that parents of young school-going children who misbehaved always threatened to send those children to the industrial school. "We will send you to Glin," was a statement at the time. There was fear as early as the 1950s.
Like Senator Moylan, I remember young people taking up employment with local farmers after leaving the industrial school. I remember socialising with one such person who was extremely friendly. Last summer, a museum was set up in Glin in an old Church of Ireland building and it contains memorabilia from the area and much memorabilia from the industrial school, including photographs. It brought a lump to my throat to enter the museum because it brought back memories of the days when the industrial school was in operation.
I accept it was correct for the Taoiseach to apologise on behalf of the State for the abuse that took place. In many ways, the apology would have been influenced by reports on television and in books about the era in question, an era which many would want to forget.
The issue of compensation does not involve a vendetta regarding money because even if victims received €80,000 or €100,000 in compensation, it would not compensate for the abuse they suffered and for the loss of their childhood. Money is not the factor. For many of those concerned, the main issue is that they are getting a chance to express what took place when they were young and that there is somebody to listen. This is probably the most important factor because with listening will come the healing process.
It is understandable that those on the Government side would congratulate Deputy Woods for the initiative he took as Minister, and all his officials. One has to realise that while the Opposition would like to see a consensus evolving in politics, it is important for it to look vigilantly at what is being done. I spent a year as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts and worked very closely with the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is one of the most principled people I have ever worked with. He is totally apolitical and is forensic in his analysis of different aspects of State spending. There has been much focus recently on his report, especially regarding excesses in Government spending. Much attention has been paid to his research in this area and his estimate that compensation may cost up to €1 billion. It may cost that much – I believe it has been described as a guesstimate. This term is unfair because the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General does not go through a guesstimate-type process. One Minister criticised the Comptroller and Auditor General for entering the area of policy. One has to respect that we have an independent person producing this kind of analysis. In many cases, the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot defend himself, by virtue of his position, against those who may make political taunts or attack him in a hostile way.
When one says Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation is not about money, one should realise that the sequence of events prior to her resignation, when she asked for sufficient resources to try to conclude the process in a timeframe of four to five years, was about funding. There was agreement in principle to provide the resources but, because of funding problems, they were not provided. One might say that the financial resources may not have been available because of the decline of the Celtic tiger, etc.
In that context, when the Taoiseach said that everything was not right and apologised to Ms Justice Laffoy, his actions were in complete contrast to those of the Department of Education and Science, under Deputy Noel Dempsey, who was quite defensive of the whole mechanism. There was no apology on his part and he obviously tried to put a different spin on the matter. It would have been far better had he put up his hand like the Taoiseach and said the issue was not handled perfectly. The spin that appeared afterwards suggested that if the process were to continue as it was progressing, it would take ten to 12 years to complete and that many of those involved would have passed away. In fairness to Ms Justice Laffoy, had she received the resources she requested the process could have been completed in four to five years. We should await the sequence of events that occurs under the new appointee to see how long it might take. It is important to establish finality in whatever time it takes, preferably in a short timeframe.
I worked with Deputy Woods and opposed him when I was spokesperson on the marine. I found him very frustrating to oppose during Question Time in the Dáil. He gave such long-winded replies that one was tearing out one's hair when asking supplementary questions. One rarely got to ask a supplementary question and rarely got to the nub of the issue because many of his replies involved a process of obfuscation to put one off the scent.
Not at all.
I did not interrupt anybody and listened with great patience. Deputy Woods made a sterling defence of his stance on the issue recently.
I heard Senator Mansergh decide that the issue of the Attorney General's intervention was a red herring. It was not. If one had listened to an eminent barrister on "Questions and Answers" last Monday night, one would have heard her say it was absolutely amazing that the religious congregations attended one of the meetings armed with their legal advisers while the Government did not have its legal representatives in place. That would appear obvious. Mr. Boland, an official of Deputy Woods's in the Department of Education and Science, remarked that while the Department achieved agreement in principle with CORI, it would have to be fine-tuned with the Attorney General, which never happened. The then Attorney General, Michael McDowell, did not want to be left out on a limb regarding this issue. He felt he was left outside the loop regarding many of the meetings. He had external matters to deal with and there were preparations to be made for the election etc., and maybe he might have taken his eye off the ball. However, it was a mistake to resolve the issue just a day into an election campaign. Maybe it was just a chance to clear the decks.
It was very important that the parameters were correctly set. On the question of the legal indemnity, the Secretary General, Mr. Dennehy, said indemnity had not been invoked, yet the following day he apologised saying it had already been invoked in view of a settlement of €150,000 to €200,000. It will be interesting to see if the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be borne out when the overall cost emerges. The work of the commission will be extended over many years. An examination of the sequence of events will show that matters were not handled correctly. I am pleased the Comptroller and Auditor General had access to information from the Department of Education and Science. When The Irish Times requested similar documentation under the Freedom of Information Act, it was not disclosed.
I hope the Committee of Public Accounts will consider this issue further. It is not concerned totally with money but with ensuring that those who suffered recover their dignity. We must respect what the State has done in this regard, including the Taoiseach's apology. It is important for politicians, the Comptroller and Auditor General and other custodians of the public purse to ensure that State resources are expended effectively and well.
I disagree with the view that there was no compunction on the church to provide compensation. Much of what happened occurred under the church's stewardship. If it did not offer compensation, it would find it very difficult to preach to its flock especially in view of its eroded moral authority. Senator White referred to binge drinking among the young. Senator Moylan and other Senators know of the tremendous respect people had for the church when we were growing up. There was also respect for those who decided to become a pioneer. Young pioneers today feel like pariahs when they socialise with their peers, which is regrettable. Some of the changes that have taken place in society are not for the better.
While these events occurred under the stewardship of the church and were wrong, it must be acknowledged that the church has done a lot of good. When we were growing up, the church had greater moral authority and there was, perhaps, a justified fear of it which may have kept us on the right path. It is regrettable that has been eroded and has broken down.
I wish Ms Justice Laffoy's successor well and I hope that over a short time period this matter will be brought to finality in the interests of those who have been abused in the past.
Is cúis áthais dom teacht anseo i bhur measc agus páirt a ghlacadh ins an díospóireacht an-thábhachtach seo mar ionadaí ón Rialtas. Déanaim comhgairdeas le gach duine a labhair go croíúil, go cruinn agus go beacht ar an ábhar.
I thank those who contributed to this debate. While I may not agree with the sentiments expressed by some Members of the Opposition, I accept Senators have spoken with the needs of the survivors of abuse at heart. I pay tribute to those I had the privilege to hear. Their contributions were open, heartfelt, sincere, humane and committed.
The Government regards the need to bring some closure to survivors regarding their past experiences as being the primary factor in shaping its policy in this area. Its programme of measures began in May 1999, with the Taoiseach's apology to all victims of abuse on behalf of the people. These measures, comprising a nation-wide counselling service, a commission to inquire into child abuse and a redress board, remain in place. It is worth repeating that the only part of the Government's initiative in this area that is under review is the investigation committee of the commission to inquire into child abuse. The commission's other committee – the confidential committee – is working well and has heard over 700 witnesses.
All other parts of the Government's response continue to operate. In particular, the redress board, which provides financial awards to survivors of abuse, is fully operational and is processing 30 claims per week. Some 97% of the offers made by the board have been accepted by claimants, so it is clearly working well. It is worth noting that it is open to claimants to appeal awards to an independent appeals board.
Fortunately, I have been a Member of Oireachtas Éireann for 21 years. Over the last decade, many tribunals of inquiry have been established to inquire into many aspects of public life. It is worth comparing these with the work of the Hutton inquiry in the United Kingdom. Everybody asked and summonsed to appear before the Hutton inquiry did so, some in the absence of legal advisers, without obstruction or legal impediment. They submitted their reports and gave evidence without difficulty. The inquiry report will be accepted by the Government, the public and the media and will stand as the record, the de facto position. By contrast, in this country, the tribunals of inquiry that have been established have become complex and legal quagmires. They have been impeded and obstructed to the extent that even servants of the State who are paid by taxpayers are not prepared to give evidence before them. There is something wrong with that.
The former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and the current Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and their teams are being lambasted because they did not have lawyers present every time they met the parties involved in the negotiations on this matter. Surely if we elect people and if Parliament appoints Ministers, they have a duty to do a job and execute a conclusion, no matter how complex or difficult. As the then custodian of the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Woods did an outstanding job in bringing this matter to finality. He had a professional lawyer within his Department to advise him on a daily basis and be present with him during the negotiations. In view of this, I do not understand those who say there was something wrong with the conclusions reached, especially when the negotiations were conducted in a sincere attempt to discharge professional standards and bring to a conclusion one of the saddest tales in the history of the State.
It is planned to increase the number of redress board members from five to eight, which should allow for 40 cases a week to be processed. It is important to emphasise that the current review of the commission's investigation committee has no impact on the work of the redress board. It is the Government's intention that the review of the investigation committee would be completed as soon as possible. Where amending legislation is considered necessary, it will be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas expeditiously. The overriding aim is that the committee should be empowered to complete its mandate within a reasonable period of time without incurring exorbitant costs.
It is important to remember that without the contribution of €128 million from the religious congregations, to be provided under the terms of the indemnity agreement, the costs associated with the redress scheme would have been met entirely by the taxpayers. It has been said repeatedly, but it needs to be reiterated in order that people are properly informed on this issues, that the indemnity agreement is not costing the State money. The redress scheme, proposed by the Government and agreed by all sides of the House, will do so.
The contribution of €128 million from the religious congregations means the State does not have to fund the entire bill. It also means that the need for further actions in the courts is minimised. While it has been argued that the State should not have accepted a sum of €128 million and should have insisted on a higher contribution and possibly a 50:50 split, it is my view and that of the Government that the agreement reached was the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances. In France, the state took on the churches on these issues and lost when it secured a discovery of documents order against them. That was appealed to the French Supreme Court which found that the documents had to be returned. The judges did not award a penny. Against this background, other international information, legal facts and common sense, a solid conclusion has been reached in our case.
There comes a stage in all negotiating processes when an offer is made and there is a judgment call on whether it could be increased or should be accepted. In this case, the call was that €128 million represented a meaningful contribution and should be accepted. Any right-thinking and fair-minded person should agree with this decision.
I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate. I welcome the fact that there is more informed comment about the improvements that need to be made. In May 1999 the Government apologised to the survivors of institutional childhood abuse and set about redressing the wrong. The Government has been true to its word and will fully adhere to its commitments.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.