Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004

Vol. 175 No. 7

Third Interim Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Miss de Valera)

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the third interim report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, and related issues. It is important to remind Members of the House that the Government is the first in the history of the State to listen to what the victims of abuse were saying, to apologise to them on behalf of the State for the wrongs that had been committed against them as children and to take action to provide redress. It is as a result of the apology offered by the Taoiseach that so much has been achieved for the victims of abuse to date. The process started by the Government in 1998 continues.

Since 1998, the Government has put in place initiatives designed to assist former residents of institutions in which wrongs were committed. In particular, we have put the following in place for the first time: the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, comprising both the confidential committee and the investigation committee; a nationwide programme of counselling, operated under the auspices of the health boards, providing a free counselling service to all victims of abuse in childhood; a redress scheme through which victims of abuse in residential care can get financial compensation — the Residential Institutions Redress Board administers this scheme; ongoing support for survivor groups to ensure an information and referral service is available on a local and national level; outreach services are provided in the United Kingdom so survivors who moved there have access to all relevant information and advice; and the Barnardos Origins service to assist survivors in family tracing. I thank Ms Justice Laffoy and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse for the completion of its very detailed report. I welcome the report and am pleased to see that it provides at least some closure and confirmation of their experiences for the former pupils of the Baltimore Fisheries School. I remind everyone that the very valuable work the commission has completed in respect of Baltimore was one of the main purposes for which the commission was established, namely, to inquire into the abuse that occurred in these institutions and to report on it. This was the Government's intention at the time the commission was being established and continues to inform the manner in which the Government is dealing with this issue today.

The report deals with many aspects of the commission's work since its previous interim reports of May 2001 and November 2001. At the end of the remit of the commission, this report will form part of the broader picture of life for children in our institutions and will assist the commission in making recommendations for the future protection of vulnerable children.

The review refers to the manner in which requests for additional resources were dealt with and the manner in which the Department of Education and Science interacted with it in its role as a respondent to the commission. I would like to deal with each of these issues in turn.

The Department of Education and Science is the sponsor of the commission. Since the publication of the third interim report there have been renewed calls for this role to be removed from the Department. The position of Government on sponsorship of the commission by the Department of Education and Science is that it is appropriate that it should continue to act as sponsor. The Department of Education and Science's sponsoring of the commission is similar to the position of other Departments that are responsible for inquiries that come within their remit. For example, sponsorship of the Mahon tribunal lies with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the sponsorship of the Barr and Morris tribunals lies with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Since its establishment on a non-statutory basis, the Department has responded to the commission's request for resources as quickly as possible. As with all other Departments, this Department must and did submit each request for resources to the Department of Finance and-or Government for their consideration. The Department has been and will continue to be committed to supporting the commission.

The resourcing delays to which the commission refers in its third interim report primarily relate to the period since June 2002. The commission had requested a virtual doubling of its resources. Between June and December 2002, the Department corresponded with the commission on a number of occasions in order to clarify the commission's position regarding timeframe for delivery of its final report and estimated costings should these resources be sanctioned.

The Government, upon consideration of the matter, agreed in principle to the provision of the additional resources but was concerned that the provision of these additional resources in itself might not result in the work of the investigation committee being completed in a timely manner, taking into account its apparent lack of progress. It considered that the request for additional resources could not be considered in isolation and that it was also imperative to have the commission's procedures and underlying legislation reviewed to establish whether there was any scope to change or amend the Act which would expedite its work and reduce the cost to the Exchequer while still achieving the original objectives of the legislation.

The Government's view was that the difficulties faced by the investigation committee were more fundamental than the issue of resources. This has been confirmed by both the review conducted by the Attorney General and by Mr. Ryan's report on the working of the commission. It was and still is the view of Government that to allow the commission to continue with the hearing of more than 1,700 individual cases without any thought to the huge legal bill being incurred would not have been in the interest of either the survivors themselves or society.

The Department has at all stages made every effort to co-operate with and assist the work of the investigation committee of the commission. In this regard, the Department voluntarily handed over to the commission more than 500,000 pages of documentation between 2000 and 2002. Furthermore, by June 2003 it had provided the commission with approximately 1,900 statements relating to cases before the investigation committee. The commission has confirmed in its report that no statements are outstanding. In addition, it responded to 16 discovery directions issued to it.

It is accepted that there were some difficulties encountered, especially in complying with a small number of the discovery directions. However, in this regard, the commission's third interim report acknowledges that "some of the difficulties were caused, or contributed to by the Committee in that for example there was not sufficient clarity in the direction as to what was sought, or insufficient time was being allowed for compliance". In an effort to resolve difficulties that had arisen, the Department re-organised the manner in which it dealt with the commission in early 2003 and the residential institutions redress unit of the Department has since then acted as a focal point for dealing with all commission-related matters. That unit then seeks assistance or information, if required, from relevant sections. This approach ensures that this one unit is aware of all issues relating to the commission and, consequently, the Department is in a position to respond more effectively to discovery directions and any other matters. The commission confirms in its report that by the beginning of 2003, the Department was in the position of being able to engage constructively with it.

Furthermore, and in order to ensure that the Department's processes are above board, last December the Minister for Education and Science ordered an independent review of the process and procedures for the making of discovery by the Department of Education and Science to the commission. His intention in directing that such a review should occur was to ensure there would be full and complete co-operation with the commission and that any changes to be made in the manner in which discovery was being processed would be addressed. The former chairperson of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Mr. Matthias Kelly QC, was appointed to conduct this review. In addition to being completely independent of the Department, Mr. Kelly has considerable experience of sexual abuse litigation and is co-author of an article entitled "Child Abuse in Residential Homes" in the New Law Journal.

Mr. Kelly conducted his review over a two-week period that commenced on 5 January 2004. His terms of reference were to review the processes and procedures operated by the Department of Education and Science in making discovery to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and to make recommendations, as appropriate, regarding discovery by the Department of Education and Science.

In the course of conducting his review Mr. Kelly met with officials in the Department of Education and Science involved in the discovery process and with the legal team representing the Department as well as representatives of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. He also had access to all of the Department's records. The process of meeting with and interviewing persons relevant to his review has concluded and Mr. Kelly has returned to Britain to conclude his work on his report.

Considerable staffing resources have been put in place within the Department to ensure that the Department is in a position to fulfil its obligations to the commission both as sponsor and respondent. None of the staff within the Department dealing with this issue had any role to play in the operation of the institutions nor have any allegations made against them. All of the Department's efforts, both as sponsor of the commission and as a respondent to it, have been to ensure that the commission is enabled to carry out the task set it by the Oireachtas.

In this regard, the Department has, when necessary and in order to meet the deadlines imposed by the commission, increased the numbers of staff working on the responses to particular directions. For example, in responding to the abuse specific discovery direction of 10 March 2003, the Department took on an additional 16 persons, including six documentary counsel, to ensure the material was provided to the commission on time.

The House can be reassured that, in the event that at any future stage the issue arises of it being necessary to put additional resources in place within the Department in order to meet the requirements of the commission, they will be put in place.

Following the announcement by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy on 2 September 2003 of her intended resignation as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Government, on 26 September 2003, appointed Mr. Seán Ryan, SC, as chairperson designate of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. At that time and in advance of his being appointed to the chairmanship, the Government requested Mr. Ryan to immediately undertake an independent review of the working of the commission. Mr. Ryan's report is a lengthy one running to more than 70 pages. It was published on 15 January 2004 together with a review completed by the Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Ryan has concluded that a combination of legislative amendments to the original Act and alternative procedures being adopted by the investigation committee would result in the commission being in a position to complete its work within a reasonable timescale and without incurring exorbitant costs.

The Government has accepted Mr. Ryan's report and is currently arranging for the legislative changes recommended by him to be included in the amending legislation. Furthermore, Mr. Ryan has indicated that he intends to engage in a consultative process with a view to obtaining the opinions of all parties to the commission's work on the best way forward. The Department of Education and Science will participate fully and constructively in thisprocess.

The Government wishes to publish and put in place the legislation amending the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act as quickly as possible to enable the commission to proceed quickly and efficiently with its work. However, the ongoing litigation involving the Christian Brothers is an issue that must be taken into account before the legislation can be finalised. Indeed, Mr. Ryan in his report states that notice must be taken of the Christian Brothers' case and the potential effect of the ultimate judgment on the proceedings of the investigation committee. In his report Mr. Ryan states: "It is impractical to suggest that there could be amending legislation processed and enacted until the Murray/Gibson (Christian Brothers) litigation is determined."

As the final version of Judge Abbott's judgment in this matter was issued on 27 January, there is now a 21-day period during which parties to that case can decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue of when amending legislation may be published will become clearer over the next two to three weeks.

In conclusion, this Government remains totally committed to ensuring that the process to bring healing and some form of closure to those of our citizens who as children suffered abuse while in institutional care, will be completed within a reasonable timescale.

Mr. U. Burke

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Miss de Valera, to the House. I am glad of the opportunity to express our opinions on the third and final interim report of Ms Justice Laffoy. From the Minister of State's address on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, it would seem he is still in a state of denial in so far as he expresses the many things he has supposedly done in a positive way. The record speaks for itself. To claim, at the outset, that there is some form of closure at this point is an argument without substance. The third report is damning. It indicates a litany of failure by the Minister, his predecessor and the Department as sponsors in this particular case. The evidence is quite clear that the Department of Education and Science cannot justifiably continue as sponsor and respondent as the commission continues under a new chairman. I wish Mr. Seán Ryan every success in his work. He has a difficulttask, bearing in mind the history of what has occurred.

Three main issues are to be considered. When the commission was established, following the Taoiseach's apology to the victims on behalf of the nation, most people believed he was sincere in what he said. Whether intentionally or otherwise the public can see for itself that all the commitments given then subsequently rang hollow. The failure was in three areas, the first of which is the question of the commission's resourcing. It may be, as the Minister of State said, that this was doubled during the course of its investigations. In reality, Ms Justice Laffoy brought it to the attention of the Minister and the Department that it was necessary to provide adequate resources, at the time of the review initiated by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey.

Up to June 2002 matters were all right and the commission and the chairperson fully accepted that the resources promised at its inaugural meeting would be provided. Alas, they were not. The Minister's first intention and act were to review the situation. Ms Justice Laffoy immediately wrote to the Attorney General and outlined the consequences of the intention behind this review, which was essentially to reduce the commission's remit. This was the start of the Minster's lack of co-operation and obstruction in this particular issue. This led, thereafter, to a sense of tension that was never repaired and finally to the resignation in September last of Ms Justice Laffoy. If the Minister can justify his continuing sponsorship of the commission, he does so from a weak position in that it is he who must take full responsibility for a litany of failures.

Many independent observers would say he provoked the situation in which the commission was not allowed to do its work on the basis on which it started out. Its remit had to be changed and the Minister provoked the situation which brought that about. If that is the Minister's record on this matter, it is time he realised he must let go and allow an independent Department to take over. I am not sure whether the Department of the Taoiseach is the best option, even though Ms Justice Laffoy ruled out the Departments of Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the grounds that their involvement would be improper.

Why did the Minister deny the files requested by the commission? He justified that by saying more than 500,000 documents had been presented. The reality is that most of them were useless and superfluous to the task at hand. The Minister of State says that there are huge resources within the Department by way of staff — 11 lawyers and 37 other personnel. If the departmental personnel could only find that the majority of the 500,000 documents were useless, how could anybody, especially the victims and the public as taxpayers, have any confidence in the continuance of the investigation under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science?

Apart from resourcing, on which the Minister has failed, there is the whole question of refusal and obstruction. If the Minister was serious and wanted to bring closure to the issue, he would have demanded that staff in the Department provide files as required.

It was difficult to access files. The Department was given ample notification by the commission that it required all files relating to particular institutions. Is administration within the Department of Education and Science so chaotic that it was impossible to provide them? The result was a manifestation of obstruction rather than helpfulness and co-operation. That is a damning indictment of inefficiency, non co-operation and obstruction. Is it any wonder the eminent judge was forced to resign having exhausted her patience?

The commission will soon reconvene under a new chairperson. The time has come for the Minister to bring about closure for those who want it — 67% of whom are aged 50 years or more. They are crying out to have their stories heard. I was a member of the education committee to which many of them relayed the horrific facts that tortured them and each member who listened to them. Many of those who live to tell their side of the story are to be denied an opportunity to do so because of the new concept of grouping cases. Many of the people involved have told the Minister that is not satisfactory. Again, it is an issue of resources.

The Minister for Education and Science may say this matter is the collective responsibility of Government, but he is the Minister with responsibility for distributing resources within the Department of Education and Science. He has failed in that regard. If we are not to provide victims with the opportunity to tell their stories we have broken the first guarantee given by the Taoiseach when he announced his apology and the setting up of the commission. We were told by the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, that resources would not be a problem. That promise too has been broken. He walked away from this issue and all the promises he made. The deals he made are now a sorry saga of failure.

The Minister for Education and Science should reconsider his position and allow this matter to be handled by another Department. I ask that victims who wish to present their cases individually, something for which they have lived, be provided with the facilities and opportunity to do so. Whatever resources are required by way of staff and so on to bring closure to this matter should be provided by Government and the relevant Minister or, perhaps, the Taoiseach. The Minister for Education and Science should cease justifying what he has done in this regard. All he has done is to drive a very eminent chairperson to retire and caused disappointment to those victims who thought somebody was going to listen to and respond to them. We have an obligation not alone to the victims, but to the public to provide answers to the terrible deeds perpetrated by lay or religious staff operating institutions on behalf of the State. All of this will be in vain if we do not get proper answers.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the third interim report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. I am disappointed, having listened to the debate on this matter in the other House last night, to hear the Opposition here trump up various allegations, accusations and insinuations against the Minister for Education and Science and his Department, all bordering on the insidious. None of them is proven and there is no detailed reference to evidence of any kind. The upshot of these muddled and confusing allegations is that the Minister should resign.

I cast my mind back to last October when the Opposition was shouting from the roof tops that functions of the redress board were compromising victims' rights. They confused and, I suggest, deliberately muddled the board's role vis-à-vis victims' rights to go to the courts. They then attacked the investigation committee in the same way. It is the Opposition, not the Minister, who is in denial of the obvious and glaring difficulties which pertained to the investigation committee at that time. Those wild, unfounded and over-the-top allegations have not succeeded and the Opposition is now calling on the Minister to resign or to step aside and to allow sponsorship of the commission to be handed over to another Department. No evidence has been put forward to justify that assertion.

Mr. U. Burke

The Senator should read the report.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Walsh)

Senator Fitzgerald without interruption, please.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is an assertion, nothing more. Not one scintilla of genuine, logical evidence has been put forward to support that argument other than that a Department whose files are being investigated by the commission should not be the sponsoring Department. That is the only logic being put forward to support the arguments made. It is a desperate attempt to once again make political capital from the sad misfortune of the survivors of abuse in residential institutions, some of whom have relayed their horrific experiences to the commission.

The Taoiseach is the first in the history of the State to respond positively to the cries and approaches of victims and their support groups.

Ms White

Hear, hear.

Mr. U. Burke

It is a disaster.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Opposition is in constant denial and in a permanent state of nausea at that fact. The Taoiseach publicly acknowledged the abuse and apologised for it on behalf of the State. Allegations that there has been no progress, that there has been only denial by the Minister for Education and Science, that there have been a litany of complaints from the various workings of the commission, that the Taoiseach's sincerity is questionable, that the review was brought about to reduce the remit of the commission, and that independent observers have stated the workings of the commission have been a disaster and a failure are wild, unfounded and totally unsubstantiated. I regret they have been made on the record of the House today. The Opposition is repeating the pattern of debate which took place in the other House last October and again last night.

The purpose of the commission, as Members are aware, was to investigate and inquire into alleged abuses that took place in institutions and to report on them. Chapter 8 is central to this matter. It outlines the detail of the commission's remit which is to do its job as stated under legislation adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I take this opportunity, by way of vindication of the rights of and our belief in the credibility of witnesses to read into the record some of the detail of Chapter 8 of the report. On page 110, the commission outlines life in Baltimore school as described by the witnesses and states:

Experience of life in Baltimore school, as recounted by the witnesses, was so harsh and deprived by the standards of today as to verge on the unbelievable were it not for the fact that a contemporaneous record is available to give credence to the testimony.

The report, on page 111, states:

The witnesses described the appalling accommodation they were living in; the large dirty dormitories, the poor quality with flea infested and urine saturated mattresses and bedding...

The witnesses recalled the clothing provided for the pupils was not only inadequate but also a source of embarrassment. . .

Even by the standards of the time, the lack of hygiene and unhygienic practices described by the witnesses seem remarkable. . .

On the evidence the most startling failure in the treatment of the pupils in Baltimore schools related to food and diet. Every witness commented on the inadequacy of the food. The witnesses recalled that the pupils were not merely hungry; they were literally starving. They were compelled to supplement their diet by eating raw vegetables and vegetation — potatoes, turnips, mangolds, carrots and sorrel — by eating barnacles at the sea shore and by scavenging, begging and stealing in the village of Baltimore.

The chapter goes on to describe in detail the physical hardship, the conditions pertaining and the physical punishment and sexual abuse perpetrated on the residents of Baltimore school. However, the committee prefaced the account of the allegations of sexual abuse by stating:

Before summarising the evidence given by the witnesses in support of the allegations that they made of sexual abuse, it is important that the committee emphasises again that the evidence could not be challenged or contested by the persons implicated in the allegations or on their behalf.

The chapter, nonetheless, outlines harrowing details but is central to the commission's work.

It is necessary to respond to the assertions made by Senator Ulick Burke. Throughout this good report, criticisms are made of the commission's procedures. The Minister acknowledged that a number were justified but the Opposition has made little attempt to put the issue in perspective. Chapter 8 addresses the issues before the commission. Following publication of this report, the Minister gave his response publicly and in the other House and the Minister of State has responded on behalf of the Department but the Opposition has chosen again to denounce and harass the Minister and to side-step the issue. If the criticism is positive and intended to improve the process, it must be commended but it is quite the contrary.

It should be borne in mind that the Government is the first in the history of the State to acknowledge these serious problems and meet the survivors and its support groups. It is a little rich of the Opposition to denounce the Minister and the Government given that no Minister of the rainbow Government saw fit to take time out to meet support groups despite many approaches to do so.

The Government's strategy has involved setting up the commission and a number of other structures whereas the rainbow Government did nothing and ignored the survivors because it was in denial. Reference has been made to the failure of the Government and the Department to provide resources. While significant resources were provided, they proved inadequate, but the Minister never asserted he had the wisdom of Solomon. He acknowledged from the outset he was on a learning curve. The only similar inquiry took place in Queensland where, within one year, a report was drawn up. The Government was in a different position because of the Constitution and, as time has passed, the Minister, the Department and everybody else have been learning.

The contributions made by Opposition Members during the debates on the establishment of the commission highlight a lack of wisdom on their part in terms of the best way to approach its establishment. However, we are all wise in hindsight. Overall, the Minister has performed exceptionally well in responding to the difficulties that have unfolded. The report acknowledged there were problems in the Department and in regard to the quality of the directives that issued from the commission to the Department. The Minister has responded fittingly and positively and he has established reviews to ensure future responses will be even more efficient.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister of State. This is a critical report on the workings of the commission to date and its relationship with the Department of Education and Science. The Government is committed to doing the best it can for the survivors of abuse in the various institutions but, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. We should be not be party political about this issue because all of us have encountered various people who resided in the institutions and we all want to progress the matter. However, the rate at which the commission is proceeding is similar to molasses flowing in January. It is unbelievably slow and this must be a cause for worry.

It must also be a cause for worry that a woman as distinguished as Ms Justice Laffoy has made such strong criticisms of the Department and they must be taken seriously. I take the Minister of State's point that it is normal for Departments against which criticism is made to conduct the investigation into the criticism and she referenced the Morris and Mahon tribunals and so on but, perhaps, a mistake is being made by doing so in this instance. We were all in the House when the legislation was introduced and we thought we were doing a good job but the report's criticisms of the delays in obtaining documents and funding and staff shortages are serious. Criticisms are also made of a number of people working with the survivors, for example, solicitors who were seeking compensation.

However, the issue must be seriously examined because it is dragging on. We have all been contacted in recent times by a number of the people involved. Their lives are continuing and some of them have cancer or are dying. Members of the commission have been good as they have travelled to interview survivors who were ill and cases have been brought forward. However, these people are concerned about Mr. Ryan's review of the proposal that the legislation should be changed and the Minister's comments regarding sample cases and so forth. There is terrible unease among those who suffered, whom we are all trying to help. There is no more or less to it than that and the Government is not trying to do them down.

I am worried about the depletion of the commission's membership. Of the initial number, only three members remain. Ms Justice Laffoy resigned and Mr. Bob Lewis, CBE, a retired director of social services was only in position for a few months. He was appointed on 23 May and resigned on 19 July 2000 because there was a conflict of interest regarding cases of abuse in which he had been involved professionally. It took 18 months to replace him. Ms Ann McLoughlin, a senior social worker, was appointed on 23 January 2002. That was bad but, worse still, Dr. Patrick Deasy, a retired consultant paediatrician, and Dr. Kevin McCoy, a retired chief inspector attached to the social services inspectorate in Northern Ireland, both resigned in April 2003. Subsequently, the confidential committee comprised only two members — the chairperson, Ms Nora Gibbons, a child care director, who was appointed when the commission was established, and Ms Ann McLoughlin. That is entirely unsatisfactory.

Worse still, the investigation committee now consists of only two people. How can anything function like that? What are the views of the four remaining people regarding this report? Has any effort been made to find out? Why have they remained when the report contains such serious criticisms of the Department of Education and Science and why have the other people not been replaced? Are people throwing up their hands at the problem and is the Government's flesh too weak in terms of replacing people?

The depleted commission has been in place for a very long time. It must be demoralising for those who remain. How can one have confidential inquiries when only two people are available? They must be working full-time. No wonder there is such a backlog of cases and investigations if so few people are involved. This must be looked at immediately. I would like answers from the Minister of State regarding the views of the four remaining people of this report. Is there any intention of replacing the people who have retired, or is it very difficult to find anyone to take their places in view of the controversy about the whole matter?

Professor Edward Tempany, a retired consultant paediatrician, is still there. He was brought in in November 2001 when we added the vaccine trials commission. At that time I said, in this House, that I thought we had strayed far beyond the bounds of physical and sexual abuse by including the vaccine trials in this area. I have known Dr. Irene Hillery and Professor Meenan for a long time; they are two of the most respected researchers in the country. No one has suggested that any harm was done to the children involved. The worst that has been suggested is lack of consent for the children to be involved in the trials and, as we know, consent in the 1960s was very different from consent in 2004.

A case regarding Dr. Irene Hillery which is ongoing in the courts is referred to in the vaccines section of the report. She put the vaccines division of the commission on notice that she is seeking a judicial review. She is threatening legal action if the Government does not revoke the order including the vaccines section. She and her legal team say it is ultra vires the Act. We know that when Professor Meenan told the court that he should not have to give evidence because of his age and lack of memory and the long time that had elapsed since the trials took place, the Government pursued the case to the High Court. In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, and Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman both said that they could not understand why the vaccine trials section had been included. This whole area was to be brought up when Dr. Hillery was seeking a revocation on 20 January last, but both the Government and the commission asked for extra time to present their cases as to why it should be included.

This sort of thing is causing delay and great amounts of money. It is all very well to talk about reviews, reports and so forth, but the Oireachtas, Ministers and Departments are receiving monumental criticism for the number of reviews we are bringing forward. I am sure the Minister of State knows this just as well as I do.

I notice that Mr. Ryan, in his report, did not reply to the question regarding why the commission should not be moved and work under another Department. However, when Ms Justice Laffoy sent the information to the Attorney General, I am sure he told the Government. We would like more information as to why it is not being moved. To say it is not traditional is not good enough. Mr. Matthias Kelly's review — another review — is pending and I am sure it will be welcomed. There has been delay after delay, not to mind what is being said in the courts by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Hardiman.

The legalistic view taken by the religious bodies is most unfortunate and is much regretted. I commend those who did not take that road, but I suggest there are many things that could be done to speed up the commission. I would be very grateful for some reply regarding the depleted commission, the views of those who remain on it and the situation regarding this interminable court case about the vaccine trials.

Ms Ormonde

I also welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am delighted to see her looking so well again.

I will try to speak positively because I have heard a litany of negative opinion in the past half hour. I have examined the statements on this report and I accept that there were difficulties. The Government was the first to make a commitment to look into cases of sexual abuse and to try to redress the harm inflicted. That is a stand-alone statement. The Taoiseach and the Government apologised to the victims on behalf of the State. That is also a first. Let us be fair.

Under the commission's terms of reference, two committees were established. The confidential committee gave everyone an opportunity to make his or her case and extensive counselling was provided. That was welcome and important. The process allowed people to examine what had happened for themselves. The problem arose with the investigative committee. As the Department was on a learning curve, it did not have a real feel for what was involved. That can happen. I have made many mistakes in all of my professions to date. I am sure there is no one in this room who has not made professional mistakes, no matter how good they are at their jobs. The Department found that there were difficulties. I welcome the Minister's decision to try to put things right.

I could not believe the recommendations that the commission should be taken from the Department of Education and Science and placed under the Department of the Taoiseach.

Mr. Ryan

Quite right.

Ms Ormonde

What more could the Department of the Taoiseach do on this issue than the Department of Education and Science? I find this recommendation difficult to understand. The same work has to be put in no matter what Department is involved. The Minister for Education and Science made a commitment. He is the sponsor of the commission and he is responding to the difficulties that have arisen. He has made a commitment to provide additional resources. He stated, in his reply, that the fundamental issue regarding the investigative committee was that much of the homework had not been done and that staff employed did not understand the impact of what was involved. A specialised unit within the Department is required to implement this process. I welcome the Minister's commitment on that issue. Correct processes and procedures must be put in place and the right people, who can discover documents when required by the investigative committee, must be made available. This is where the delay has arisen. If those measures are put in place, the commission will do its work.

I congratulate Ms Justice Laffoy on the work she has done to date. I am sorry that she had to resign. I wish the new chairman, Mr. Ryan, every success. I hope he will speed up the process because he has an understanding of what is involved. As already stated, we were previously in uncharted waters. Now that we have established an independent process to review how we can speed up matters, I am sure that results will be forthcoming. The associations representing victims of sexual abuse are responding well and have acknowledged that the Government is attempting — we may not succeed — to put matters right.

I welcome the report. I also welcome the fact that the difficult areas relating to processes, procedures and how best to put in place the unit designed to redress the wrongs were highlighted in it. I have no doubt that, in the wake of this report, the new chairman will help to bring about closure.

Mr. Ryan

It is good that the Taoiseach apologised. However, he apologised on behalf of the State and everyone within it. We were all, therefore, encompassed by his apology. To claim that the apology was made on behalf of the Government is to undermine its significance. Before we made our first communion, we were informed that saying one was sorry without being prepared to take the necessary steps was fairly meaningless. What we must consider is not whether mistakes were made — of course they were made — but whether people were culpable for those mistakes and whether evidence which is incontrovertible suggests that other agendas were being pursued.

I must reiterate something I said when the legislation relating to the Laffoy commission passed through the House. What emerges from this and subsequent reports ought to give salutary warning to people who lament the loss of the good old days. These were the good old days for thousands of young people and memories of them are not pleasant ones to have. We locked children up in dreadful conditions for a variety of reasons. Few of these were reasons for which the children themselves could be made culpable.

As we acknowledge the enormity of what was done to children in that awful period, the phrase used by the Minister of State that: "It was and still is the view of Government that to allow [in other words the Government is claiming the right not to allow the Commission to do things] the commission to continue with the hearing of over 1,700 individual cases without any thought to the huge legal bill being incurred would not have been in the interest of either the survivors themselves or society." If there was a Minister of State present who had the courtesy to listen——

An Cathaoirleach

Order, please.

Mr. Ryan

——I would inquire as to why a huge legal bill would not be in the interests of the survivors, particularly if it was necessary to allow them to be heard. Why do we discuss matters of this nature when it comes to the most vulnerable?

When the National Roads Authority struck a deal with farmers to compensate them for their land, nobody said that we could not do so because of the enormous bill involved. Why is it not in the interests of the survivors of abuse that a huge bill should be incurred for legal expenses? Why should each of the 1,700 not be heard? Is cost the only reason? What troubles the survivors is not the cost; they feel that what they have been put through has cost them their lives. The cost in financial terms is impossible to estimate. Why is the legal cost an issue? As for society, we must be required to confront our history. Any way which is not agreeable to the victims is not a confrontation of history.

There is a suggestion that difficulties arose as a result of inexperience. When the commission wrote to the Department on 26 July 2002 in an attempt to obtain clarification regarding the issue of compensation, the final statement about a decision in principle to provide for a compensation fund did not arrive until 3 October 2002. That was not inexperience. It was the pace of decision-making to which Departments are accustomed. It was the Department's determination that the matter would be dealt with in its way and in its time.

There is an account in the report about the extraordinary toing and froing regarding additional resources between June and December 2002. This is not my political opinion; it is what Ms Justice Laffoy wrote in her report. She stated that coupling the question of additional resources with a review of the commission's operations placed the latter in an impossible position. I did not say that, nor did the Opposition; it is stated in the report.

When the issue of selecting cases arose, Ms Justice Laffoy suggested that it should be statute-based whereas, quite clearly, the Government wanted the commission to carry out the selection. A letter about that matter was written to the Department on 25 March 2003. It took almost a month, in a letter dated 17 April 2003, for someone to reply to the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy was told that the publication of the review was a matter of political judgment. In other words the Government accepted responsibility for the delay. It was not a mistake. It was a political judgment. That is what is in the letter that was sent to the commission. It was not a mistake or an accident. It was a political decision for which the Government claimed authority and, therefore, responsibility.

Ms Justice Laffoy also stated that the commission was devoid of any real independent capacity to perform its statutory functions. I did not say that, nor did the Opposition; it is stated in the report. That is what was done to the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy proceeds to discuss the issue of compensation and the protection of the religious orders. She referred to the inconsistency between the Minister's statements about State culpability and the documentation supplied to her commission to justify it. Somebody is codding someone else. Statements were made accepting responsibility. Ms Justice Laffoy reasonably stated that if the State accepts that it has a major culpability, there must be some evidence to support it. The Department of Education and Science could, however, produce no evidence. This is the history of this matter. This is not me or the Opposition exaggerating; it is stated in the report. The most upsetting aspect of the Minister's speech is the failure to address those issues.

An order for discovery was issued on 10 March 2003 and the affidavit was supplied on 27 July 2003. Ms Justice Laffoy points out that this discovery affidavit did not appear to comply with the rules of the superior courts. Does the Department of Education and Science not know the rules of the superior courts about affidavits? Does it not have legal advice on how to do these things? Of course it does. We have to conclude there was a reason for not doing so. Ms Justice Laffoy also criticised the format. She concluded in the report that the Department has not adopted a constructive approach. That is not a suggestion of mistakes; it is a clear statement about the Department.

The Department has referred to the huge volume of material. Did it not know what was involved when it established the commission? The officials appear to have been surprised. Members of the Oireachtas knew what was involved but apparently the Department did not. However, the Department was quick to give itself extra resources due to the volume of work. That was quite correct but it is a pity it demonstrated an extreme reluctance to give similar increases in resources to the commission. That was a deliberate decision too.

The establishment of a review of the way the Department complies with discovery began on 5 January and has not yet reported. Ms Justice Laffoy has been talking about the Department's ineptitude in this area for two years but the Department only started the review, as a political cover, on 5 January. This is not simply a matter of mistakes being made but of political, administrative and managerial priorities. Clearly, this commission is low in the Department's priorities.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the third interim report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The report refers to the investigation into the Baltimore school and is most important. Senator Fitzgerald dealt with some of the issues relating to Baltimore.

The Government has listened to the victims of abuse and an apology has been made on behalf of the State. I hope we can take positive action to redress the wrongs inflicted on the victims of abuse in the past. In the last Dáil I was chairman of the joint committee on education, of which Senator Ulick Burke was also a member, which dealt with the legislation on this issue. The committee held hearings, which took place over a long period of time, that were attended by many different organisations. While they were trying to achieve the same goal, there were differences in emphasis between the various groups. It amazed me that groups of emigrants came to visit the committee. There were two groups in London, a women's group and a men's group, whose members, at great inconvenience, came before the committee. The committee tried to facilitate these groups by holding meetings in the afternoons. They had a sad tale to tell and it was harrowing for both the groups and the members of the committee. I particularly recall Seamus O'Brien from Clonmel describing the abuse he suffered.

The differences in emphasis among the groups were always going to be difficult to resolve. Obviously, and especially given the age of the people involved, some groups were anxious to settle with the Department while others had other priorities, such as telling their story and giving evidence. It was difficult to deal with that but the Minister made it clear that he intended to do his best to resolve and achieve closure on the various issues.

I am disappointed to hear people criticising the Department and the accusation that it is not co-operating with the committee. I do not believe that is the case. The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, have both spoken about the huge amount of documentation which has been voluntarily handed over by the Department. It includes approximately 1,900 statements relating to cases before the investigation committee. The third interim report acknowledges that some of the difficulties were caused or contributed to by the committee in that, for example, there was insufficient clarity in the direction as to what was sought or insufficient time allowed for compliance. That demonstrates the difficulties. In addition, a significant number of people and a considerable amount of documentation are involved. If there is a problem with staffing or resources, it should be dealt with and I hope the Minister will do that.

In paying tribute to Ms Justice Laffoy, I also pay tribute to Mr. Ryan for his work. The best way to go forward is through the allocation of adequate staffing and resources. There is no point advocating that the matter be taken from the Department of Education and Science and be made the responsibility of the Taoiseach. What will that resolve? The Department has been dealing with this matter for many years, certainly since 1999 and 2000 when the education committee held hearings on it. That committee dealt with the issues as fairly as possible and, hopefully, it gave a chance to the people who came before it to tell their story.

I am also a little disappointed with the comments about the religious orders. The Minister spoke last night about the situation vis-à-vis the Christian Brothers. Mr. Ryan said that notice must be taken of the Christian Brothers' case and the potential effect of the ultimate judgment in the case on the proceedings of the investigation committee. I received documentation from the Congregation of Christian Brothers last October. The congregation stated it was co-operating with the commission. In its news release, however, it outlined the legal argument it was making and the preparation being conducted by senior counsel. It is not fair to criticise the congregation by saying it is not co-operating. That is not the case. The congregation is co-operating but the challenge it is making in the High Court affects the issues and, as the Minister said, we must await its outcome.

I welcome the work done by Ms Justice Laffoy and Mr. Ryan. However, teaching is a difficult profession and the provision of education, even today, is difficult. I worry when teachers say they do not feel they are supported. I hope we will give them the support they require. There were different circumstances in the situation dealt with by the report. It is not fair to criticise today's teaching staff for the serious mistakes made in the past.

I hope teachers will not be fearful or negative in their approach to education. Education should be a positive experience, although it certainly was not positive in the situations we have been discussing. Teachers say burnout is being experienced in the profession. I suppose burnout is being experienced in every profession but teachers need support, perhaps through the inspectorate, which did not exist in the past, because we can never let such a situation arise again. I do not believe it will arise again but I hope the work of this commission will be successful and that we can get around to dealing with the cases we heard vividly about in our hearings at the education committee in the past three or four years.

Mr. Browne

The blame for this fiasco lies squarely at the feet of the Government parties, the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil. Their mishandling of the whole affair and lack of co-operation was referred to in Ms Justice Laffoy's interim report which stated that it had to be observed that, in general, the Department, as respondent to the vast majority of allegations which the committee is investigating, had not adopted a constructive approach to its role in the inquiry. The blame for that must surely fall at the feet of the Minister who is the head of that Department. The report also stated, on page 157, that the committee was assured that the issue of resources would be addressed but over a year later, resources were still an issue. The blame for that lies with the political parties and the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, must accept responsibility as head of the Department.

A constituent of mine is awaiting the publication of the redress Bill and wants the institutions she attended to be listed in it. We were given assurances before last Christmas that it would be published in the last Dáil term, but now it has been moved to this Dáil term. The lady for whom I am working is dying from cancer. She wants closure in this case but the inaction of the Minister and the Government has added greatly to her distress. It is embarrassing for me to find out one day that the matter will be resolved before Christmas, only to find it dragging on beyond Christmas. We are now back to square one again. That is very unfortunate for the lady involved and her family. I imagine there are many similar cases because, invariably, many of those who went through these institutions are quite elderly now and would not have good health. Unfortunately, many who have passed away will never get redress.

It is important to point out also that many religious played a major part in educating people in the past. Unfortunately, the Government's mishandling of this whole affair has tarred all religious orders with the same brush. If the Government had given the necessary resources to Ms Justice Laffoy and ensured a speedy conclusion to the work of the commission into child abuse in residential institutions, it would have brought closure to these cases. The many religious and non-religious in residential institutions who played a positive and constructive part in people's lives in the past would be acknowledged but, unfortunately, the issue is dragging all of those into the same area of disrepute, which is regrettable. It is worth pointing out that in many cases if it were not for the religious orders, many people would not have received an education. It is easy for us now to criticise them, but times were different then.

I heard one of the panellists on "Questions and Answers" make the valid point that child abuse is still taking place. This morning on the Order of Business, a Fianna Fáil Senator agreed with Senator Terry who raised the issue of the lack of appointments of social workers. The educational welfare officers were appointed but a dispute took place which lasted over a year during which schools could not report students missing. This Government is responsible for a litany of failures which amount to modern day child abuse. No doubt in 30 years' time, people could throw similar accusations at us.

I became aware of a case lately where a school reported a family missing to a social worker but did not get any word back on the case. The school contacted the social worker some weeks later only to be told that the social worker visited the family in question but there was no one at home. When the principal involved asked the social worker, "What did you do then?", the reply was "Nothing". That represents a complete breakdown of social work and the Government must take responsibility for it.

I could list many other cases where the State is failing to protect children in this modern age, namely, sub-standard school buildings. I became aware of a case lately where a secondary school was promised a new building by the Government Deputies in the constituency. A student in a wheelchair could not use the main part of the school. The school was never built, however, even though the Taoiseach arrived in the constituency involved and posed for photographs. The student in the wheelchair has since left the school having reached the age of 18 but she had to go through her secondary school years unable to access the PE hall which, for some reason, was on the second level of the school. That is a form of child abuse because that student was denied a basic right.

An area of concern I would share relates to the cost of all these commissions. Like many Senators in the House, we have all been part of delegations on behalf of schools in our constituencies looking for funding, only to be told that no money is available. We need to get a balance in terms of the cost of the commission versus the actual current needs of schools. That is why it is very important to reach a speedy conclusion to this issue, but the Government is not capable of ensuring that happens. That is a disadvantage to the victims, their families and those associated with the institutions involved.

There is a question mark over whether the Minister for Education and Science is capable of co-operating fully with the inquiry and the suggestion has been made that the inquiry should be moved to the Taoiseach's Department. I would welcome such a move for everyone's sake because it might result in a speedier conclusion to the issue. People accept that those who were wronged in this case deserve compensation and it is up to us, as legislators, to ensure that happens.

I urge the Minister and the Government to allocate the resources necessary to this area. It is well able to do so in other areas. We do not want to face another costly inquiry due to Government inaction. I was struck by the fact that London is bidding to host the Olympic Games at a cost of €2.2 billion. I heard a figure of €1 billion for this inquiry, which would cause grave concern. That is an interesting comparison. It is time for action from this Government. Having appointed a commission, it should give it the resources necessary for everyone's sake.

Ms Feeney

Like other speakers, I, too, welcome Ms Justice Laffoy's report and am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Regardless of the House of which one is a Member, the report opened our eyes and our minds to the terrible tragedy that was Baltimore, on which we are all in agreement. It made me reminisce about the time I watched the film of Dickens's Oliver Twist. The report brought us all back to late Victorian times. That is all I could think of when I read it.

The report also brought us back to today, so to speak, and how wonderful we all are — I am choosing my words carefully — in that we can almost stand up and say that we, with the knowledge we have today, have a right to judge what went on up to 50 years ago.

It is such a different society and a vastly different world. We have only to look at how we deal with our own children to know the different society we live in today. I do not often read Kevin Myers, and he will not like to hear that, but I was interested to read his article in The Irish Times today, where he talks about 20 years ago when he, as a younger journalist, wrote about an abuse case. When he had finished writing the article — I suppose this happens always — he handed it to the editor and it was edited for him. All references to the abuser — a religious institution — were omitted from the article when it was printed. When Kevin Myers asked why, he got a sad shake of the head and it was implied that he was out of touch with political reality.

Twenty years is not a long time ago. I had a child 20 years ago and it only seems like the other day that child was born. Nobody then had the full picture. Everybody had a tiny part of the picture and none of us chose to put the big picture together. I agree with other speakers that we were right as a nation, through our Taoiseach, to apologise. I say to the Opposition that we had the guts to do it and to recognise what happened. Previous Governments, whether Fianna Fáil, Fianna Fáil led or rainbow coalition Governments, did not take it up. We took it up and apologised, not on behalf of the Government, or Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats, but on behalf of the State. We are all culpable and we all had a part to play in it.

Those opposite say responsibility should be taken from the Department of Education and Science and moved to the Department of the Taoiseach. Does Senator Browne, who has just said that, want to victimise and further disrupt the lives of people who are already victims, as he has outlined? It would further delay matters to take it from the Department of Education and Science, where it has known a home and has been progressed, given the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said on "This Week" on RTE last Sunday that he was on a learning curve. The only people who would be marginalised by that would be the victims. When the Opposition comes up with an idea such as that, I wonder whether it is thought out. It is said that we are making a political football of the investigation into abuse. I am sure those victims, if they were here today, would want to scream that at us. It is cheap of the Opposition to come in and try to make political gain on it.

It has been pointed out also that abuse is still occurring today. There are more types of abuses, physical and sexual, happening in places other than institutions. As we all know it can happen anywhere, even in a child's home. Yesterday much air time was taken up with a tragedy that happened in my own neck of the woods in the north west where a family and young children were the victims of savage abuse at the hands of a member of that particular family. It was raised on the Order of Business this morning. Let us learn from the mistakes. Let us look at the good recommendations that are now put in place and let us progress them. Let us all, as public representatives, ensure those recommendations are implemented and put in place for the protection of children in society.

I am glad I spoke here before Christmas when we appointed Ms Emily Logan as the ombudsman for children. Ms Logan will have a huge role to play in the protection of children, in ensuring children's rights are adhered to and that there is protection for them whether in institutions, in the home, in schools, in clubs or wherever they are. It is right to bear in mind also that it is not only children who suffer abuse as adults can also suffer abuse.

In welcoming Ms Justice Laffoy's report I congratulate her on the work she has done to date. It is invaluable and will stand the test of time in getting through all of this. I avail of this opportunity to wish Mr. Seán Ryan well in his role. It will not be easy, but I know Mr. Ryan and I have worked with him on other fora. He is a capable man and I am sure there will be a satisfactory outcome for all involved.

Dr. Mansergh

The subject matter of this debate is a painful and harrowing aspect of our past. The Government and the Taoiseach deserve great credit for facing up squarely to this issue with all its painful aspects. It is never easy for a State or a Government to apologise or to accept that grievous wrong happened in the past for which it is accepting some degree of responsibility. I regret the degree of conflict that has arisen between Ms Justice Laffoy and the Government and the Department. As has been said already, she has done very good work which is now being carried on by Mr. Ryan.

I would like to bring a few perspectives to bear on aspects of this debate. We are quite wrong to think we are the only country to face this type of problem and that it is a particular indictment of our society as opposed to others. Many of these things happened in other countries and to varying degrees they have been exposed. For example, in Australia there was its treatment of the Aborigines. One thinks of the sterilisation polices of certain Nordic countries and the abuse of children in other countries.

I would not necessarily criticise the Department of Finance at the end of 2002 because demands for more resources should be looked at critically. All of us have some problems with the way our various tribunals have been operating. I would like to think that perhaps in the future when setting up tribunals we would set a finite period in which a tribunal would carry out its work. It would then be up to the tribunal chairman to prioritise the inquiries to ensure that aim was achieved.

This will cause horror in the legal profession. We are not talking about courts of law but tribunals and whether tribunal lawyers should be salaried and whether particular fees should be set in advance in the same way as the VHI does for certain medical operations. Lawyers can decide whether they want to take up the work. Many of our problems have to do with the exorbitant costs of the legal process. I do not accept that absolutely nothing can be done about that.

There is no real understanding by tribunals of the difficulty of retrieving documentation from Departments from the relatively recent period let alone the distant past. At the time I entered the EU division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, if I wanted to find out what had happened 18 months previously, I would have to retrieve perhaps 18 different files. It is by no means easy.

I hope there is no suggestion that anybody in the Department of Education and Science is in some way trying to protect or cover up what happened 20, 30 or 40 years ago, which I do not believe to be the case. We are talking about paper rather than computer files and all tribunals significantly underestimate the difficulty of finding the documentation required. Files go missing or cannot be found, not necessarily from sinister motives.

I do not agree with suggestions that responsibility for this issue be shifted to the Taoiseach's office, which would be quite inappropriate. The Taoiseach has more than enough to deal with without taking on questions extraneous to his main duties. Over the past ten years, under different Taoisigh, there have been attempts to move out many of the matters which are not central to the responsibilities of the Taoiseach.

Regarding people in religious orders being wrongly accused, the current climate is unfortunately such as could be conducive in some, I hope limited, instances to the making of false or partly false allegations. People are entitled to protect their reputations and one cannot adopt the attitude that once an allegation is made, all are guilty.

Reference was made by Senator Feeney to a newspaper article this morning. I deprecate — a mild word to use — attempts by certain commentators and commentaries to blacken or vilify the entire role of the Catholic church in this country, particularly when working with public authorities or, going even further, to use it to try to denigrate the entire record of the State since independence. That is wholly unjustified. At the time, when resources were sparse, the church through various social welfare agencies did its best to supply basic needs. We are discussing a dark side and should not attempt to minimise the seriousness of that. However, we should not try to use those episodes to underwrite a blanket indictment.

In an entirely different context, I spoke last week on an authoritarian culture. Although its extent can be exaggerated beyond all reason, there is no doubt there was a more authoritarian culture in this country 30, 40 and 50 years ago and I am glad we have moved beyond that. The drawback of that culture was not that those in authority set out to systematically abuse vulnerable individuals but that there was not the degree of questioning and accountability inside and outside of institutions. This meant that abuses were able to go undetected or to be brushed under the carpet. To that extent, I am glad we have moved away from that culture.

I wish the tribunal under a new judge every success with its work and hope it will be able to conclude this work, for the sake of victims more than anyone else, with a reasonable degree of expeditiousness.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome the Minister to the House. I refuse to make any political point on this issue and we should all move away from making such points. There is no point trying to blame those currently in authority. I do not believe anybody in Government is trying to cover up anything in this regard, although they might not have handled it as well as I would like.

I would like a more pragmatic approach to dealing with the issue. Certain guidelines and matters of principle should be considered so that every victim should have the opportunity to have a person or issue investigated. That does not mean we must have every single complaint dealt with individually as long as no person against whom an allegation is made is let off the hook. It could then be said, for example, that there has been consideration of an investigation arising from a complaint made by a named person and that it is also understood that 24 other people made similar complaints. The most serious allegation could be investigated on that basis and a conclusion reached, and it would also be known that a certain number of other people have spoken to the other tribunal.

In this regard, there is a general principle which we have avoided. While it was avoided for the best reasons in the world, it does not help people just because one can go to several different places to have this issue dealt with. It is easier if people are helped to get their story told and their sufferings recorded. It is not necessary in that regard to investigate every single allegation as long as the most serious of the allegations against every single person and institution against whom an allegation is made are specifically investigated. It is not a matter of trying to get overall agreement on that. If the Minister were to do that, and consultation followed with those who also have allegations against a similar person, the State could point to the fact that it had investigated a person, as well as noting other allegations, and found him completely guilty, that the State accepts this and, on that basis, the person or particular institution can be considered to have been dealt with. We can do that.

There is a lack of understanding in political life in that the legislation in this regard was discussed and passed in the Houses but came in different pieces. Members do not understand precisely the relationships between the investigation, the hearing and redress, which are quite complex in regard to how one moves from one to another. It is important we recognise and understand that.

Those are just the practicalities. The real issue is the suffering and pain caused, on which Members are all agreed. What bothered me most about the report was its reference — I am sure we will hear more about it — to a complaint made in 1995 or 1996 by the management of an institution about a member of staff who had been found to have been abusing children therein. The complaint was not dealt with in any way.

There is no record in the Department of Education and Science of the complaint made by this person, which is appalling. We should say it is appalling. This is the kind of thing that creates a lack of confidence and this is why there is a lack of confidence in the Department of Education and Science on this issue, which I can well understand.

Whatever the amount of money involved, it will never repay these people for the way their lives have been wasted and destroyed. They are carrying with them baggage, pain and mental distress which will be part of their lives forever. The only institution dealt with was the fisheries school. Complaints had been made in that instance. In other words, the structure was in place for someone to carry out an examination. The institution was examined, a report was sent in and nothing happened because Bishop Moynihan decided he did not want to do anything about the matter. This is where the problem lies.

Members on all sides have the best of intentions. We are all focused on the same objective and conclusion. The Government must regain our confidence in this regard. It must listen to the views offered on this side of the House as well as in the other House and try to solve the matter.

Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.