One would have imagined that Governments of whatever complexion would by now have learned certain lessons in transparency and parliamentary accountability, especially where paedophile priests are concerned and bearing in mind that Ireland has experienced a range of scandals involving the mistreatment of children at State institutions such as Madonna House and Goldenbridge.
I was surprised, therefore, to read in a national newspaper on 18 September that the Minister for Justice had apparently appointed a retired judge to inquire into serious allegations that vulnerable youths were passed from State care into the control of a paedophile priest who was jailed earlier this year for committing offences against boys. I question whether this represents the proper legacy of the bitter political experiences of the past. What level of transparency is there in secretly establishing such an informal inquiry into such serious allegations? What prompted its establishment? When were these matters brought to the attention of the Minister and her Department? What are the terms of reference of this so-called informal inquiry? What powers, if any, has the retired judge to interview witnesses? What records will be made available to him? What findings can he make? To whom will he report those findings? The question arises whether he can make any findings at all in the light of the case In re Haughey. Is it in the public interest that an investigation into serious allegations in relation to public affairs be handled in this way at all?
These are extremely serious allegations. If such awful things happened to vulnerable children while in State care, an appalling vista of State neglect and possibly liability against the State arises. It is outrageous that such matters should be dealt with in this manner. Is it true that one victim has issued proceedings for compensation against the State for the abuse he allegedly suffered while in the care of a State institution? Is it true that an employee of the Probation and Welfare Service has been suspended in relation to this matter?
It is reported that the inquiry centres around allegations by a number of former residents of State-run institutions in the Waterford/Kilkenny area dating from at least the early 1980s. There have been detailed accounts of rape and other sexual abuse. There have been allegations by one former resident of an institution that he was sexually abused by two Catholic clergymen and a lay social worker in Dublin and at a State-run institution in Waterford where he had been placed on probation.
There is a further report that the State ceded control of one victim to the priest in 1985, allowing the priest to allegedly abuse him over a ten year period. After a brief court appearance this allegedly abuse him over a ten-year period. After a brief court appearance this year that priest was sentenced. It is reported that statements were taken, not shown to the court, indicating that this priest had been afforded liberal access to State institutions, including one probation hostel and St. Patrick's Hospital in Dublin. That report goes on to say that not only were complaints about abuse ignored by the authorities but that there were grounds for believing that the authorities had suspected there was a risk to residents.
Will the Minister state whether this informal inquiry is confined to one individual case involving the Probation and Welfare Service or if it has a wider brief? Is there a Garda investigation continuing? The very fact that this highly unusual informal inquiry has been established by the Minister would appear to indicate that these serious allegations could be true. The fact that the priest in question has been sentenced for similar crimes lends weight to the veracity of the allegations. That being the case, it is highly inappropriate that such a serious matter should be dealt with in a secretive, almost private, manner by the Minister and Department of Justice.
Serious issues of public accountability are involved. When similar matters arose in relation to treatment by the health services in the Kilkenny incest case, the then Minister for Health established an inquiry team whose terms of reference were announced and whose report was subsequently published.
It is highly inappropriate that a retired judge should be asked to preside over such an informal inquiry, without any terms of reference having been revealed, with ill-defined powers to carry out a full investigation. I await the Minister of State's revealing whatever information he has to the House.
