Vol. 565 No. 2
3 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if there are plans to set up an independent tribunal of inquiry into abuse in residential institutions and day care centres, as well as the role played by church and State institutions in dealing, or not dealing, with same, in view of the lack of focus and narrow parameters of the Laffoy Commission. [10598/03]
The Laffoy Commission was established on foot of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 to investigate child abuse in institutions in the State, to enable persons who have suffered abuse to give evidence to committees of the commission, to provide for the preparation and publication of a report by the commission containing the results of its investigation and to make recommendations it considers appropriate for the prevention of child abuse. The term "institution" in the Act is defined as a "school, an industrial school, a reformatory school, an orphanage, a hospital, a children's home and any other place where children are cared for other than as members of their family."
The commission was initially set up on an administrative basis and given a broad term of reference under which it was requested to consider and recommend any changes and powers it considered it needed to carry out its function. The commission produced two reports outlining the terms of reference and powers it felt it would require to carry out its inquiries in an effective manner.
Arising from these reports a broad definition of abuse, which covers sexual and physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse, was written into section 1 of the Act. The report also pointed out the range of powers that the commission would require and, under the legislation enacted, the commission has the power to compel witnesses to attend hearings, order the production of documents, take evidence on oath or affirmation, appoint inquiry officers to carry out preliminary investigations and conduct and commission research. The commission operates by means of committees, of which there are two, currently operating to facilitate the differing needs of victims. First, there is the confidential committee, which hears in total confidence the testimony of witnesses who do not wish to have their allegations investigated. The purpose of this is to afford victims an opportunity to give an account of their abuse in an atmosphere of compassion and understanding.
The second committee is an investigative one which hears evidence from victims and investigates their case. The committee can follow up on allegations made and can summon witnesses to hear further evidence as well as compelling the production of documentation and data.
In light of the above I do not share the Deputy's view that the parameters of the commission are narrow and I do not have plans to set up a further tribunal of inquiry to deal with matters of abuse.
Will the Minister reconsider his reply in light of today's newspaper article that the Ferns diocese has finally admitted negligence in its failure to recognise and act on the threat posed by Fr. Fortune and that Colm O'Gorman has settled for €300,000? Will the State come clean about the instances of abuse and its complicity in that regard over many years? Many of the victims of abuse whom I met are of the view that the Laffoy Commission is a sop. The Minister will be aware the commission is running into difficulties in terms of access to records from his Department. Is the Minister aware the Laffoy Commission faces further legal wrangles with the Christian Brothers – a court case is due on 13 May? Is he aware that it is the view of victims that the Government has so far admitted nothing beyond broad guilt and wit to end their pain? The Government has not recognised that this was a crime in which the State was complicit for many years.
There is a need to investigate the State's role and that of the Department of Education and Sci ence and other Departments in this regard. How can the Minister justify the agreement originally made by his predecessor and CORI on 5 June 2002, which includes the indemnity agreement, when evidence came to light from a question I raised on the Adjournment that discussions were held with CORI before the Taoiseach's apology in 1999 and that possibly some deal was made which suited the State and the church institutions?
The Deputy shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Laffoy Commission is about. He is reading too many articles in newspapers. The Laffoy Commission and its inquiry deals with institutional abuse. The article referred to by the Deputy relates to abuse by a clergyman and not somebody in an institution. It is a totally separate case. Under no circumstances will the State accept responsibility for actions by the clergy outside institutions. We are involved in the commission to inquire into child abuse because the State has accepted that, with those who ran such institutions for the State, it has a responsibility in this area. It was for that reason the Laffoy Commission was set up. We should not mix these two separate matters.
On the negotiations, the Taoiseach made a clear and unequivocal apology to those involved. I personally went to the UK and repeated that apology directly to the victims of the institutions. Those people, understandably, left this country following their abuse in the institutions. The Government and my Department are not making a half hearted effort in accepting our responsibilities. We set up the redress board which allows victims of institutional abuse in this country to obtain compensation based on their evidence and without recourse to legal action. I do not accept the Deputy's contentions in that regard.
We are not denying access to records held by the commission. The commission has 500,000 records so far made available by the Department. A discovery motion has been filed against the Department which has to be fulfilled by the end of June. We will do that. There is no truth in any allegation the Deputy might make that the Department wants to conceal anything.
Question No. 4.
On a point of clarification—
There is no such thing as a point of clarification.
