I welcome the opportunity to address the House today on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and related issues. I remind the House that the Government is the first in the history of the State to listen to the victims of abuse, to apologise to them on behalf of the State and to take positive action to redress the wrongs inflicted on them in the past.
I greatly regret that Ms Justice Laffoy reached the conclusion that she could no longer continue as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. I have previously indicated that Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation was a matter of considerable surprise to me and to the Government. I have expressed my thanks for the commitment Ms Justice Laffoy has shown in carrying out her role as chairperson and I am happy to repeat that appreciation in the House today.
The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is one element of the Government's strategy for redressing institutional abuse of children. It is a dual structure to meet the differing needs of the victims. The investigation committee carries out detailed inquiries, akin to trials, into allegations of abuse. This is the part of the commission that is currently being reviewed. The commission also has a confidential committee which hears, in total confidence, the accounts of abuse victims who do not wish to have their allegations investigated. It is for the victim of abuse to choose which committee he or she wishes to attend. The confidential committee continues to function and, at this stage, has heard the accounts of more than 700 witnesses, approximately two thirds of all those who applied to that committee. The only element of the Government's initiatives that is currently under review is the investigation committee of the commission.
When the commission was established in 2000 it was the Government's intention that it carry out its work free of the adversarial environment and legal formality of the courts and that it would be able to deliver its report within two years. That is what was promised to the survivors. As time went on it became increasingly obvious that this could not happen.
Following the final deadline for receipt of statements in July 2002 the commission indicated that the total applications to the investigation committee was 1,957. It then became apparent, given the rate of progress at the committee that if all these cases were to be heard individually the commission would not be in a position to deliver a final report for at least a further eight to 11 years. This timeframe was provided to my Department by the commission and was based on the resources it had at that time. A report by the commission in that timeframe would be far too late for many of those for whom it was established.
Concern about the progress of the commission was shared by survivor groups who urged my Department to take action to ensure that the report of the commission be delivered as soon as possible. They made the point to me and to officials in my Department that some of their members had already been waiting for 30 to 40 years for validation. They also outlined to me the number of people who had died since the Taoiseach had made his apology.
In addition to the long delay and the consequences of this for survivors of abuse there was also serious concern that publication of the final report would be challenged by alleged abusers claiming they did not have due process in a court of law.
The likely delays, the doubts about the ability to publish a full report and the real probability that the State would have to pay legal costs in the order of €200 million contributed to the necessity to review the investigation committee. There are those who say cost should not be a concern and that doing justice is beyond petty considerations of money. In my view cost has to be an issue and having regard to it does not prejudice having justice done. What has to be achieved is a process that delivers justice effectively, efficiently and, most particularly, without undue delay.
Once I had concerns about the operation of the investigation committee it was my public duty to bring them to the attention of the Government rather than allow the situation to continue unchallenged. The commission is the creation of the Oireachtas following proposals from the Government. It is my duty and that of the Government to return to the Oireachtas when we believe reform is necessary to achieve the objectives of the original legislation. That is what the review of the commission was, and is, about.
The purpose of the review is to find a way through which the mandate given to the investigation committee under the legislation can be carried out in a more efficient, cost-effective and timely way. As part of that process consideration was given to the issue of the additional powers that could be given to the investigation committee to facilitate its operation.
The first phase of the review was completed and a report submitted to Government. That report, contrary to what has been stated in the House by a number of people, was accepted by the Government and the recommendations contained in it are currently reflected in draft legis lation being prepared by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. However, following from that review, further amendments are being considered, which are likely to result in further changes to the way in which the investigation committee operates.
The Government also considers, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in the Meenan case and the current case taken by the Christian Brothers in the High Court, that it is prudent to have regard to those judgments in framing amending legislation.
Consultation with the main survivor groups is continuing. A number of meetings have been held with these groups, the latest of which took place on Thursday, 25 September. The meetings have been extremely constructive and useful to me in considering how best to proceed. There is a strong sense that we share a common objective, ensuring that the investigation committee can achieve its mandate in an effective and timely way. It is my intention that the revised remit of the investigation committee of the commission will be legislated for by spring 2004 and sooner if we have the judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The Government has appointed Mr. Seán Ryan SC as chairman designate to the commission. Mr. Ryan comes with a wealth of experience from his practice in law. In addition, he comes with very direct experience of the issues of past child abuse, having chaired the compensation advisory committee. This committee drew up recommendations for financial awards to abuse victims under the residential institutions redress scheme. Mr. Ryan also acted as counsel to the Ferns inquiry. I assure Mr. Ryan and the House that my Department will continue to give every assistance to the commission in carrying out its mandate.