Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)

As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know, this debate was not intended to take place until 8.30 p.m. While there may be difficulties providing copies of my speech, I am sure Members will receive them as soon as possible. While I apologise to Members of the House, the Government did not request that the debate be moved to this time. It was trying to facilitate members of the Opposition.

I thank Ms Justice Laffoy and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse for the completion of its detailed third interim 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 valuable work the commission has completed in respect of Baltimore fulfils one of the main purposes for which it was established. The commission was established to inquire into the abuse which occurred in these institutions and to report on it. This remit continues to inform the manner in which the Government deals with this issue.

The report deals with many aspects of the work the commission has done since the completion of its previous interim report in November 2001. It deserves to be read carefully as a stand-alone report as well as in the context of further findings of the commission as its work continues. At the end of the commission process, it will form part of the broader picture of what life was like for children in our institutions. The report 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 the commission in its role as a respondent. I will deal with each of these issues in turn.

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

Since its inception, the Department has responded to the commission's requests for resources as quickly as possible. As with all other Departments, the Department of Education and Science must submit each request for resources to the Department of Finance and the Government for consideration. It has done so. The Department has been and will continue to be committed to supporting the commission. The resourcing delays to which the commission refers in its report relate primarily to the period since June 2002. The commission requested a virtual doubling of its resources during this time. Correspondence took place between the Department and the commission during the period between June 2002 and December 2002 to clarify the latter's position regarding timeframe and costings should these resources be sanctioned. On consideration of the matter, the Government agreed in principle to the provision of additional resources but remained concerned that, in itself, this measure would not result in the timely completion of the work of the investigation committee given its apparent lack of progress. The Government considered that the request for additional resources could not be considered in isolation. It was also considered imperative to review the commission's procedures and underlying legislation to establish if there was any scope to change or amend the Act to expedite its work and reduce the cost to the Exchequer while still achieving the original objectives.

The Government's view was that the difficulties faced by the investigation committee were more fundamental than issues of resources. Furthermore, it was and remains the view of Government that to allow the commission to continue with the hearing of over 1,700 individual cases without considering the huge legal bill being incurred would not be in the interests of the survivors themselves or society.

I record that at every stage the Department made every effort to co-operate with and assist the work of the investigation committee of the commission. The Department voluntarily handed over to the commission over 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. In addition, the Department responded to 16 discovery directions issued to it. I have always accepted that some difficulties were encountered, especially in complying with a small number of the discovery directions. However, in that 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 reorganised the manner in which it dealt with the commission in early 2003, and the residential institutions redress unit of the Department has since acted as a focal point for dealing with all commission-related matters. The unit then seeks assistance or information, if required, from relevant sections. That approach ensures that one unit is aware of all issues relating to the commission, and consequently the Department is able to respond more effectively to discovery directions and other matters.

Furthermore, to ensure that the Department's processes are above reproach, last December I ordered an independent review of the process and procedures for the making of discovery to the commission by my Department. My desire in directing that such a review take place was to ensure full and complete co-operation with the commission and that any changes to be made in the manner in which discovery was being processed should be addressed. I appointed the former chairperson of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Mr. Matthias Kelly, QC, to conduct that review. In addition to being completely independent of my 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:

a) 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

b) To make recommendations as are appropriate in relation to discovery by the Department of Education and Science.

In the course of conducting his review, Mr. Kelly met officials in my Department involved in the discovery process, as well as the legal team representing the Department. He also had access to all the Department's records. I understand that Mr. Kelly also met representatives of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse while carrying out his review.

The process of meeting and interviewing persons relevant to his review has concluded, and Mr. Kelly has returned to the UK to conclude his work on his report. I expect to receive that report within the next two weeks, and I am committed to ensuring full implementation of any recommendations that Mr. Kelly may make.

There are a number of other areas on which I wish to comment. Considerable staffing resources have been put in place within the Department to ensure that it is able 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 or has had any allegations made against him or her. 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 that regard, the Department has, when necessary, and to meet the deadlines imposed by the commission, increased the number of staff working on the responses to particular directions. For instance, 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 that the material was provided to the commission on time. I can reassure the House that, in the event that at any future stage the issue arises of its being necessary to put additional resources in place within the Department to meet the requirements of the commission, I will ensure that those resources are 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. Sean Ryan, SC, as chairperson designate. At that time, and in advance of his being appointed to the chairmanship of the commission, the Government requested Mr. Ryan to undertake his own independent review of the working of the commission. The terms of reference of the review were as follows:

To carry out a review of the working of the Commission and to make all necessary recommendations having regard to the following:

a) The interests of the victims of abuse;

b) The completion of the Commission's work within a reasonable period of time and in a manner consistent with a proper investigation; and

c) To achieve the above objectives without incurring exorbitant costs.

It should be noted that Mr. Ryan was made a judge of the High Court on 15 December 2003 and was appointed chairperson of the commission when Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation took effect.

Mr. Justice Ryan's report is long, running to over 70 pages. However, he 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 able to conclude its work within a reasonable timescale and without incurring exorbitant costs.

The Government has accepted Mr. Justice Ryan's report and is currently arranging for the legislative changes recommended by him to be included in the amending legislation. Furthermore, Mr. Justice 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. My Department will participate fully and constructively in that process.

I wish to publish and put in place the legislation amending the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 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 of which I must take account before the legislation can be finalised. Indeed Mr. Justice Ryan in his report states 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. He also comments that, if the Christian Brothers' action succeeds in whole or in part, the work of the investigation committee will be curtailed to a greater or lesser degree, but specific recommendations cannot be made until that case has been finalised. Indeed, Mr. Justice Ryan states in his report, "It is impractical to suggest that there could be amending legislation processed and enacted until the Murray/Gibson (Christian Brothers) litigation is determined."

I understand that the final version of Mr. Justice 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.

The Government remains totally committed to ensuring that the process to bring healing and closure to those of our citizens who suffered abuse while in institutional care will be completed within a reasonable time scale. In that context, the calls that have been made by the Opposition and others to transfer the sponsorship of the commission to——

See this speech in context