Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I am disappointed that the Government accords far less attention to the publication of the third report by Ms Justice Laffoy than it did to Mr. Justice Flood's second report. I am saddened to say that, despite apologies and all the rest, we seem to think this issue is of less importance. That reflects on the Government and Members opposite.

I thank the Minister for his history lesson. We seem to spend more time in this House talking about the past than about the future. Today we must discuss where we will take this matter, as well as Ms Justice Laffoy's criticisms. I accept the Taoiseach's apology. I have always said that I believed he meant what he said. However, he has not acted on it appropriately. He issued his apology after the "States of Fear" programme shown on RTE in the spring of 1999. As is often the case, he issued the apology based on media and other pressure brought to bear on him to do so at the time.

When the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established on 23 May following the Taoiseach's apology, it was rightly acknowledged that the victims deserved to have their stories heard. In the past, they were forgotten by society and shamefully abandoned. The commission's remit was to hear their stories, investigate the abuse of children in institutions, and publish findings and recommendations dealing with the issue.

Many of the victims of past abuse and neglect have had shocking and distressing experiences. It is right and proper that they be given the opportunity to tell their stories and how society failed them so that we can try to ensure it never happens again. Today, many of the victims of abuse are approaching old age. The commission should be at work now hearing their cases in both forums outlined in the original Act. These people have much to teach us and future generations about the kind of State-sponsored barbarity that can exist in a society that fails to be vigilant and fails to protect the vulnerable. We need to hear their stories and give them the chance to tell them so that we can ensure we neither forget the abuse nor let it happen again.

It is, therefore, an indictment of the Minister for Education and Science and the Government that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has heard so few cases since it was established and has been unable to progress any further since last September. The resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, a direct result of the failure of the Department of Education and Science to engage with her commission in what she said was a proper and meaningful manner, was the lowest point in the history of the commission since its establishment.

The publication of her third interim report last Friday has only served to confirm what has been evident for some time. It is abundantly clear that the Minister for Education and Science has lost all credibility in dealing with the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. It is also clear that responsibility for the commission should be transferred to the Department of the Taoiseach immediately.

Last September, following Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Enda Kenny, called on the Taoiseach to take personal responsibility for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and for responsibility to be removed from the Department of Education and Science. He made this call as it was clear from the correspondence that passed between the Department and Ms Justice Laffoy that the Minister's ham-fisted review of the work of the commission was being carried out without adequate consultation with the chairwoman. It was also clear that there was an inherent conflict in having the Department of Education and Science as the sponsoring Department as well as being under active investigation by the commission.

This inherent conflict has been highlighted to an even greater extent in Ms Justice Laffoy's report published last Friday. In her most trenchant criticism of the Department, Ms Justice Laffoy states:

The Committee is not satisfied that, since its establishment, it has received the level of co-operation to which it is entitled to expect to receive from the Department of State which is its statutory sponsor. Moreover, it has experienced difficulty in securing compliance with its statutory requests and directions by the Department in its role as Respondent.

Ms Justice Laffoy was keenly aware of the conflict that existed in the dual role assumed by the Department of Education and Science. On the one hand, the Department was the sponsor for the work of the commission while, on the other, it was the focus of the commission's investigative attention. This was the conflict of interest about which Ms Justice Laffoy was concerned, especially as time went on and the obstruction of the Department became more evident.

On 29 January 2003, Ms Justice Laffoy wrote a paper to the Attorney General entitled, Position of Commission in relation to Government Review. The purpose of the paper was to set forth the considered position of the commission in regard to the review announced by the Government into the remit of the inquiry. One of the key recommendations made by the commission to the Attorney General related to the independence of the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy wrote:

The Commission is concerned about public perception of the appropriateness of the Commission being reliant on the Department of Education and Science for its resources and that Department being the Commission's communication channel to the Government given that the Department's conduct over the past 60 years is being investigated by the Commission, and the Department has a contractual engagement with the religious orders which managed residential institutions in the past, which might be perceived as not being conducive to support for the Commission's investigation of the conduct of those orders, which the Commission is mandated to conduct.

Ms Justice Laffoy suggested that the Government should consider whether the functions resting in the Department of Education and Science relating to the commission should be given to another Government Department with the exception of the Department of Health and Children or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It was obvious to her since last January and it became obvious to us last September that the Department of Education and Science should no longer have responsibility for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. I and many of the victims support this call.

The Minister was being slightly disingenuous when said we do not have time to do that. Deputy Kenny made this call last September and Ms Justice Laffoy made it last January. Had we listened to Ms Justice Laffoy then, it would be ready to be transferred now. In fact, the transfer could have been done. As the Minister said, we must still await the outcome of the Christian Brothers case and legislation to come after that. If we put our minds to it, there is no reason it could not be done. If the Government refuses to do so, there is very little we can do as we are outnumbered in this House. The Taoiseach should give much thought to which Minister must deal with it.

Much was made of the indemnity deal. Deputy Rabbitte raised it earlier on Leaders' Questions and I support what he said. The previous Minister, Deputy Woods, negotiated the indemnity deal and he has, to a certain extent, taken a great deal of heat from the incumbent Minister in the debate since then. Ms Justice Laffoy points out some dates in her report and she certainly did not notice any greater co-operation since the Minister took office than that which she had been given by the previous Minister.

It is important we point out that the Minister for Education and Science is the person with political responsibility for the Department and the allocation of resources. From even a cursory reading of Ms Justice Laffoy's interim report, it is apparent that neither he nor his predecessor resourced the commission properly nor enabled the Department to respond to the commission's request in a manner that understood or appreciated the importance of the commission's work.

The Department of Education and Science was always going to be critical in the success or failure of the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy acknowledges from the outset that the commission, to do its work in a fair, proper and efficient and cost effective manner, required the full engagement of the Department of Education and Science. She said that, from the outset, the work of the commission had been contingent on the Department in its role as respondent engaging fully with the committee and promptly and properly fulfilling its statutory obligations in that role. However, this engagement was clearly not forthcoming. She listed several specific concerns regarding the co-operation of the Department of Education and Science with the commission. She stated:

The Committee's principal area of concern. . . relates to the manner in which the Department has complied with directions for discovery and production of documents . . . The Department, despite clear indications from the Committee that the prescribed form should be followed, has unilaterally omitted those averments from an affidavit of discovery sworn pursuant to a direction. This is not a state of affairs which the Committee finds acceptable.

It is not one I find acceptable either.

These are serious matters. A commission established by the Government and this House with a senior member of the Judiciary as its chairperson was being hampered and hindered in its investigation by a Department of State. It is difficult to think of a more serious charge that could be made against a Department or a Minister. It is not good enough for the Minister to shrug off this criticism. If he cannot appreciate the seriousness of this matter, then I redouble my call for responsibility to be removed from him and his Department.

If charges such as these were made against an individual by a tribunal or inquiry, we in this House would be quick, as we have been on previous occasions, to criticise him or her for failing to comply or co-operate with an investigation established by the State in the public interest. That these charges are being made against a Department does not in any way make them less serious. If anything, it makes them more so. I remind the Minister in the context of his reference to the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Barr and Mahon tribunals that the Departments are not being investigated in those instances. That is an important difference. The Minister's Department is being investigated and he is supposed to supply the resources to allow the investigation to take place, which he clearly has not been doing. That is one of the main points Ms Justice Laffoy made.

Coupled with these considerable difficulties, there has always been an issue relating to the resourcing of the work of the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy stated:

The Committee was assured that the issue of resources would be addressed. Over a year later resources were still an issue.

The issue of resources was a considerable point of conflict between the commission and the Department. Ms Justice Laffoy had requested additional resources to allow the investigative committee to sit in a number of sessions concurrently instead of just one. This would have enabled it to hear a far greater number of cases allowing people to have their stories heard.

The request for resources was agreed in principle but the Minister and his Department then complicated matters seriously by requesting that Ms Justice Laffoy would only engage new staff on short-term contracts. This led her to state: "While the Government decision gives the appearance of accepting the need for resources, it seems to the Investigative Committee ... the same amounts in substance to a refusal of the request". Appearances often seem to be more important.

When the review of the commission was announced, Ms Justice Laffoy immediately wrote to the Department of Education and Science for clarification on a number of key points that directly affected the way in which the commission would function. Her main concern was that, since additional resources were allocated on a short-term basis only and given that the commission was under review, it was reasonable to conclude that "there is a significant possibility that the result of the review will leave the Commission with a reduced remit".

Ms Justice Laffoy was concerned that, if the investigative committee continued to work in its normal way, it would ultimately gather information that, after the review, would be worthless. This would involve a considerable waste of public resources. Trapped in this catch-22 situation, she wrote to the Department and stated that the commission was in "an invidious position".

The Minister assured us today by stating 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 to meet the requirements of the commission, I will ensure those resources are put in place". The Minister assured Ms Justice Laffoy that they would be put in place, but they were not. I do not know how any of us can be expected to take the Minister's word on that issue, and that is not something I say lightly.

In the final damning criticism of the Department, Ms Justice Laffoy stated: "it has to be observed that, in general, the Department as respondent to the vast majority of allegations which the Committee is investigating, has not adopted a constructive approach to dealing with its role in the inquiry". It is clear that responsibility for interfacing with the commission should be now removed from the Department. The Taoiseach should take personal responsibility for this and transfer responsibility for the work of the commission to his Department. The victims of abuse require no less than the Taoiseach to take personal responsibility for this debacle and move swiftly to reassure the victims that ministerial mishandling will not get in the way of them achieving justice.

Furthermore, with the Department of Education and Science in charge of the commission, how can anyone be confident that Mr. Justice Ryan, recently appointed, will not encounter exactly the same unhelpful, obstructive and combative approach? His recent report containing suggestions on a new way forward for the commission cannot be implemented unless the Government is genuinely willing to co-operate fully with the work of the commission. The response of the Taoiseach and the Minister since the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy does not indicate that such a genuine willingness exists.

Following Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation from the commission, it became immediately apparent that the difficulties she had faced in the job had been exacerbated in large part by the actions of the Department. At the time, the Minister decided to withhold her resignation correspondence and effectively kept the country in the dark regarding the reasons for the severe dissatisfaction which led to her resignation. When he was finally shamed into publishing the letters, a half-hearted attempt to justify the actions of his Department and the Government accompanied their release.

History repeats itself. When Ms Justice Laffoy published her third interim report last Friday, the Minister went into hiding and did not surface to comment on the findings until Sunday afternoon when he offered lame excuses and explanations for the serious and disturbing charges laid by a senior member of the Judiciary against his Department. Without meaning any disrespect to Mr. Matthias Kelly, who is, I am sure, an eminent and capable man, the Minister proceeded to commission a further report, this time into the failings of his Department. While I do not doubt or question that such a report is needed, if he had been doing his job properly the Minister would not need to bring in someone else to do the job for which he has been appointed.

In the foreword to her report, Ms Justice Laffoy rather poignantly wishes Mr. Justice Ryan the success which has eluded her in finding answers for the victims of abuse and publishing them in the future. I also wish Mr. Justice Ryan every possible success. If, however, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is left in the hands of the Minister for Education and Science, I do not have confidence that Mr. Justice Ryan's work will proceed without further hindrance and unhelpfulness and a lack of real co-operation and engagement.

See this speech in context