Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

The response of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education and Science to the requests by the Opposition regarding the time allocated for this debate and the time at which it would be held indicates that they have not grasped the seriousness of Ms Justice Laffoy's third interim report on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. She has made astonishing criticisms of the Department regarding its response to the issues she raised not only in this report, but over a considerable period during which she attempted to draw to the attention of the Government the delays she was experiencing in the Department in responding to the concerns and resourcing of the commission and discovery. It is clear from Ms Justice Laffoy's letter of resignation, the accompanying documentation and this report of more than 400 pages, that the concerns she raised elicited barely a response from the Minister in particular and the Department in general and her resignation was required to force a political response from the Government.

The fact that the seriousness of the issue has been virtually ignored in the House today indicates that the Government has not grasped the importance of the report or that it is not sufficient to issue an apology and fail subsequently to meet the expectations of the victims to which it gave rise. At the time of the Taoiseach's apology, it was indicated that resources would be available to the commission, its work would not be hindered, it would be assisted in every way possible, and an attempt would be made to recompense victims of the most appalling chapter in the history of the State. Although nobody can make proper recompense for what happened to those who were in the institutions in question, surely they could at least expect a proper and urgent response from the Government which recognises the seriousness of the issues.

The Minister stated: "The resourcing delays which the commission refers to in its third interim report primarily relate to the period since June 2002." The report, particularly chapter 10, makes clear that resource issues were a problem long before that date. On page 157, the report states:

In November 2001, the explanation advanced for delay in submitting statements was lack of resources and, in particular, lack of resources during the summer months because of annual leave and such like. The Committee was assured that the issue of resources would be addressed. Over a year later, resources were still an issue....

That was November 2001.

Ms Justice Laffoy continued to raise these issues, particularly with regard to resources and the lack of an adequate response by the Department over a considerable period. Considerable time has been lost, not only since Ms Justice Laffoy resigned but also prior to it when she continually raised these issues. It is ludicrous to suggest that the decision to replace her with Mr. Justice Ryan and the sudden recognition that resources are an issue amounts to an adequate response.

The report also states: "The Committee is not satisfied that, since its establishment, it has received the level of cooperation which it is entitled to expect to receive from the Department of State which is its statutory sponsor." This statement brings to a head the issue of giving the Department of Education and Science responsibility for the commission. The Labour Party does not accept the Minister's argument that because other commissions of inquiry were sponsored by particular Departments, this should be the case in this context.

As Deputy Enright stated, the Department is being examined by the commission and, as such, it is entirely inappropriate that it should continue to hold responsibility for the commission in light of what has been revealed in this report. The Labour Party calls on the Minister and the Taoiseach to transfer responsibility from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of the Taoiseach. This should not cause additional delays because the delays encountered to date have been primarily related to discovery of documents. Transferring responsibility would not, therefore, cause undue delay and would provide the proper level of Government supervision of the matter. Clearly there is a conflict of interest which must be resolved and I call on the Minister to reconsider his position on this matter.

I wish to place on the record the specific issues raised in chapter 10 with regard to the Department. The explanation given by the Taoiseach today did not address the questions raised by Deputy Rabbitte. It is important that they are properly addressed and placed on the record. The questions on which the responses were not received, in particular, the abuse specific discovery directions on which Ms Justice Laffoy has still not received an adequate response, arose specifically in response to the indemnity deal when the Residential Institutions Redress Act was being discussed.

On page 158 of the report, Ms Justice Laffoy states:

At the beginning of February 2002, the Committee became aware of statements being attributed in the media to the then Minister and spokespersons of the Department as to the prevalence of abuse in institutions which were to be the subject of the redress scheme eventually enacted in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. At the beginning of June of the same year, the Committee became aware of media statements attributed to the then Minister in relation to the State's responsibility for abuse in institutions, which suggested that the Department might have been in possession of records which would assist the Committee in its inquiry. The Committee was not aware of the precise documents to which the Minister was referring. On 2nd July, 2002, a discovery direction was issued to the Department seeking discovery of all documents and records of whatever nature that were or had been in the possession or control of the Department, on the basis of which the Minister and/or his officials reached the conclusions——

(a) as to the culpability of the State and the regulatory authorities in the State for abuse of children in institutions, the investigation of which is within the statutory remit of the Commission, and

(b) the apportionment of blame between the State and the said regulatory authorities, on the one hand, and the managers of the institutions, on the other hand,

which were reflected in——

1. the agreement between the Minister and the Conference of Religious of Ireland, on behalf of eighteen Religious Congregations, made in June 2002, and

2. the statements and comments made by the Minister and his spokesperson reported in the broadcast and print media concerning that agreement and matters within the statutory remit of the Commission on or about 30th January, 2002, 1st February, 2002, 5th June, 2002 and 6th June, 2002.

Pursuant to that direction, an affidavit was sworn on 18th October, 2002 by the Director of Strategic Policy and Legal Services in the Department.

There is a footnote reference to an interview on "Morning Ireland" on 6 June 2002 with Deputy Woods in which he stated:

... ultimately here the State will pay and the State again as the Laffoy Commission I think will show in time because we have supplied a lot of information to the Laffoy Commission. We'll show that the State carry responsibility and Laffoy, the Laffoy Commission, Judge Laffoy will in due course report on all of that in great detail ...

The report continues:

Why is there an inconsistency between what has been disclosed and what the Committee might have expected to be disclosed having regard to the statements attributed to the former Minister and the Department spokesperson in 2002? Only one instance has been disclosed of the contemporaneous reporting by the management of an Industrial School for boys of sexual abuse of pupils in the institution by a person in authority.

It is clear that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and Ms Justice Laffoy, on the basis of what she had heard the former Minister say in the media, sought the papers that would indicate the culpability of the State with regard to children in institutions. The former Minister had indicated in a radio interview and in other places, that there was substantial verification material and contemporaneous accounts. Only one contemporaneous account was supplied to the commission. The discovery is ongoing because there has not been discovery of all the documentation required by Ms Justice Laffoy and February of this year is the further deadline that has been given. It is clear from the report that Ms Justice Laffoy encountered a great deal of difficulty in getting the documentation she required. She documents this difficulty in detail in the report.

Questions must be asked as to why the documentation could not be supplied given that the former Minister indicated that there was documentation that would come out in the Laffoy report which would explain the basis of the agreement made with the religious institutions regarding the apportionment of responsibility between the State and the religious institutions. I hope the Minister will be able to answer questions on this matter. The information given to the commission so far does not supply the kind of substantial material that would have been expected in light of the agreement made and the statements made by the former Minister.

Chapter 10 of the report states:

For over two years, the manner in which the Committee requires the Department to fulfil its statutory obligations in relation to complying with discovery directions issued to it under the Act has been clearly communicated to the Department, both in correspondence and at procedural hearings. Despite that, as of now, the direction issued on 10 March 2003 has not been properly complied with and the Department has been directed to make further and better discovery. While acknowledging the enormity of the task which the Department has faced, the difficulties which may not have been foreseen and the Committee's own shortcomings, 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.

That is a damning chapter of the report and I regard the Minister's response and that of the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government as quite pathetic. The time given for a debate means that only one person from each party will have the opportunity to speak and probably not even one person from the smaller groupings. It is a despicable response to the issues that are raised by this commission.

As Deputy Enright said, much more resources, time and attention have been given to other commissions of inquiry. This commission of inquiry is about what are probably the most defenceless people who ever had to survive in this State; those who were locked up and had no control over their own lives. They are people like the boys in the Baltimore Fisheries School which is the subject of part of this report. It makes distressing and appalling reading to read about the physical conditions in which those boys were kept, with beds full of urine, rats falling from the roof, not enough to eat, sexual and physical abuse and very harsh beatings. We will hear about this and other cases over the coming years because there will be others to follow. The Baltimore school alone deserves a debate in this House. Will the Minister provide Government time to debate this issue? The people who endured this deserve both the attention of a full debate in the House on what happened to them and an adequate response which does not seem to be forthcoming today.

The Minister gave the House a history lesson in his opening speech. The information about child abuse came to light in the television programme "States of Fear". There was not an awareness of the issue before that. Previous Governments of all hues did not have the knowledge that the present Government has. What the rainbow Government did or did not do is immaterial to information that emerged after 1999.

See this speech in context