Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The fact we have not debated this until April 2005 is an abysmal indication of the record of the Government in dealing with this issue. We all welcomed the apology by the Taoiseach in 1999, which was given on behalf of the people. It was long overdue to those children who suffered terribly in the care of the State and directly in the care of a number of religious institutions as well. After that apology, there was a hope that things would happen quickly for the survivors. In 2000, the original legislation which set up the commission gave the hope that survivors would have the opportunity to tell their story and that the State and others would take responsibility.

Unfortunately, the timeframe in between is very long. It is not as if that was not brought to the attention of the Government. Ms Justice Laffoy, who was the chairperson of the original commission, told the Government on a number of occasions exactly what was wrong. Yet it has taken until now for us to get some answers. She pointed out many of the issues that were subsequently pointed out by Mr. Justice Ryan and are incorporated in the legislation before us. She was ignored by the Government to such an extent that she resigned from the post in frustration. It became obvious that the number of people who wanted to tell their story was more than 1,700 and the legislation entitled the people to a full hearing. It was then clear that unless some of her recommendations were taken on board, it would take 11 years or more to deal with the whole issue. It was quite clear that could not happen because of the age of many of the people who had suffered abuse and who were accused of perpetrating abuse.

From 2000, Ms Justice Laffoy made clear there was a need to take action to make the commission work. Everybody wanted to make the commission work and obviously the purpose of the commission was to give hearing, redress and closure to survivors of abuse, but there was an absolute failure on the part of the Government to deal with that issue, particularly when Ms Justice Laffoy was in charge of the commission. It was not that she did not make it clear. She did on a number of occasions.

Ms Justice Laffoy also expressed serious reservations about the involvement of the Department of Education and Science and its failure to comply with requests for information from the commission. I too want to hear from the Department through the Minister whether eventually all those requests to which Ms Justice Laffoy referred were complied with. At the time we expressed reservations about the fact that the Department of Education and Science was still the lead Department and I still have those concerns. As the Department is inextricably linked up with this issue, admittedly in the past and not in the present, it is still wrong that it should be the Department in effective control of the legislation.

It is no harm to briefly go through the evolution of events to this point. Ms Justice Laffoy stated early on that those who suffered abuse and those accused of perpetrating it deserve "to see the inquiry, which they were promised over four years ago, concluded within a reasonable time frame". In a statement she delivered at the first public sitting of the commission held on 29 June 2000, Ms Justice Laffoy stated:

The Commission, through its Committees, will hear all persons who come forward to tell of abuse they have suffered in institutions in childhood. No such person will be refused a hearing.

The task of the investigation committee was to investigate child abuse alleged to have taken place in more than 100 institutions in respect of some 1,712 complainants over a period of 60 years. Many, if not most, of the complainants name or identify multiple alleged abusers, sometimes in different institutions. The oldest victim was born in 1926. Those accused of abuse are older than the complainants and some of them are dead, some left their congregations many years ago and some have not been traced. Those who are alive and traced include persons who are confused or not in a condition to defend themselves. These features partly explain the difficulty and complexity of the work to be done and make the investigation committee's functions probably the most challenging ever to have been the subject of an Irish public inquiry.

Most of the complainants were in industrial or reformatory schools and accuse more than one person of abuse. On analysis of the figures it appears that the vast majority of complaints are in respect of a relatively small number of institutions and individuals. Of the 1,712 complainants, 1,312 made complaints in respect of 20 institutions.

Complaints were made against 1,195 alleged individual abusers. The total number of complaints made against those individual respondents is 4,128. The overall number of complaints against individual respondents in respect of the 20 institutions giving rise to the largest number of complaints was 3,192, which is 77% of all complaints against individual respondents. That gives an idea of the size of the issue.

Early on, Ms Justice Laffoy stated that the only way to deal with this effectively was to have parallel hearings and that she needed the resources the carry out those. The resources were never given to her. Therefore she could not effect the speedy addressing of the issue as she wished and she eventually ended up resigning.

Following Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, Mr. Justice Ryan made his first report in January 2004. At that time, he made recommendations which in many ways are largely similar to what is contained in this legislation. It is now April 2005. People who have suffered greatly and who need the opportunity to tell their story that was to be given by the commission are still waiting in most cases.

I looked up some of my queries on this matter. A response to Questions Nos. 39, 55 and 113 on 18 May 2004 told me the Government was awaiting the decision of the Christian Brothers' case. The reply stated: "Consequently, it is not envisaged that amending legislation can be published before September 2004." This is April 2005 and we are only dealing with the legislation.

We need to be cognisant that we are dealing with people who had great hope of having their issues addressed in 1999 and have had that hope dashed repeatedly. It is no accident that they are not in the Visitors Gallery today. A number of survivors' groups lobbied all of us regularly in the past but few of them are here today. While I do not know about the representations made to the other Members present in the Chamber, I certainly did not receive many representations on this legislation. It is not that people are unconcerned but that they have been worn down by the timeframe. They feel that if they do not accept what is contained in the legislation, they are unlikely to get another opportunity to change this. Obviously on Committee State we will try to change it in whatever way the survivors wish. It is significant. It is because people are tired and want to get on with it. They will accept now what, in effect, is a form of sampling in this legislation and I would ask the Minister to respond on this. It involves at least a withdrawal of control from the survivors to the commission in a way the original commission was not constructed.

I note the Minister stated in her speech that the numbers have reduced to about 1,300, from more than 1,700. I assume that is because some decided they no longer wanted to go before the investigative committee. I should stress that at all times we are talking about the investigative committee in the case of difficulties. What has happened to those 400 people? Is it because they have had to wait so long? Is it because some of them have passed away or may be too infirm to go before the commission?

I want to ask the Minister about the changes. She stated that everybody will have the opportunity to be heard but not everybody will go to full hearing. Certainly the original intention was that people would have the opportunity to tell their full story. The Minister said that if there are material areas of dispute, the committee will arrange for further investigation, including full hearings if appropriate. Later in her speech she suggested, as I understand it, that the commission will decide who will go to full hearing and who will not. That is clearly a transfer of power from the survivors as individuals to the commission as a body and that is to be regretted.

I can understand why there has been a need to speed up the process and why many of the changes are being made. Dealing with one institution at a time, for instance, is sensible and I support it fully. It makes great sense to deal with a particular institution and bring in everybody who was involved in that institution. Dividing up into decades is another good suggestion, in other words, that if allegations of abuse over three decades are made against an institution, one would deal with one decade at a time and that if somebody's involvement overlapped between one decade and the next, one would deal with the decade in which the person spent the most time there. All of these are practical and sensible. The parallel hearings by another name, with the individual member of the commission in each one, are a good proposal as well. All those proposals are sensible. Some of these were put forward by Ms Justice Laffoy and could have been acted upon at that time.

I have doubts about the proposal that people would not get the opportunity for a full hearing. Can people appeal that? People might strongly wish to tell their full stories, but the commission might decide their stories have been told by someone else. The commission may have good reason to think a person does not need to go to full hearing, but one of the fundamental undertakings given to survivors was that they would have the opportunity to tell their stories. I would like clarification on that.

I would also like clarification regarding section 6 and the issue of jointly taking the evidence of a number of survivors. Issues of confidentiality would arise. Will people be asked to give their permission before being expected to tell their stories with other people present?

Section 9 deals with the requirement for discovery of documents, which refers back to the issue of the involvement by the Department of Education and Science. I assume that would apply to that Department as well. That too might be clarified.

I have serious concerns about the sampling issue. The survivor groups made it clear they were strongly opposed to sampling. While the Minister says every person will have some opportunity to tell his or her story, I would like to know the extent of the opportunity to be afforded those not selected to go to full hearing. How much information will they be able to give?

I welcome that there will be more public hearings and, I hope, more public information. This possibly applies more to the redress board than to the commission, but there is a feeling of frustration among many survivors that they cannot talk about their experiences before the two bodies. This was exemplified by the protest outside Leinster House last year. People experience this frustration, particularly with regard to the redress board, but the dealings must be confidential. However, we need more public information on issues such as people's level of satisfaction with the awards given through the board.

While I am speaking about the redress board, I will refer to the part of the legislation which deals with that. There is also the question of adding other institutions to the list, as raised by Deputy Enright. I too have contacted the Minister about certain institutions which have not been included and I hope the Minister can bring forward a further list. I know that some institutions would not necessarily be run by any of the religious bodies listed in the indemnity deal, but I hope that will not exclude them from being listed as being eligible to go before the redress board. Some of them would have been hospital-type institutions containing people who were ill but who were in effect in institutional care. I understand the Minister is examining those as well. There is a need to add to the list. The situation referred to by Deputy Enright must also be examined. I know the argument is that those in day schools could go home to their parents at night and that people in residential institutions needed more protection from the State, but perhaps later, in a separate phase, the issue of day schools could be addressed.

I want to say a little about the education services and the section of the legislation which deals with setting up a board to provide for the education fund. The money appears to relate to the money provided for in the indemnity deal. If people were not in those institutions and if the other institutions were added on, would those people still be able to qualify for the education fund? I had some representations about the education fund as it was been working before this legislation. Some people felt it was not sufficiently flexible, that one could get only assistance with education if one were pursuing that education inside certain boundaries, and that it would otherwise be refused. Will the Minister make the administration of the fund as flexible as possible and allow for some form of appeals system whereby people refused educational funding could make a case? In many cases, survivors of abuse have missed out on educational opportunities and we must respond to their needs as broadly as possible.

The board comprises a chairperson and eight ordinary members appointed by the Minister for Education and Science. Four of the members must be former residents of institutions. Will the Minister select those former residents or will the survivor groups have a role in selection? I am conscious there are different groups, so when one is selecting just four people, it is difficult to represent the different voices. Those different voices must be acknowledged. People have different slants on the matter and take different approaches. As far as possible, all the different voices should be heard with regard to the board and the issue in general.

I welcome the Bill and by and large I welcome the intention that it will streamline the system and allow survivors of abuse to tell their stories to those directly involved. However, I have serious reservations about the fact that not all survivors will be able to tell their full stories if they want to. I say that conscious that there are time limits and a need to ensure that people get the opportunity for closure on the issue in an appropriate timeframe.

We will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to address other issues regarding the detail of the legislation. I welcome that we are finally dealing with this issue though I regret we did not do so many years ago. There is no justification for the Government taking so long in bringing this legislation before the House, nor is there any justification for the fact that when Ms Justice Laffoy was in charge of the commission, her complaints and recommendations, when brought to the attention of the Government, received no real response. However, I welcome that we have finally reached this stage. My party will try to ensure the legislation goes through the Oireachtas as speedily as possible.

See this speech in context