Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

None of us is approaching this issue in a vacuum because we all know survivors of abuse and we have listened to their stories. They have described how they were hurt, scared, lost, damaged, frustrated and how they felt inadequate, angry and let down. A number talked about a black hole or dark room to which the door was closed in their lives. Many victims feel let down because there was great expectation when the process commenced but the longer it went on, the more frustrated many of them became. The legislation intends to speed up the process and save money. Nobody wants the ambulance chasers to make additional millions out of people's suffering and we are all approaching the legislation on the basis that it should improve the process.

When speaking to a victim of child abuse, his or her need to tell people what happened to him or her is most striking. People often live a great part of their lives without being able to do so. That is why it is important a mechanism should be provided whereby they can tell their stories. That is how people will judge the legislation and that is why the establishment of official inquiries into these matters is important. I welcome the changes in the Bill that will improve the effectiveness of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. I am mindful, of course, that the impetus behind this Bill has come from the valid criticism made of the manner in which the commission had operated since its inception in 2000, or to be more exact criticism made of its lack of real powers. While much of the criticism that slowly emerged came from victims of abuse who were frustrated at the slow manner in which the process of inquiry was proceeding and what they saw as the lack of real power to tackle and punish institutional offenders, the most powerful criticism came from within the commission itself, from its former chairperson, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, who resigned in September 2003.

Ms Justice Laffoy's critique focused on the issues of compensation for victims, legal costs, adequate funding to enable the commission to carry out its work and the slowness of the Government in completing a review of the work of the commission and providing the additional resources contingent on the review's completion. It is apparent, however, that there was an enormous amount of anger regarding the last-minute decision of former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, to indemnify the religious orders in the matter of cost. When the deal emerged, it was obvious that the greater burden would fall on the State, funded by the Irish taxpayer. That was one factor behind the lack of resources and the slowness of the process referred to by Ms Justice Laffoy. It is, therefore, worth restating that the religious orders in charge of those institutions where abuse took place ought to have borne the cost of compensation for victims and the actual costs of the inquiry itself.

The review referred to by Ms Justice Laffoy has since been completed and this Bill is designed to implement its recommendations so we will have to monitor it closely and judge how effective it will be in helping the commission complete its substantial body of work. One of the key findings of the third interim report was that while the commission was appreciative of the efforts made by officials in the Department of Education and Science, it was still ultimately responsible for the majority of the institutions in which abuse took place and the commission felt that there had been a failure to ensure that it could comply with its statutory obligations in the process of investigation.

While the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill to establish a fund to assist victims financially in accessing education are very much to be welcomed, it is to be hoped that the Department of Education and Science will address the concerns expressed in the report in making its budgetary allocations and the Government as a whole will ensure that the necessary extra funds are made available from the central fund.

Regarding the Bill itself, the amendment contained in section 3 to change the definition of abuse is welcome. It is designed to broaden the definition so that not only the direct perpetrators of abuse can be made answerable but also that persons or institutions who through carelessness, complicity or incompetence put a child at risk can also be brought to book. That is most important because we are all aware by now that we are not talking about a small number of dangerous individuals who acted in secret but people who felt that they were in some way insulated or protected by the institutions in which they operated. They were also given protection by a culture permeating certain structures of Irish society that viewed children from certain backgrounds as unworthy of their protection.

The investigation of that aspect of the investigation will also be facilitated by the extension of the powers of the commission to inquire into why children were sent to and kept detained in institutions where they were abused. Above all, we must find out how the State allowed that abuse to take place and put in place mechanisms to ensure that such a situation is never allowed to happen again. It is not sufficient to find out what took place in the past; we must create structures that will ensure that it is never repeated.

I referred to the need that people feel to tell what happened to them in the institutions in which they were held. That has been recognised as an important part of the therapeutic recovery of victims, who have often come to be able to talk about what happened to them only many years later. Many of them were also abused in circumstances in which they felt no one cared what happened to them and that no one would believe them if they brought themselves to tell. Unfortunately, that has been proven in all too many cases. That is why the amendments contained in sections 6 and 7 are welcome, allowing as they do greater scope for victims, either individually or as part of a group, to give their testimony, in certain cases in public.

I wish to raise the plight of those children abused in day care. I appreciate that the Act is being amended here, and the commission that it established is specifically designed to investigate cases of abuse in residential institutions. However, it is clear that there are significant numbers of people who were victims while attending educational or care institutions during the day. Sometimes they were in institutions where the abuse of residents took place, and in some cases, no doubt, the perpetrators were the same individuals. I ask that the situation of those victims be addressed. The Minister has argued that the State had different levels of responsibility, but no one can deny that many of those people are victims. They do not have the money to go through the courts and many of them want to be allowed to tell their stories.

We are still left with the sense that people who have been abused are frustrated at the manner in which they were treated or critical of how the commission has operated to date. We must avoid the situation that applies to other inquiries and tribunals, where many legal representatives do very well but there appears to be no redress. People who were in this situation are not concerned with the legal aspects. They simply want to be able to tell their story and see those individuals and institutions responsible for their abuse brought to justice. A society should not be afraid to confront those issues since it can become stronger only by addressing institutional abuse that took place in the past. Of course, we can also hope that the victims will become stronger from the opportunity to tell what happened.

I hope that the legislation will improve the situation for those victims, that the Bill will ensure the truth emerges and that it is not merely about saving money or fast-tracking for its own sake. The absence of many of the victims' groups tells a story, namely, that people are frustrated. They are not happy with how the commission has been operated. I hope that the main thing to emerge from this is that whoever wants to tell his or her story of abuse is given the opportunity to do so.

See this speech in context