Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)

I too am glad to have a few moments to speak on this Bill. It is part of the process whereby the State is finally accepting its responsibility to deal with the abuse that took place. It is important that happens since it proves that no person or institution is above scrutiny. It also means that those who suffered abuse will continue to be heard. I am reassured by this Bill that it is part of that process of the State facing its responsibilities, something that was delayed for far too long. I commend the Taoiseach on taking the initiative by issuing an apology on behalf of the State; it was long overdue.

This Bill and the Act that it proposes to amend represent progressive steps by the State, and we should not forget that. That path had not been taken very frequently previously. It is true that, although well-intentioned, problems arose with the original 2002 legislation. The State made moves both to investigate claims of abuse and to recompense survivors in a way that was effective and sensitive, and that must be commended. However, problems emerged, and the suspension of the commission, the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and the acceptance by the State of her criticisms evidenced the existence of problems. We have a duty to investigate and resolve those problems. I am satisfied that the Bill is an important part of that remedy.

The appointment of Mr. Justice Ryan was meant to probe those issues and, having established the review, it is our duty to act on its findings. We have a duty to give effect to those recommendations, and that is what the Bill will do. I will return briefly to the original legislation and its purpose. I mentioned that it was well-intentioned, and victims were promised an inquiry that would investigate every single claim of abuse. Not long after the establishment of the commission, it was realised that the expectation was unrealistic. Importantly, the victims' group One in Four realised it was unrealistic:

People are perhaps beginning to realise that this was never realistic, and that the inquiry would never do what civil law could not do. The expectations created were not realistic.

The then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, admitted that the State was guilty of an error of judgment when it mandated the inquiry to investigate every claim of abuse. It is understandable that victims feel disappointed because they have every right to believe that a promise that was made is being reneged on.

The State has a duty to ensure the inquiry can deliver closure to victims in a reasonable length of time. Ms Justice Laffoy estimated that it could take up to 11 years, which is quite a long time, for the commission to complete its work. Just 40 of the 1,700 complaints received by the commission had been heard by October 2002. The State could not continue to pursue that approach because it was not in its interests or in the interests of the victims to do so.

The good intentions of the original legislation should not be diminished in any way by the amendments being made. I am reminded of a motto adopted by doctors: "first, do no harm". I would not support this amending legislation if I did not feel it is necessary and, more importantly, in the best interests of victims. It is important to emphasise that the Bill before the House clearly serves the interests of victims.

The State must act responsibly by establishing an inquiry that can deliver results. The 1,300 people who have applied to have their cases heard by the investigative committee will be invited for interview. The information obtained during such interviews will be recorded and reviewed. If there are material areas of dispute, the committee will arrange for further investigation, including further hearings, as appropriate. Such hearings will be heard in public, where possible. That change to the original arrangements has been made to provide for closure in a timely fashion. I would not support this legislation if I did not feel that it is in the best interests of victims. While the victims are not being given what was originally intended, it is significant that everyone will be heard in some context by the investigative committee. I am encouraged by that.

I wish to expand on the importance of listening to victims' testimonies. I had the great pleasure of attending a performance of "James X", a fabulous one-man play written and performed by Gerard Mannix Flynn during last year's Dublin Theatre Festival. The play, which recounts the experiences of a victim, before and during his appearance at the redress board, is raw, moving and funny. The strength of the play is that it stresses the importance for victims of finally achieving closure. When the character's ordeal was over and he had finally presented his case, a weight was lifted from his shoulders and he was able to move on. It is important that we should give people the opportunity to move on.

Deputy O'Sullivan seemed to give the impression that not everyone will be heard. It is important to clarify this matter. Everyone will be heard and interviewed, even if everyone does not receive the opportunity to speak individually in an open public forum. It is understandable that survivors feel somewhat let down — they have the right to feel that way. I hope they will receive absolute clarity about the process of deciding to bring cases to full hearings.

I welcome the changes being made in this Bill because they are needed following the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and in light of the projected duration of the review. While it is regrettable that we have deviated from the original plan for the board's activities, we should understand that it is necessary. The views of survivors are paramount when dealing with this issue. I hope the Minister will continue to meet the representatives of those who were abused as we make progress with the redress process.

See this speech in context