Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

It may have been very wise but in 2002 the Minister had given this inquiry priority over the Ferns investigation. The Minister's wisdom in hindsight is wonderful. The other reason he gave was that a more effective medium of investigation was required. Both reasons are wise and appropriate but the effect of not taking action at that time, when many allegations had been put into the public domain, meant that the matter was left in a type of limbo, if limbo still exists, for three years. This was serious criminality but the Minister was prepared to put the issue on the long finger. He did not know when the Ferns report would come out. He did not know at that time whether we would have a commission of investigation. As it happened it came out in due course. The Commission of Investigation Bill was enacted in 2004 and the Ferns report came out in October 2005.

At last, the long-awaited inquiry into the Dublin Archdiocese has been established under the Commissions of Investigation Act and Yvonne Murphy, Circuit Court judge, will chair the investigation. The terms of reference were published in early November this year. I welcome the publication of the terms of reference and the statement by the Minister at the time, to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe alluded, that a figure of €5.7 million would be made available to meet the cost of the inquiry. I do not believe that will be enough although the inquiry will continue but at least a figure was put on the costs. I welcome also the announcement by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, that he and the diocese would co-operate fully with the inquiry. I hope all of these mechanisms are in place.

There are a number of matters that give rise to concern about the terms of reference as outlined previously. The first serious issue is the limited timescale of the investigation. It extends only from January 1975 to May 2004, less than a 30 year period. Part of the Minister's script, which he did not get an opportunity to read out, states: "In addition, the further back in time one goes, the more fragmentary would be the records on the handling of cases by the Archdiocese and consequently the more difficult the task of investigation would be". It also states: "To give the Commission an open ended remit would make it almost impossible for it to complete its work ...". The Ferns inquiry and the Residential Institutions Redress Board had an open ended remit and I cannot understand——

See this speech in context