Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is more to come from the commission’s work, given the case has been broadened to examine the 46 other children who passed through the foster home. We know all too well the history of abuse and neglect in State institutions and this is another shameful part of our history. It is incumbent on any Government to investigate cases of abuse and neglect in State institutions and provide answers for the families of victims. It is clear for all to see the State and State bodies, well into the 1990s, failed their most vulnerable in a catastrophic way. The way in which the mother and baby homes investigation was dealt with by the Government and others served to cause more hurt for victims and their families; this cannot happen in this case.

It is disappointing these investigations regularly seem to be prolonged and extended but in this case, that is due to the volume of evidence that has come to light during the investigation. I have no concerns regarding the cost of such investigations because they are vital for victims and their families. It is the responsibility of the State to examine these cases and deliver transparency in respect of the inaction or neglect of State bodies. It is shocking how many State bodies and actors in this case either turned a blind eye, delayed action or did not act for reasons such as seeking legal advice on the case. This led to Grace remaining in the foster home, and I fear for similar cases where this may have happened elsewhere.

Empowering People in Care, EPIC, has stated:

It has emerged that families of the victims of abuse at the ‘Grace’ case foster home are deeply upset at the “highly confrontational and adversarial” nature of the Farrelly Commission of Investigation. This is deeply disturbing. The welfare of the families of the victims of this investigation must be paramount. It is imperative to the integrity of this and all future investigations that victims, and the families of victims, are treated at all times with respect and sensitivity.

EPIC now calls on the Government to ensure that the concerns of these families are listened to, heard and responded to, to ensure that this is not the experience of those other families yet to give evidence.

EPIC supports the granting of a 12-month extension to complete phase 1 of the investigation if this will ensure that the full facts of the case are brought to light. In light of the requirement for a 12-month extension to deal with the unanticipated volume of evidence, EPIC also calls on the government to carry out a review of resources to ensure that the investigation has the capacity to complete this and future investigations within agreed timelines.

Where the State has clearly failed in the past, it must ensure that all families are heard and receive appropriate communications from the commission and that the State does not add further pain by continuing the bad communication and inaction which have led us to this point. Despite the criminal convictions and allegations of sexual abuse, the State did not act. It should have acted promptly to ensure the protection and safety of a child, and then an adult, who was vulnerable. It will be difficult for members of the public listening to or reading about the details of this case to understand how correspondence could be exchanged between Mr. X and relevant Ministers regarding a case and then for no action to have subsequently been taken, when correspondence would indicate otherwise.

I accept the commission's findings that neither Minister made personal interventions in this case and that the remit of responsibility lies with what was then the South-Eastern Health Board. These interactions, however, speak to the systemic levels of inaction that occurred in this case, notwithstanding that it was positive that no Ministers intervened beyond their remit in this instance. The case shows us that the concurrent lack of clarity with the legal status of a vulnerable person only produced more difficulty. We have seen from so many of the wrongs of the past that the most vulnerable were left without support and that the State and its entities failed in their duty to protect, shelter and protect vulnerable people, such as Grace. It is unacceptable that the role and legal status of Mr. and Mrs. X and Grace's mother in regard to decision-making for Grace was allowed to be misconstrued. The State and its authorities should have provided legal certainty and acted promptly when any misconceptions arose.

One of the most troubling aspects of the case is that there was a complete failure to gain legal clarity from the State authorities involved to ensure that decision-making on behalf of Grace was carried out appropriately. When dealing with cases such as these, it is paramount that State bodies and actors involved in such scenarios act in unison with other State bodies in respect of actions or work carried out concerning the protection of a vulnerable adult. The recurring neglect to make a definitive decision and to act in the full possession of all information relating to a case is simply unacceptable. For so many State bodies and arms of the State involved in cases such as this, this represents a complete and systematic failure of those of State bodies tasked with care and protection. It would not be unjust for an independent onlooker reading this review to conclude that because of the difficulties presented in the case of Grace that numerous people within State bodies, and those State bodies themselves, swept this problem under the rug or away from view and that this inaction and indecision in turn only led to further neglect in the support and protection of a vulnerable person.

One line in the second substantive report really exposes the blatant neglect in this case. The fact that a decision to seek legal advice, including on wardship in Grace's case, was always seen as a last resort rather than a first priority bears emphasis. This is an appalling failure and it would lead us to believe that those responsible never intended to seek clarity in the case or to ensure that Grace was in an adequate setting, with adequate care and protection. I remind this House of the words spoken during the meeting of the First Dáil by Tom Johnson, who said: "It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children [...]". The Democratic Programme was the founding document of this Republic, and it has been violated by what happened in this case.

See this speech in context