Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

I thank all Deputies. Over the past number of hours, many Deputies contributed to the debate on this motion and I want to acknowledge the constructive way in which they engaged and the input from all sides in assisting our deliberation and consideration of this motion on such a sensitive issue. It is important to see such strong support for making sure that accountability, which is rightly sought by survivors via the commission of investigation, is delivered. This is an issue of profound importance to our society. This is an issue that impacts every single person, whether you are an individual who has experienced sexual abuse or whether you are somebody who has children, grandchildren, nieces, or nephews going to school. It is so important that our response is clear, strong and acknowledges what happened in the past but it is important that we collectively commit to doing everything we possibly can to ensure it can never happen again.

The abuse, and the sexual abuse of a child, is the most egregious breach of trust we can think of. I am not sure words can describe this happening to a child. It is the most difficult type of crime for us to respond to and for it to happen in a setting where children should be safe, where children should be protected and where children should be cared for by those who are in positions of power requires the most serious response from Government - one that learns from the past and improves for the future. It is our duty as adults to protect, to care for, to nurture and to shelter children and it is our duty as legislators to respond. That is what this commission is intended to do.

It is so important we ensure the power to compel witnesses and to compel documents is part of the terms of reference and the commission's work, so we get the answers we all need to see. The commission will investigate the handling of concerns of child sexual abuse. It is important to say there will be findings of fact. We are not trying to replace a court of law. We are not trying to replace the work of An Garda Síochána but there will be very clear findings here into the handling of concerns of historical child sexual abuse.

There were many questions from colleagues on the Garda and its work. If we look at No. 10 of the terms of reference, it states that the commission will exercise its discretion regarding ongoing procedures. It will meet its obligations regarding reporting of information to appropriate authorities. Already the cases that arose in the survivor engagement process have been referred to Tusla and An Garda Síochána for further review where necessary. I know from my previous role and from speaking to the Garda Commissioner that in respect of the work published last September, many more people came forward to the Garda. The work here will never interfere with or prevent survivors from going to the Garda and will never prevent the Garda from ensuring, through the courts, those responsible can be held accountable.

What we will explore here, and what we will report on, is the handling of concerns of historical sexual abuse because we know this happened. We do not have to debate in this Chamber whether sexual abuse happened in our schools. It happened. What we have to investigate here is why happened, how did it happen, how was it let happen for so long, how did those who were in positions of power allow this to happen, what did they know, when did they know it, why did they not respond, why was their response not to go to An Garda Síochána or to anybody else and why was their response to move people from one school to the next, so they could continue this horrific sexual abuse. We have to make sure all of this information is known and is reported on by the commission of investigation.

I understand this has been a very difficult and very long journey for many people. There are those who are not here to see us get to this point. That is why it is so important we have a time limit on this. I want to stress that any suggestion the two-year report is an opportunity for the commission to come forward to say it needs more time and wants to extend it, and that it can do so on multiple occasions, is the reason we are putting a five-year limit on this. What must be set out clearly in the two-year report is that if the commission feels it is not on track for the five years, it must amend its work to make sure it comes in within that five-year period. We cannot have a situation where survivors, who have waited decades in some instances to get to this point, are left waiting further decades or further years. We are very clear on that and that is why the terms of reference set out very clearly that this must be completed within a five-year period.

The following might help or assist in answering the question on around physical abuse and why it was not included. I absolutely acknowledge the physical abuse people suffered in our schools - the criminal acts that happened in our schools. This cannot be under the banner of corporal punishment. There were people physically assaulted and brutally assaulted in our schools. So often that came hand in hand with sexual abuse. However, the scoping inquiry was clear in its remit that it needed to look at sexual abuse in our schools. It was very clear that if we were to get the answers survivors are absolutely entitled to, we must stick within that remit. That is not in any way to diminish or to not respond to the very serious challenges and the very serious crimes that were committed where children were brutally and viciously assaulted. The terms of reference have been very clear that if we are to get the answers survivors are absolutely entitled to within a time period that is acceptable to anybody here, then we need to stick within those terms of reference.

The commission is a significant step towards accountability. I acknowledge that this is a long journey for many, but further work is being done in parallel as regards redress. Colleagues raised the issue of redress. I am determined that there will be financial accountability for survivors. In response to that, however, we need to do more work in order for survivors to get the accountability to which they are entitled. That is why we have not accepted that specific recommendation to allow it to progress immediately with the commission of investigation. More work is needed to understand exactly what assets are being held by religious orders and institutions, including financial resources and other resources. This work is also needed to understand if there are other mechanisms and levers that are needed to make sure that those responsible for these types of crimes are the ones who pay toward a redress scheme. There was a very clear request by many of the survivors that the institutions, religious orders and those responsible for these crimes and for covering them up be the ones who pay for it. That is why this separate body of work is happening. I am really clear here. In other instances, redress schemes have not happened until after a commission of investigation has taken place. I want this work to start now in order that we are not waiting five years before we even start looking at a redress scheme. They will happen in parallel. I am committed, as I think all colleagues in this House are, to working toward making sure those who are responsible pay financially.

My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, made specific mention of the findings of the scoping inquiry regarding the sexual abuse of children in special schools. It was such an egregious breach of trust among some of our most vulnerable citizens and was absolutely abhorrent. I echo the Minister of State's words on the importance of inclusivity in the commission and ensuring that the voices of those who may not have been heard are facilitated. Many colleagues have raised the issue of making sure that every single person can have access to this commission of inquiry, whether it is the initial survey that will be done in the coming months, the engagement through the survivor engagement programme or through the inquiry itself. The terms of reference are very clear that there will be:

(a) clear communication and transparency, allowing survivors to make informed choices as to whether to engage with the Commission;

(b) support for survivors at key stages of the process, [that means] emotional and psychological support, and support for those with additional needs to facilitate an accessible and inclusive process wherever possible;

[...]

(d) practical steps to mitigate risks of retraumatisation, [as was raised by our colleagues in the Labour Party] in consultation with survivors and relevant expert advice.

It is very clear, and having engaged with the chairperson, he is clear that any engagement will be accessible to every single person. I stress that all of these terms of reference have been developed with the support of the Attorney General. Making sure the process is victim-centred and human rights-focused has been a priority for the Attorney General and for all of us involved.

In terms of memorialisation, the scoping inquiry found that there was no one agreed position as to how we ensure that what happened in the past would not be forgotten. The work of the commission will assist in that by feeding into what memorialisation looks like in the future.

Members raised the fact that the commission may consider information from the survivor engagement programme and the fact that this should be part and parcel of the investigation. It is really important for any person who comes forward who does not want to be known and wants his or her contribution to be anonymous that we do not in any way link the programme and the commission by saying that people who come forward will be part of the inquiry. It is really important that survivors can participate in the survivor engagement process in a confidential way. The information that will be provided will feed into and will be part of the overall objective and overall approach taken by the commission.

I thank colleagues for their contributions and support on the establishment of this commission of investigation. I will finish how I started, through commending and thanking survivors, because we would not be here without them. I particularly thank David, who is here in the Gallery, and his brother Mark, who cannot be with us here today. Without his and David's brave words and actions, we would not be establishing this commission of investigation and so many others would not have the chance to make sure their voices and stories are heard. Most importantly, as a Government and as a society, due to those actions, we now have an opportunity to do everything we can to ensure something like this can never happen in our schools again. I thank my colleagues and look forward to working with them. I wish the commission well in its work.

See this speech in context