Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

—bearing in mind the significant public concern about the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin;

—noting the informal Government decision of 22 October 2002 that the matter required further consideration and reflection, in particular on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform;

—noting the Government decision of 25 October 2005 accepting in principle the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse in the diocese of Ferns and giving a commitment to their implementation by line Departments and relevant agencies;

—noting that it is the opinion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that a commission of investigation represents the best method of addressing the issues involved;

—further noting that a draft order posed to be made by the Government under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 (No. 23 of 2004) has been duly laid before Dáil Éireann in respect of the foregoing matters referred to, together with a statement of reasons for establishing a commission under that Act;

approves the draft Commission of Investigation (Child Sexual Abuse) Order 2005.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister never gives up.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He never misses an opportunity.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the House of the circumstances which give rise to the motion before the House. In November 2002, an RTE "Prime Time" documentary reported on child sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The programme made a number of disturbing assertions as to the inadequate way in which allegations and complaints of sexual abuse by priests of the archdiocese were handled, for example, the priests in question were simply moved to another position without people being informed of the reasons for the move.

It is universally recognised that child sexual abuse is not only morally reprehensible but also a particularly serious crime. It is my duty and that of the Government and Oireachtas to protect the most vulnerable members of our community who cannot protect themselves. This applies with particular force to our children. Child sexual abuse is associated with a range of adverse long-term effects such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and relationship problems. Characteristics of the abuse suffered, such as the type of abusive act, the duration of the abuse and the degree of physical or psychological force used, influence the severity of its effects. These effects extend well beyond the abused individual and can have a significant impact on "secondary" victims such as family members of the abused and the abuser.

Furthermore, parents of sexually abused children often feel guilty because of a perceived failure to protect the child. It is also recognised that where child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an authority figure such as a clergyman, its impact on the victim can have additional consequences such as alienation and a loss of faith, both religious and in people.

In addition to the grave psychological damage which such abuse may cause, the criminal offences involved are of the utmost gravity. It is important to emphasise that complaints of sexual abuse are fully investigated by the Garda Síochána and all efforts are made to bring the perpetrators to justice. A significant number of clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse have been convicted following Garda investigations and many of them have served or are serving custodial sentences. Irrespective of any form of investigation that might be undertaken, it is a priority that every effort is made to ensure that anyone who has engaged in criminal behaviour of this type is brought to justice.

In light of the disclosures in the "Prime Time" programme and elsewhere, I announced my intention to introduce legislation for a new procedure which would, among other things, enable a detailed and focused investigation into how church and other authorities dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and religious. I introduced the Commissions of Investigation Bill in 2003 and, on foot of this legislation, the Commissions of Investigation Act was enacted in July 2004.

A further significant development was the establishment in March 2003 of the non-statutory Ferns Inquiry into the nature of the response to allegations of child sexual abuse by priests operating under the aegis of the diocese of Ferns. The inquiry's report, which was presented to the Minister for Health and Children on 25 October, contains a number of valuable recommendations.

Under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, a commission of investigation may be established by the Government based on a proposal by a Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to investigate any matter considered by the Government to be of "significant public concern". An issue giving rise to significant public concern is one that is of more than mere interest to the public or more than just the subject of vigorous political debate. It must, instead, be an issue which has profound implications for life in our society. The Government and I are satisfied that an investigation into the handling of child sexual abuse allegations against the archdiocese of Dublin comes within that category. The sensitive nature of the subject matter and the need to ensure the fullest confidence in and compliance with the investigation means that a commission of investigation, backed up by the statutory powers available to a commission under the 2004 Act, is the appropriate vehicle for investigating the matter.

It would not be appropriate for the Garda Síochána to investigate this matter as it is the handling of complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse rather than the allegations of abuse themselves which are being investigated, and this would involve matters which may not in themselves have been criminal offences. In addition, in investigating the handling of complaints or allegations, it may well be that the handling of complaints made to the Garda Síochána might itself require investigation. For these reasons the Government is of the view that the establishment of a commission of investigation is required.

The report of the Ferns inquiry made a series of recommendations on the lessons which might usefully be learnt from how such complaints or allegations were handled in the past and which will result in improved child protection. The inquiry's view was that the recommendation of the 1996 report of the Irish Catholic bishops' advisory committee on child sexual abuse by priests and religious, entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, on the reporting of child sexual abuse is one of the most important and has had the most impact on the church's handling of this problem in the past nine years.

With regard to the procedure of holding regular high level meetings between the diocese of Ferns, the Garda Síochána and the Health Service Executive, which is called the inter-agency review committee, the inquiry saw this as having considerable merits and was of the view that the procedure should and could be adopted in any case in which continuing problems arise concerning child sexual abuse.

On 25 October, the Government accepted in principle the recommendations in the Ferns Report and gave a commitment to its implementation by line Departments and relevant agencies. The Government also authorised the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to write to the Irish bishops' commission to ask it to ensure individual and collective compliance with the inquiry's recommendations and to request the Health Service Executive to liaise with individual bishops to ensure implementation of the recommendations. The Minister of State consequently wrote to the president of the bishops' conference and the Health Service Executive on 26 October with particular emphasis on the 1996 guidelines and the inter-agency review committee.

As a further step in ensuring compliance with the inquiry's recommendations, the commission should undertake two further tasks in addition to investigating the archdiocese of Dublin. Following a notification by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a diocese may not have established the structures or may not be operating satisfactorily the procedures set out in church guidelines, whether the 1996 guidelines or any subsequent ones, the commission of investigation should examine the position in that diocese. Following a notification by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a diocese may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report, the commission should examine the position in that diocese.

The motion before the House is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the commission. The motion seeks approval of the draft Government order providing for the establishment of a commission of investigation into two matters: the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin, and examining the implementation of church guidelines or the recommendations of the Ferns Report in a particular diocese if the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children requests the commission to do so.

The draft order contains a schedule setting out a statement of reasons for establishing the commission, as required by the Commissions of Investigation Act. A similar motion will be brought before the Upper House. The draft order sets out the terms of reference for the commission. The commission of investigation is being established to:

(a) select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse made to the archdiocesan and other church authorities and public and State authorities in the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin;

(b) examine and report on the nature of the response to those sample complaints or allegations on the part of the authorities to which those sample complaints or allegations were reported, including whether there is any evidence of attempts on the part of those authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints;

(c) in the case of complaints or allegations being examined, to examine and report also on the nature of the response to any other complaints or allegations made by the complainant or against the person in respect of whom those complaints or allegations were made, including any such complaints or allegations made before 1 January 1975;

(d) select a representative sample of cases where the archdiocesan and other church and public and State authorities had in the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 knowledge of, or strong and clear suspicion of, or reasonable concern regarding sexual abuse involving clergy operating under the aegis of the archdiocese of Dublin;

(e) establish the response of the archdiocesan and other church and public and State authorities to those sample cases;

(f) establish the levels of communication that prevailed between the archdiocesan and other church authorities and public and State authorities with regard to those sample complaints, allegations, knowledge, reasonable concern or strong and clear suspicion;

(g) examine, following a notification from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a Catholic diocese in the State may not have established the structures, or may not be operating satisfactorily the procedures set out in the 1996 report of the Irish Catholic bishops' advisory committee on child sexual abuse by priests and religious, Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, and any subsequent similar document, the position in that diocese; and

(h) examine, following a notification from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a Catholic diocese in the State may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report delivered to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children on 25 October 2005, the position in that diocese.

I draw the attention of Deputies to a number of points about these terms of reference. The commission will investigate the handling of two categories of cases in the archdiocese of Dublin. It will investigate the handling of cases where specific complaints or allegations were made and it will investigate the handling of cases where, while there were no complaints or allegations, there was knowledge, strong and clear suspicion or reasonable concern of sexual abuse.

The commission will cover a specific period from 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004. While I am aware of the arguments for not having a period of time specified, it is a more productive use of the resources available to proceed in that way. To give the commission an open-ended remit would make it almost impossible for it to complete its work within a reasonable timeframe. 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. The most important task is to draw lessons from the mistakes of the past to ensure that nothing similar happens again.

The terms of reference specify that a representative sample of cases will be examined. The important word here is "representative". It will be incumbent on the commission to examine the cases which come to its attention, whether through an examination of documents and records it discovers or as a result of advertising for persons to approach it and, having examined these cases, choosing a sample which is representative of them. The terms of reference specify that where a case is among the representative sample, all complaints and allegations by that complainant are also examined. They also specify that all complaints and allegations against an alleged perpetrator named in a complaint or allegation being investigated will also be investigated.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should conclude.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a fairly substantial script but it is available for Deputies.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael welcomes the proposed establishment of this commission. I should preface my contribution by saying that I will ignore the Minister's opening remarks other than to say that they show how incorrigible he is. They probably confirm the view that he will never learn. We will leave that matter aside, however, and deal with the serious issue in the motion.

It is important for the House to support the right of victims of abuse to tell their stories so that the full and dreadful nature of their abuse and exploitation can be recounted as they so wish. It is important that this be done within a workable timeframe and in a way that is sufficiently resourced to ensure that those victims will feel they are being treated properly.

The case of Marie Therese O'Loughlin has been raised recently in the House on a number of occasions. I saw a chink of light in the Taoiseach's response this morning. When somebody has clearly been the victim of abuse and believes he or she must resort to the measures she has taken, we all want to find a solution to his or her case. If it is the situation that she was an inmate of another institution covered by the Residential Institutions Redress Act, we would all want to see her case being dealt with as quickly as possible.

I am interested in the need for a proper political will behind what steps are taken as well as the provision of proper resources. I know we must tread a fine line, but when the House agrees to establish an investigation, we should know that it will be properly dealt with and resourced. I am thinking of the example of the commission under Ms Justice Laffoy which eventually ran into the ground to a great degree since she had to resign owing to the difficulties that she experienced in securing resources for it. On the one hand, I would like to see the commission of investigation properly resourced, and on the other hand I do not want a situation to arise whereby, after a time, there is commission fatigue among the public and an element of scandal since people may feel that resources have been wasted. That is the fine line that we must tread. We must ensure proper resources but also that there is no sense of their being wasted.

From that perspective, it is obviously extremely important that any commission established by this House be fully accountable and transparent. On the question of resources, I know that the Minister will have to come back to us with detailed projections. It would be helpful at this stage if he could give us a rough idea. Has any thought been given to ballpark figures or to the general factors that might affect the final total? If the public knew in advance of the time and cost, it would be better prepared to support fully the resources needed to bring the commission to a successful conclusion. I say that in all fairness to the judge who has agreed to accept the position as chair of the commission. That person must be assured that the full resources will be made available.

Regarding the issues the Minister mentioned in his speech, it would be helpful from the perspective of the House and the public for him to deal with the decision to opt for a representative sample as opposed to hearing all such complaints. I can see that one might not want to be totally open-ended, but how will that representative sample work and what percentage of complaints will be adopted? Will individuals who may have been seriously abused feel aggrieved at their exclusion from the process owing to the way in which the representative sample is selected? Perhaps the Minister might provide further information on that.

In his reply, the Minister might also give some indication of what matters in his ambit remain outstanding of those raised in the Ferns Report. Several such issues require a response from him. One was the commission of investigation that we are now establishing, but there were also questions regarding legal aid. Have they been addressed? What situation will arise regarding those coming before the commission that we are now setting up? In a broader context, the Ferns Report recommended that legal aid irrespective of means be made available to both complainants and priests against whom allegations are made where the cases are not determined by a criminal court. Is there now a decision to ensure that such legal aid will be available?

Several other issues arose in the Ferns Report that call for action on the part of the Minister, one being the question of introducing a new offence. That seems to have been lumped in with the proposal to table an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. I must issue a word of concern at this stage regarding the Bill and question whether all those amendments might ever be brought on board. Will the Bill ever complete the legislative process? We will end up with an absolute blockbuster and I am concerned about its faltering under its own weight and failing to pass in the lifetime of the current Government. There are now many proposals to add to it.

There is also an issue that I felt quite important, namely, the reference in the report to training procedures for members of the Garda Síochána. There was particular mention of the approach adopted in Northern Ireland by the PSNI. Specialist child protection units were referred to as being very highly regarded there. It was thought that we could take a leaf out of their book and that the approach adopted in Northern Ireland could provide a useful model. I wonder if that recommendation has been followed. It would obviously be very difficult to implement a process whereby it could be acted on very quickly.

As far as the current proposal is concerned, I am very glad to lend the motion before the House my full support. I would like to raise another issue touched on by the Minister in his speech which concerned the situation in other dioceses. I understand that we would want to have a process to deal with dioceses where new guidelines were not operating satisfactorily, but at this stage I find it difficult to understand. I am somewhat impatient regarding where a diocese has put the necessary guidelines in place. It would be helpful if the Minister might outline the situation in that regard.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has a role. Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, know if any diocese has thus far failed to establish the structures referred to in his speech? If so, perhaps serious steps should be taken immediately to ensure they are put in place. I take the point that if it is merely a question of examining whether they are operating satisfactorily, that is a separate issue. However, perhaps the Minister might deal with that in his reply. Overall, I am very happy to give the motion before the House my full support on behalf of Fine Gael.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I once again welcome the Minister whose visits to the House are becoming regular events. I also welcome the motion. I would have preferred it to have been broader than it is, but it is welcome to see at last a commission of investigation being established to investigate the handling of allegations into child sexual abuse against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin and to examine the implementation by Catholic dioceses of church guidelines and the recommendations of the Ferns Report. The terminology may not be quite correct, in that the Anglican Church terms itself a Protestant and Catholic church. It also uses the words "Catholic" and "apostolic". For us to arrogate the Catholic version is not doing it justice. Is the Minister proposing to extend it to include "Protestant"? Did he just happen to omit "Protestant"?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will ring the Protestant Archbishop and ask him.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think he is happy with the manner in which we specified the church——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anyway, we can change that on Committee Stage.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad. The Archbishop will be delighted.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister might have got a belt of a crozier.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a relevant matter because the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act includes Protestant as well as Catholic institutions. Presumably, what we are doing here refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt the Minister will clarify all of that on Committee Stage.

Numerous allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy in the archdiocese of Dublin surfaced in the late 1990s and early 2000s and culminated in the explosive "Prime Time" programme, Cardinal Sins, in October 2002. The programme revealed that there were then 450 legal actions in progress as a result of clerical child sexual abuse allegations facing the archdiocese of Dublin. The programme detailed accounts of cases of abuse by eight priests, of which at least six archbishops were aware.

The Minister, Deputy McDowell, who was Minister at the time, in The Irish Times immediately declared that he was "very alarmed" by what he had seen and he found it "deeply disturbing". To be sure, he watched the programme a second time. Furthermore, he said he would brief the Cabinet immediately on the type of inquiry to be set up. However, the proposed inquiry was disgracefully put on hold by the Minister and the Government. I will give an example that indicates the position at the time.

I put down a parliamentary question in November 2002, shortly after I became spokesperson on justice, and I know how clearly and elaborately the Minister answers such questions. He gave me a two-paragraph reply to the question but it was interesting——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am told some of my answers are too long.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of them can be over-elaborate and may miss the point, despite the fact that they are so long, but some of them can be short and to the point. In this case the reply was quite short and to the point. The question was as follows: "To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he expects to announce details of the form of inquiry to be held into allegations of serious sexual abuse within the Dublin Archdiocese; if the inquiry will be limited to Dublin; if it will cover other areas in the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter". That was in November 2002. The Minister's crisp and specific response was as follows:

I am finalising proposals in relation to this matter which I hope to submit to Government shortly. The Deputy will appreciate that in advance of that submission I cannot definitively answer the questions he poses regarding the form and scope of such an inquiry. I assure the House that I am giving priority to this matter because of the grave nature of the issues involved.

That was more than three years ago. The Minister had an inquiry in mind. He intended to establish an inquiry. He had briefed the Cabinet. He found the report very disturbing and he was giving the matter priority. I wonder what would happen on a matter to which the Minister did not give priority.

The inquiry the Minister is now establishing will report in 18 months. There is one certainty about this inquiry; it will not report while the Minister is Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this Administration. I do not know what will happen afterwards.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is looking for the job.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure Deputy McGrath would have an eye on the job.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My seat is very dodgy.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason the Minister gave in subsequent questions I and other Deputies asked was to do with the outcome of the Ferns investigation but that investigation was not set up until March 2003. The Minister said the outcome of that investigation was awaited and that he did not want to do anything until that had come out.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which was very wise.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ferns is about one tenth the size of the Dublin diocese.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the point in terms of the timescale the Minister is providing for. He should provide for ten times the 18 months.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a good idea.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister must recognise the amount of work involved but I will come to that shortly.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A 15 year inquiry is an attractive idea.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is more than that. By drawing the line in 1975 the Minister is effectively giving an amnesty in terms of any offence committed prior to that time. In other words, he is drawing the line at a time when, according to the Ferns Report, considerable child sexual abuse was taking place in that diocese. It is wrong to draw the line in that arbitrary fashion and simply say it would be difficult to proceed beyond that. We know that a great deal of abuse took place in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and throughout the 1970s. What the Minister is doing is unfair. He should remember that he is not covering everything. He is covering only representative samples. The totality of what took place in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin could be captured if this arbitrary line were not drawn. The Minister should revisit this provision. Although many people who were abused in the 1930s and 1940s are now dead, many of them are still alive.

The timescale is probably the other major issue. A timescale of 18 months for an inquiry into an archdiocese the size of Dublin is clearly inadequate considering the number of cases which have already been alluded to, the amount of sampling that must take place, the complexity of the process and the fact that Judge Murphy must examine whatever material is given to her by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, regarding the audit of other dioceses. Other material must be examined. The Minister should ensure that the inquiry is allocated whatever time is necessary is carry out a thorough investigation.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Cuffe. We will not oppose this motion to approve the order establishing a commission of investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. People have been appalled by the revelations in the Ferns Report. The most damning aspect of the report was the failure of those in authority in the church and the State, including the Garda Síochána, to act to protect children who were being repeatedly and systematically abused.

With this order the Government intends to establish a commission of investigation into the archdiocese of Dublin. When the Ferns Report was issued, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, stated that the commission would investigate any Catholic diocese in the State following a notification from his office that the diocese in question may not be implementing church guidelines regarding child sexual abuse by a priest or a religious or may not be implementing the recommendations of the Ferns Report satisfactorily.

This area should be revisited. A commitment to an investigation into the archdiocese of Dublin has been given and should proceed but why should similar investigations into every Catholic diocese in the country not be held? Abuse could have occurred and been covered up in every diocese in the country. Why should investigations be limited to Catholic dioceses? What about investigations into other churches and institutions which deal and have dealt with children?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the 15-year proposal——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must interrupt the Minister as I have only three minutes in which to speak. Why should the decision of a Minister to establish an investigation be determined by church guidelines? The Minister's guidelines should be State guidelines and laws enacted by the Oireachtas. I would expect the Minister to be a champion of this principle.

I again appeal to the Government to extend the deadline for the inclusion of further institutions, among them the Morning Star mother and baby home, in the remit of the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Marie Therese O'Loughlin has stood outside the gates of Leinster House day and night for many weeks. It is shameful that she was forced to do so.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

She suffered horrific experiences as a child in a State which neglected her and many others and which still neglects her. Shame on those who could make the right decision in her case but who have failed to do so. I appeal to the Minister for an 11th hour change of heart.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important debate and motion. I welcome the commission of investigation to inquire into allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy operating under the aegis of the archdiocese of Dublin and to examine the implementation by the archdiocese of church guidelines and the recommendations of the Ferns Report. I will support this motion.

The Minister was correct in stating earlier that sexual abuse is associated with a range of adverse long-term effects, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and relationship problems. We must all acknowledge that the pain of sexual abuse lingers with victims for many years. We must also acknowledge that the damage inflicted on young children and people in the care of the Catholic Church and other institutions has led to suicide and alcohol and drug abuse. The most important people in this debate are the victims of abuse. They have suffered a nightmare of pain and anguish so the maximum amount of support and assistance must be offered to them.

It is important to pay tribute to the people who acted as whistleblowers. They worked with children and faced and exposed situations where abuse was taking place. Teachers who attempt to deal with child sexual abuse show great courage as they face threats of violence and intimidation as a result of their actions. I base this comment on my own experience as a primary school teacher. It is extremely difficult for an individual who uncovers the abuse of a young child. It is difficult for that individual to look at his or her own children and try to sleep at night after contacting the social services, knowing that young children are at risk. We should pay tribute to and look after the whistleblowers because they are often forgotten. Social workers and child care workers must be guaranteed our maximum support and protection because their work is very dangerous. Child abuse is a very dangerous issue with which to become involved.

It is important for the commission to deal fairly with the issues. Adequate compensation must be provided for the victims. Sadly, many victims are unable to move on and we must constantly be vigilant and look after them. We must also understand that many victims of child abuse have not and do not wish to disclose publicly the abuse they suffered. We must help this silent majority. A friend of mine, who is now married with two children, was raped at the age of 11. I can see that his suffering has continued.

We must be vigilant in the future because those who abuse children will adapt in the face of intervention strategies established to protect children from sexual abuse. Those who abuse children will not go away in the future. I welcome the establishment of this commission because it is a very important development.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I noted the Minister's remarks at the beginning of his speech. In light of yesterday's events, I was surprised he did not identify individuals in his address to the House given his remarks yesterday. Perhaps he has already given names to his friends in the Fourth Estate.

I welcome the Government's proposal, which contains a considerable amount of detail. Given that the commission will use a representative sample, I would have thought it might have been possible to examine the period before 1975. I accept the Minister's point that records produced before 1975 will be more difficult to obtain. However, if we are simply examining a representative sample of cases, we could extend the scope of investigation to the period before 1975 because we can limit the amount of cases being examined.

In that part of his speech which he did not get a chance to read, the Minister mentioned that Judge Yvonne Murphy has been offered the post of chair of the commission and I am glad to hear that she has accepted the offer. I reiterate Deputy Costello's point that it is important that everyone involved in the commission have the appropriate legal resources made available to them. I would hate to think that people would be concerned that they might not have the resources they need to carry out their duties, be they members of the public, the clergy or others.

The Minister spoke about the need to staff the commission. It is crucial that the people who are seconded or appointed to this office have an appropriate range of professional backgrounds and training. Sensitivity is a word that arises continually in this area. It is crucial that people working with the commission have the appropriate training to deal with others and cope with what they might uncover.

It is important that the clergy has sufficient resources. The Catholic Church is in crisis. Amidst a background of declining vocations, there may be problems in simply getting backroom staff. When it comes to looking at the files, sourcing them and pulling them out, I hope the Minister ensures that the church has sufficient resources to do it adequately.

I accept the point that this is a response to the "Prime Time" documentary that looked specifically at the Catholic Church in Dublin. However, a Pandora's box has been opened. It is for another time and another day, but many other bodies need to be examined, such as sports organisations that have already been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. I have no doubt this short, sharp response will lead to a greater investigation that will have to be carried out in the future. I accept this inquiry has to be short and quick. I would deeply regret if it carried on much longer than the 18 months specified, although I note that the Minister allows it to do so. It is important that we establish a coherent body of information that can inform us better on where we go in the future. I welcome this and commend the Minister in having got it this far. I wish him well in setting up the procedures.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their warm and supportive remarks. The commission will be established for 18 months. It will report not later than 18 months after its establishment. It is open to the Minister of the day to extend that time if it becomes necessary. It will comprise of a number of members. The Chair, Judge Murphy, will work full-time for the commission. The other three members will spend half of their time on commission work. Judge Murphy herself is a person——

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Have they been appointed?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, they are being selected in a consultative process. Judge Murphy has immense experience as a public servant, as a journalist, as an editor of a magazine and as a member of the staff of the National Social Service Board. In addition, she was at one stage a special adviser to the Tánaiste of this State. These are quite extensive qualifications for anyone carrying out this kind of work. She also has judicial experience in family law and other criminal law cases, which will be very important. I am very grateful to her for accepting the commission.

The staffing of the commission will comprise of a solicitor, two higher executive officers or administrative officers, two executive officers, five clerical officers as well as a senior counsel and five researchers. Projected staffing costs for the commission of investigation into child clerical abuse total €5.695 million, which includes €1.6 million for the legal costs of third parties, roughly 40% of the commission's own costs. The terms of reference permitted by the Act will be honed and perfected before the commission is established. The victims organisations have been consulted about all of this and they are, broadly speaking, happy with them. Many meetings were held with them.

There could be inquiries in every diocese in Ireland, in every non-Catholic diocese in Ireland and in areas which are not religious at all. It could be possible to abandon sampling as an idea. It would be possible to take away the 1975 guidelines and investigate incidents in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. However, there would be at least a century of investigation which could only be accomplished by 15 or 20 parallel inquiries, or by the establishment of some monumental statutory body that would never report back to us. The victims are happy with the approach being taken. Mr. Colm O'Gorman, to whom I want to pay particular tribute, has been entirely realistic about this. I thank him for his patience, because he has seen the political process that has brought us from where we were when this programme was shown to where we are now.

I thank the Deputies for their supportive remarks and I wish the commission good fortune in carrying out its functions. Once the motion is agreed by this House, I will bring a similar motion before the Seanad and I hope to establish the commission in the new year.