Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the first occasion the House has met since the publication of the Ryan report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. I speak as a citizen, a father and a politician. Mary Brown is a pseudonym. She was taken from her mother when she was born. Her mother was put in a mental hospital for 40 years. She had no birthdays, no school, she was beaten, savaged, raped, brutalised and she was a slave. She wondered and wonders what she was born for and what is her purpose in life. She said to me that she has cried the equivalent of the River Liffey over the years. Not a night or day passes without her feeling the hurt, pain, the need for love and the need for atonement. It shames us all and leaves every person with a measure of guilt. This is an horrific story and a sad saga for the children of the island of saints and scholars.

The least we can do is extend a hand of unity, solidarity and friendship to these brave men and women who grew up with these terrible crimes so vivid in their minds and imprinted on their souls. It is not for me or anyone else to point the finger of political accusation. I extend to the Taoiseach and the Government the hand of unity, political solidarity and political necessity to deal with the consequences of these horrendous revelations. There must be a response from the religious institutions that provides real support for the victims and recognises the moral imperative of the revelations to which everyone has access. There must be an understanding that there are many whose stories have not been told and who now find the courage to come forward.

This unity should be based on three fundamental principles. The religious orders should make a greater financial contribution. That should be agreed and formalised, not discretionary. The victims of this appalling abuse, those who have recently come forward and those who want to come forward should be consulted in some form on what they consider a necessity to bring some sense of conclusion to this. Mary Brown told me it is not just about money; what is a child's life without love?

I propose that we agree a united motion in this House this week formulating these three fundamental principles and send out a message to everybody in this country and beyond that we have not lost our sense of purpose. We should indicate that the Oireachtas, representative of all the people in this country, is able to respond in a dignified and united fashion that understands - or attempts to understand - the horrendous position in which thousands of this country's children found themselves for years. Such people are still in that position in their adult lives. I extend this invitation and will support the Government if the Taoiseach agrees that this House should send out that kind of message.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, the State and all our citizens, I reiterate the sincere apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, detect their pain or come to their rescue. The report of the commission confronts the stark reality of what was a systemic abuse of children, which is a blight on the face of this country and its history. I hope the House can, through the Whips, come forward with a united motion that would enable us in our two-day debate to discuss the matter on an agreed basis. That should be attempted in any event.

With regard to what has been said, a special Cabinet meeting will take place this evening to seek to address all relevant aspects of this case and begin our detailed consideration of what is a voluminous report of over 2,500 pages. The executive summary alone in its reading exemplifies and sets out in a very graphic fashion the horrendous and harrowing nature of the experiences of so many who were in institutional care but who were obviously betrayed in terms of the trust bestowed on those acting on behalf of the State in regard to their benefit and care.

There was a contribution through the agreement reached and there is a very strong sense in this community and throughout the country - it has been exemplified and articulated by some eminent church men - that the moral responsibility in respect of these matters, which have been brought in such graphic detail to public attention, remains with all of us and with those congregations which had the responsibility for caring for these children in institutions. They clearly failed in that duty of care and the State also has its culpability in failing in its duty of care.

That moral responsibility extends to doing everything possible to ensure a contribution commensurate in some way - it will not be adequate - to the terrible harm done to so many people should be forthcoming. The Government will discuss this evening in what way we can give further voice to that and ways to ensure that further contribution is made in respect of both the redress scheme and continuing care and welfare of survivors, along with the lessons which need to be learned for the future.

It is the legal advice before Government that it is not possible to reopen that agreement. That in no way hinders additional voluntary contributions being made by those congregations as an indication of the sincerity of their position as a result of the graphic and horrendous details which form the central part of this report.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My request for all-party unity on this matter is based on that point. I would like to think and expect that the Taoiseach would arrange a meeting with the religious institutions and my view is that an all-party motion this week on this matter would be of great support to the Taoiseach and the Government in giving a cross-party Oireachtas view of the moral responsibility of religious institutions.

I fully understand the Taoiseach's comment about the wider debate on the Ryan commission, which will happen when the Dáil resumes after the election process. That is a matter for another day. I am concerned now about the message that the Oireachtas can send out this week with the first opportunity it has to address the consequences and findings of the Ryan commission.

I think of Mary Brown's tears to me last weekend when she recounted for me in graphic detail her being dragged from a black Volkswagen car by a child protection officer, her pants pulled down and her being raped in County Cork. It is for people like this that we need, as an Oireachtas and irrespective of our party political affiliations, to send out a message of support and solidarity.

I strongly recommend that the Taoiseach arrange with the Whips immediately on the conclusion of the Order of Business for us to come in tomorrow morning with a simple agreed motion of unity with a basis of support for the victims and the moral responsibility of religious institutions to face up to the consequences of this by making a greater contribution. The victims of these appalling incidents should be consulted and new people who have the courage to come forward should be taken into the arms of the Government in that sense. These fundamental principles should be enshrined in a simple motion that every Member of the Oireachtas can respond to in full and in total solidarity in dealing with this.

Mary Brown is a bright and intelligent woman. If one spoke to her for ten minutes, one would be convinced that the power of argument in her speaking from her soul is so strong that, irrespective of any political divide on any other issue, there should be unity about this. I strongly recommend to the Taoiseach and ask him again that we have a simple motion of unity and solidarity arising from the findings and publication of the report. We can deal with an all-party agreement in respect of the details of the Ryan commission when the House resumes in a couple of weeks.

There are other matters which need to be dealt with in respect of child protection and safeguarding as well. For now, there is a river of sentiment and powerful emotion among our people that this be dealt with. I extend across this Chamber the hand of political unity in the interests of all our people, the victims of abuse and the children, which we all were once. This is an occasion for the State to respond as a state. I offer that element of political leadership from this side of the House and I hope the Taoiseach will accept it in the spirit in which it is given.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Everyone in this House is appalled in equal measure by the terrible litany of crimes and abuse which is so clearly set out in this report. It is very important the House finds a way of showing a unity of purpose in acknowledging the contents and implications of the Ryan report. For that reason, it is a matter for the Whips to decide the format. I am not precluding it or setting out any issue to it but if they decide to have it this week and a two-day debate is agreed, there would be a need for motion to be put before the House.

The Government will discuss all these matters in great detail this evening. Without anticipating the outcome of that meeting, it would be my intention to ask the congregations to meet and indicate what further steps will now be taken in light of what has been stated in and the conclusions of this report. I welcome the statement made by the Christian Brothers this afternoon. It stated:

... the Brothers, in consultation with former residents and other stakeholders, including Government, will review how our resources can best be applied in reparation for abuses of the past and as an investment in child education and welfare for present and future generations. This review process will extend to all of our resources above and beyond such accommodation and means necessary to maintain the members of our Congregation and to support selected commitments at home and overseas.

I hope the remaining congregations will indicate similarly that they are minded to do the same or make a further important gesture to the victims in the aftermath of the report's publication. I hope they will be forthcoming. However, the Government will discuss this further this evening. It is my intention to seek that meeting.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party is willing to co-operate in agreeing a joint motion and having a non-partisan and non-adversarial discussion of this report, its conclusions and the steps needed to be taken and the lessons learned from it.

No amount of compensation will ever compensate the victims for what they have suffered. No motion of this House will ever undo the damage done. No words spoken in here will ever take away the hurt the victims are suffering. As we saw last night on television, victims of this horrible abuse are living with the pain every day. I agree this issue needs to be debated quickly and conclusions in the House and between the Government and the religious orders need to be reached quickly. This is necessary because the dragging out of the issue will only contribute further to the pain the victims are suffering.

It would, however, be a mistake if we did not ourselves as a State face up to some very painful facts. The big question the House, the Government and all of us in public life must ask ourselves is not one concerning the horrific crimes committed against children and pointing the finger at those who committed them, but how it was allowed to happen. How was it that when these children, their families or people acting on their behalf came forward, no one believed them, no one wanted to believe them or no one wanted to hear? Why was it that Department inspectors turned a blind eye?

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why too did Secretaries General?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did Ministers and senior officials in Departments turn a blind eye? Why did gardaí or those in communities who heard of these abuses turn a blind eye?

A clue to this is to be found in recent comments made by the Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Michael Woods. In the case of Deputy Bertie Ahern, he has accused those of us seeking a reopening of the 2002 indemnity deal as being somehow anti-clerical. In the case of Deputy Woods, he has explained why he did not include the Attorney General in discussions because, as he put it, the legal people had fallen out with the religious. Therein lies a clue as to why the blind eye was turned over decades. There was an unhealthy deferential relationship between the State and its institutions and the Catholic Church and its religious orders. Until we honestly, as a country, Government and Parliament, face up to it and face it down to determine it will never happen again, we will again be failing the victims of these awful crimes.

The blind eye was turned and people did not or did not want to listen because of the danger of a belt of the crozier, the denunciation and accusation of being anti-clerical or being put out of step with the social consensus of the times. It is not enough for us to say this abuse was awful, move on from it and put it back under the carpet again. We have to face and deal with an unhealthy relationship which persisted for far too long in this State. That is why the 2002 deal made between Deputy Bertie Ahern's Government, his Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and the religious orders needs to be revisited. It is not because of the money. It is not about revenge because that gets us nowhere. It is about justice. It is about restoring the balance and ensuring they did not get away with it. It is about ensuring that as a people and a country that we have moved on from those horrific times in which children could be abused behind closed doors and walls while people did nothing about it because they were afraid.

This is not about politics. Will the Taoiseach speak to the religious orders about reopening the deal? Let us forget about the legalities of the agreement made. I note the Taoiseach welcomed, as I do, the statement from the Christian Brothers this afternoon. Could a fund be established whereby the compensation contributions be done on a 50:50 basis, along the lines of the advice given by the Department of Finance at the time, which could assist those who suffered from the horrendous ordeal and abuse in these institutions over many decades?

I will co-operate with whatever motion is tabled. However, I believe the conclusion and closure of this will necessarily involve revisiting the 2002 indemnity deal with a real and meaningful contribution made by the religious orders. This is what the people want to see happening too.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Iarraim ar an Taoiseach anois.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, I ask Deputy Gilmore to withdraw-----

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no point of order during Leaders' Questions.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot-----

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----the slanderous and scurrilous statement he made in respect of me.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is a crawthumper.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me speak please. I refer to the statement he made about me in respect of the Attorney General-----

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Woods to wait. While I will listen to the Deputy, he must understand that we are in the middle of Leaders' Questions at present. I will return to the Deputy when Leaders' Questions have concluded.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, a lie of that sort-----

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should withdraw that.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will return to the Deputy. While I will allow the Deputy to-----

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

------which was scurrilous-----

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----to raise the matter on the Order of Business, I cannot allow him to do so now.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is a crawthumper.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, on how this could have happened, it is undoubtedly true that this represents a systems failure of huge magnitude over many decades. It is important to recognise that while much of what happened took place many decades ago, it in no way takes from the fact that there was a systems failure, as well as a failure to ensure that where wrongdoing occurred, it was corrected and redressed.

In fairness to my predecessor and the Government he led in 1998, which was some years after the programme on Goldenbridge was broadcast, it was then taken on board that such people's stories would have to be heard, a counselling service would be put in place and a commission would be set up to investigate the allegations of child abuse. It also was taken on board that subsequently, a redress scheme would be put in place and that we would proceed in a manner that would confront this dark corner of our past. In fairness to both Ms Justice Laffoy and Mr. Justice Ryan, the outcome of that comprehensive investigation, which gives voice to more than a thousand people and witnesses who came before the commission and the many thousands who have been able to go before the redress board, has been, however belatedly, a sincere attempt by the Government on behalf of the State and the people, to seek in some fashion to redress the wrongs that undoubtedly have been done.

The system that was in place clearly was inadequate in many respects and a grave injustice was imposed upon generations of people who, together with their children, were obliged to contend with what clearly was the oppressive nature of that institutional setting. This was the experience of many people. While this must be said, I also defend the Government's action in 1998 and the subsequent steps it took to confront this issue in a way that all previous Administrations had not been in a position to do. Moreover, everyone in that Government acted in good faith in this respect.

Second, on the agreement that has been referred to in the Deputy's statement, it is important to point out that the State's liability in this matter is independent of any indemnity agreement. Its liability in this matter arose out of acts and omissions of the State or its agents in the management of these institutions over many decades. At that time, anything up to 2,500 cases existed that eventually would end up in court with all the confrontational issues arising therefrom, as well as all the issues that arise under the Civil Liability Act 1961, as amended, as to how one would allocate responsibility and guilt in respect of the State and its agents. The need to avoid this adversarial situation, in so far as possible, was an important consideration. While putting victims at the centre of concern, there was a need to find a way in which redress could be made while at the same time allowing their story to be told and this was the entire purpose of the Government's response in setting up the commission, subsequently adopting the redress scheme and providing immediately comprehensive counselling services, which were a basic requirement.

I also make the point in respect of the indemnity agreement that rather than the State being obliged to follow on thereafter to try to find a way in which redress could be obtained from the institutions or the religious orders, the agreement imposed a responsibility on them to make a contribution towards the cost, which then was indeterminate, and this also was an important consideration. The indemnity agreement imposes a legal obligation on the religious orders to make such a contribution to the moneys to be paid by the State to victims.

The only other way in which an obligation could be imposed on religious orders to make a payment by way of a contribution to compensation was by fighting each claim of abuse through the courts and such an option was fraught with difficulties. It is important to be fair to everyone and as a member of that Government, I take my collective responsibility for that decision and for the means by which it came about, which were in line with procedures, as a memorandum came before the Government. I also make the point that it was because of the then Government's concern for victims that it sought to avoid a situation whereby a more confrontational outcome could have been in prospect.

However, regardless of the legalities of the agreement, this House, in the aftermath of the publication of this report, will make the case that there is a strong moral responsibility to make whatever further contributions can be made by those congregations in the interests of ensuring that the State, the victims and the people can see that every possible effort is being made by congregations and by the State to redress the wrongdoing that has been imposed upon the people concerned. I believe this to be the obligation that now has emerged. Moreover, as I stated, the indemnity agreement itself provided an ability to impose an obligation within the terms of the agreement on a contribution to be made. What has emerged now, as far as I am concerned, is the need for all the congregations, apparently now led by the Christian Brothers, to give a further commitment to provide whatever resources are available to them towards the establishment, by whatever mechanism, of a means that would ensure the people will perceive that further reparation and recompense will be made at this time.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach, perhaps with the Minister for Education and Science, call in the religious orders to discuss these matters? I note his comments regarding the imperative on the religious orders to make a bigger and better contribution. In recent days, I have heard and welcome the comments that have been made by leading figures in the Catholic Church, including Cardinal Brady, the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Down and Connor. However, I also heard the highly trenchant response from the religious orders to the effect that they do not wish to make a bigger contribution. I hope the statement made by the Christian Brothers this evening constitutes a change from that position. However, the Taoiseach and possibly the Minister for Education and Science, as the deal was made through that Department, must meet the religious orders as quickly as possible to further matters and to secure an appropriate contribution from those orders to whatever fund is to be established.

I am delighted to hear from Deputy Woods on the issue. It is a pity that in 2002 he did not bring the indemnity deal before the House for approval. What he did was to bring before the House the Residential Institutions Redress Act Bill, which enjoyed cross-party support at that time as the appropriate way of dealing with this issue. However, the indemnity deal which apportioned the various liabilities and which capped the contribution of the religious orders was never brought before the House. Some mechanism should be devised in the House which would give Deputy Woods ample opportunity to say what he has to say about that deal, how it was concluded, who was and was not present and what advices were provided. If, arising from that, there is anything I must withdraw, Deputy Woods or anyone else will not have to ask me to do so. However, in the first instance, we need to hear an awful lot more about what went on in the summer of 2002.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness, the Committee of Public Accounts looked into this matter in some detail and correspondence between party leaders also took place at the time in terms of fair and reasonable questions being put and the Taoiseach of the day responding to clarify the Government position. I make the point that it is a feature of governmental power and of Government to be in a position to settle or dispose of cases against the State in the normal way under the Civil Liability Acts 1961 to 1964. One should not suggest that there is not a vires within Government to do this as Government does it all the time in terms of claims against the State. Therefore, the question of Government making that decision was totally in consonance with its powers and obligations, and any suggestion to the contrary is not helpful to the debate because it is not correct.

Second, in regard to this question of a meeting with the congregations, after the Government has given full consideration to all of these matters, I will, of course, as I have indicated to Deputy Kenny, seek to meet the representatives of the congregations. Regardless of the legalities of the situation, the issues we have to contend with here are the fact that this report graphically sets out the needs of victims and the imperative of ensuring that the right thing is done to redress what has happened and the suffering the victims have endured. The Government will not be deterred from this; we will seek to do it and we will do it. I hope the statement by the Christian Brothers today is a prelude to a similar disposition among all of the congregations to now meet their responsibilities, as they are seen, in the interests of a credible response to the appalling litany of abuse that marks the contents of this important report.

Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to-----

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will call the Deputy following the Order of Business. I cannot give time on Leaders' Questions to any Member other than the leaders.