Síle de Valera (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the third interim report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, and related issues. It is important to remind Members of the House that the Government is the first in the history of the State to listen to what the victims of abuse were saying, to apologise to them on behalf of the State for the wrongs that had been committed against them as children and to take action to provide redress. It is as a result of the apology offered by the Taoiseach that so much has been achieved for the victims of abuse to date. The process started by the Government in 1998 continues.

Since 1998, the Government has put in place initiatives designed to assist former residents of institutions in which wrongs were committed. In particular, we have put the following in place for the first time: the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, comprising both the confidential committee and the investigation committee; a nationwide programme of counselling, operated under the auspices of the health boards, providing a free counselling service to all victims of abuse in childhood; a redress scheme through which victims of abuse in residential care can get financial compensation — the Residential Institutions Redress Board administers this scheme; ongoing support for survivor groups to ensure an information and referral service is available on a local and national level; outreach services are provided in the United Kingdom so survivors who moved there have access to all relevant information and advice; and the Barnardos Origins service to assist survivors in family tracing. I thank Ms Justice Laffoy and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse for the completion of its very detailed report. I welcome the report and am pleased to see that it provides at least some closure and confirmation of their experiences for the former pupils of the Baltimore Fisheries School. I remind everyone that the very valuable work the commission has completed in respect of Baltimore was one of the main purposes for which the commission was established, namely, to inquire into the abuse that occurred in these institutions and to report on it. This was the Government's intention at the time the commission was being established and continues to inform the manner in which the Government is dealing with this issue today.

The report deals with many aspects of the commission's work since its previous interim reports of May 2001 and November 2001. At the end of the remit of the commission, this report will form part of the broader picture of life for children in our institutions and will assist the commission in making recommendations for the future protection of vulnerable children.

The review refers to the manner in which requests for additional resources were dealt with and the manner in which the Department of Education and Science interacted with it in its role as a respondent to the commission. I would like to deal with each of these issues in turn.

The Department of Education and Science is the sponsor of the commission. Since the publication of the third interim report there have been renewed calls for this role to be removed from the Department. The position of Government on sponsorship of the commission by the Department of Education and Science is that it is appropriate that it should continue to act as sponsor. The Department of Education and Science's sponsoring of the commission is similar to the position of other Departments that are responsible for inquiries that come within their remit. For example, sponsorship of the Mahon tribunal lies with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the sponsorship of the Barr and Morris tribunals lies with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Since its establishment on a non-statutory basis, the Department has responded to the commission's request for resources as quickly as possible. As with all other Departments, this Department must and did submit each request for resources to the Department of Finance and-or Government for their consideration. The Department has been and will continue to be committed to supporting the commission.

The resourcing delays to which the commission refers in its third interim report primarily relate to the period since June 2002. The commission had requested a virtual doubling of its resources. Between June and December 2002, the Department corresponded with the commission on a number of occasions in order to clarify the commission's position regarding timeframe for delivery of its final report and estimated costings should these resources be sanctioned.

The Government, upon consideration of the matter, agreed in principle to the provision of the additional resources but was concerned that the provision of these additional resources in itself might not result in the work of the investigation committee being completed in a timely manner, taking into account its apparent lack of progress. It considered that the request for additional resources could not be considered in isolation and that it was also imperative to have the commission's procedures and underlying legislation reviewed to establish whether there was any scope to change or amend the Act which would expedite its work and reduce the cost to the Exchequer while still achieving the original objectives of the legislation.

The Government's view was that the difficulties faced by the investigation committee were more fundamental than the issue of resources. This has been confirmed by both the review conducted by the Attorney General and by Mr. Ryan's report on the working of the commission. It was and still is the view of Government that to allow the commission to continue with the hearing of more than 1,700 individual cases without any thought to the huge legal bill being incurred would not have been in the interest of either the survivors themselves or society.

The Department has at all stages made every effort to co-operate with and assist the work of the investigation committee of the commission. In this regard, the Department voluntarily handed over to the commission more than 500,000 pages of documentation between 2000 and 2002. Furthermore, by June 2003 it had provided the commission with approximately 1,900 statements relating to cases before the investigation committee. The commission has confirmed in its report that no statements are outstanding. In addition, it responded to 16 discovery directions issued to it.

It is accepted that there were some difficulties encountered, especially in complying with a small number of the discovery directions. However, in this regard, the commission's third interim report acknowledges that "some of the difficulties were caused, or contributed to by the Committee in that for example there was not sufficient clarity in the direction as to what was sought, or insufficient time was being allowed for compliance". In an effort to resolve difficulties that had arisen, the Department re-organised the manner in which it dealt with the commission in early 2003 and the residential institutions redress unit of the Department has since then acted as a focal point for dealing with all commission-related matters. That unit then seeks assistance or information, if required, from relevant sections. This approach ensures that this one unit is aware of all issues relating to the commission and, consequently, the Department is in a position to respond more effectively to discovery directions and any other matters. The commission confirms in its report that by the beginning of 2003, the Department was in the position of being able to engage constructively with it.

Furthermore, and in order to ensure that the Department's processes are above board, last December the Minister for Education and Science ordered an independent review of the process and procedures for the making of discovery by the Department of Education and Science to the commission. His intention in directing that such a review should occur was to ensure there would be full and complete co-operation with the commission and that any changes to be made in the manner in which discovery was being processed would be addressed. The former chairperson of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Mr. Matthias Kelly QC, was appointed to conduct this review. In addition to being completely independent of the Department, Mr. Kelly has considerable experience of sexual abuse litigation and is co-author of an article entitled "Child Abuse in Residential Homes" in the New Law Journal.

Mr. Kelly conducted his review over a two-week period that commenced on 5 January 2004. His terms of reference were to review the processes and procedures operated by the Department of Education and Science in making discovery to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and to make recommendations, as appropriate, regarding discovery by the Department of Education and Science.

In the course of conducting his review Mr. Kelly met with officials in the Department of Education and Science involved in the discovery process and with the legal team representing the Department as well as representatives of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. He also had access to all of the Department's records. The process of meeting with and interviewing persons relevant to his review has concluded and Mr. Kelly has returned to Britain to conclude his work on his report.

Considerable staffing resources have been put in place within the Department to ensure that the Department is in a position to fulfil its obligations to the commission both as sponsor and respondent. None of the staff within the Department dealing with this issue had any role to play in the operation of the institutions nor have any allegations made against them. All of the Department's efforts, both as sponsor of the commission and as a respondent to it, have been to ensure that the commission is enabled to carry out the task set it by the Oireachtas.

In this regard, the Department has, when necessary and in order to meet the deadlines imposed by the commission, increased the numbers of staff working on the responses to particular directions. For example, in responding to the abuse specific discovery direction of 10 March 2003, the Department took on an additional 16 persons, including six documentary counsel, to ensure the material was provided to the commission on time.

The House can be reassured that, in the event that at any future stage the issue arises of it being necessary to put additional resources in place within the Department in order to meet the requirements of the commission, they will be put in place.

Following the announcement by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy on 2 September 2003 of her intended resignation as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Government, on 26 September 2003, appointed Mr. Seán Ryan, SC, as chairperson designate of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. At that time and in advance of his being appointed to the chairmanship, the Government requested Mr. Ryan to immediately undertake an independent review of the working of the commission. Mr. Ryan's report is a lengthy one running to more than 70 pages. It was published on 15 January 2004 together with a review completed by the Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Ryan has concluded that a combination of legislative amendments to the original Act and alternative procedures being adopted by the investigation committee would result in the commission being in a position to complete its work within a reasonable timescale and without incurring exorbitant costs.

The Government has accepted Mr. Ryan's report and is currently arranging for the legislative changes recommended by him to be included in the amending legislation. Furthermore, Mr. Ryan has indicated that he intends to engage in a consultative process with a view to obtaining the opinions of all parties to the commission's work on the best way forward. The Department of Education and Science will participate fully and constructively in thisprocess.

The Government wishes to publish and put in place the legislation amending the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act as quickly as possible to enable the commission to proceed quickly and efficiently with its work. However, the ongoing litigation involving the Christian Brothers is an issue that must be taken into account before the legislation can be finalised. Indeed, Mr. Ryan in his report states that notice must be taken of the Christian Brothers' case and the potential effect of the ultimate judgment on the proceedings of the investigation committee. In his report Mr. Ryan states: "It is impractical to suggest that there could be amending legislation processed and enacted until the Murray/Gibson (Christian Brothers) litigation is determined."

As the final version of Judge Abbott's judgment in this matter was issued on 27 January, there is now a 21-day period during which parties to that case can decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue of when amending legislation may be published will become clearer over the next two to three weeks.

In conclusion, this Government remains totally committed to ensuring that the process to bring healing and some form of closure to those of our citizens who as children suffered abuse while in institutional care, will be completed within a reasonable timescale.