Brendan Ryan (Labour)

——I would inquire as to why a huge legal bill would not be in the interests of the survivors, particularly if it was necessary to allow them to be heard. Why do we discuss matters of this nature when it comes to the most vulnerable?

When the National Roads Authority struck a deal with farmers to compensate them for their land, nobody said that we could not do so because of the enormous bill involved. Why is it not in the interests of the survivors of abuse that a huge bill should be incurred for legal expenses? Why should each of the 1,700 not be heard? Is cost the only reason? What troubles the survivors is not the cost; they feel that what they have been put through has cost them their lives. The cost in financial terms is impossible to estimate. Why is the legal cost an issue? As for society, we must be required to confront our history. Any way which is not agreeable to the victims is not a confrontation of history.

There is a suggestion that difficulties arose as a result of inexperience. When the commission wrote to the Department on 26 July 2002 in an attempt to obtain clarification regarding the issue of compensation, the final statement about a decision in principle to provide for a compensation fund did not arrive until 3 October 2002. That was not inexperience. It was the pace of decision-making to which Departments are accustomed. It was the Department's determination that the matter would be dealt with in its way and in its time.

There is an account in the report about the extraordinary toing and froing regarding additional resources between June and December 2002. This is not my political opinion; it is what Ms Justice Laffoy wrote in her report. She stated that coupling the question of additional resources with a review of the commission's operations placed the latter in an impossible position. I did not say that, nor did the Opposition; it is stated in the report.

When the issue of selecting cases arose, Ms Justice Laffoy suggested that it should be statute-based whereas, quite clearly, the Government wanted the commission to carry out the selection. A letter about that matter was written to the Department on 25 March 2003. It took almost a month, in a letter dated 17 April 2003, for someone to reply to the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy was told that the publication of the review was a matter of political judgment. In other words the Government accepted responsibility for the delay. It was not a mistake. It was a political judgment. That is what is in the letter that was sent to the commission. It was not a mistake or an accident. It was a political decision for which the Government claimed authority and, therefore, responsibility.

Ms Justice Laffoy also stated that the commission was devoid of any real independent capacity to perform its statutory functions. I did not say that, nor did the Opposition; it is stated in the report. That is what was done to the commission. Ms Justice Laffoy proceeds to discuss the issue of compensation and the protection of the religious orders. She referred to the inconsistency between the Minister's statements about State culpability and the documentation supplied to her commission to justify it. Somebody is codding someone else. Statements were made accepting responsibility. Ms Justice Laffoy reasonably stated that if the State accepts that it has a major culpability, there must be some evidence to support it. The Department of Education and Science could, however, produce no evidence. This is the history of this matter. This is not me or the Opposition exaggerating; it is stated in the report. The most upsetting aspect of the Minister's speech is the failure to address those issues.

An order for discovery was issued on 10 March 2003 and the affidavit was supplied on 27 July 2003. Ms Justice Laffoy points out that this discovery affidavit did not appear to comply with the rules of the superior courts. Does the Department of Education and Science not know the rules of the superior courts about affidavits? Does it not have legal advice on how to do these things? Of course it does. We have to conclude there was a reason for not doing so. Ms Justice Laffoy also criticised the format. She concluded in the report that the Department has not adopted a constructive approach. That is not a suggestion of mistakes; it is a clear statement about the Department.

The Department has referred to the huge volume of material. Did it not know what was involved when it established the commission? The officials appear to have been surprised. Members of the Oireachtas knew what was involved but apparently the Department did not. However, the Department was quick to give itself extra resources due to the volume of work. That was quite correct but it is a pity it demonstrated an extreme reluctance to give similar increases in resources to the commission. That was a deliberate decision too.

The establishment of a review of the way the Department complies with discovery began on 5 January and has not yet reported. Ms Justice Laffoy has been talking about the Department's ineptitude in this area for two years but the Department only started the review, as a political cover, on 5 January. This is not simply a matter of mistakes being made but of political, administrative and managerial priorities. Clearly, this commission is low in the Department's priorities.