John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister to the House and I thank Senator Fitzgerald for allowing me to speak before him as I have another meeting at noon. I am glad to have this opportunity to outline a few points on this important legislation. To set the context for this legislation and today's debate, I would like to quote Mr. Justice Ryan. On his appointment in September 2003 as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, he was asked to conduct a review of the workings of the commission. It was clear that problems existed. In his review Mr. Justice Ryan said:

There is of course no simple measure, which will bring about the desired result. Any solution to the problems of the Investigation Committee of the Commission will necessarily require some adjustment of existing entitlements but I hope that it will be appreciated by everybody who considers the matter, that what is suggested in my report is a scheme which offers the most realistic prospect of a successful conclusion of the important work assigned to the Committee.

The purpose of the Bill before it is to give effect to the recommendations of that report. We must bear in mind the words of Mr. Justice Ryan when he said the report "is a scheme which offers the most realistic prospect of a successful conclusion of the important work assigned to the Committee". As a result, the same applies to the Bill. The circumstances leading to the Bill are not ideal. In many ways the changes it proposes are regrettable. Many people will rightly be disappointed with the Bill. While I would prefer if it were not necessary, I welcome and support it. Some will say that the background to this situation was the "States of Fear" series of programmes broadcast by RTE in 1999. However, this awful episode began many decades before that.

The investigation committee of the commission is to investigate child abuse alleged to have taken place over a period of 60 years. The oldest victim was born in 1926, when W.T. Cosgrave was President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State and Pius XI was Pontiff. The task given to the investigative committee, to investigate more than 100 institutions, in respect of over 1,700 complainants, was onerous. When I stated that the oldest victim was born in 1926, we must also remember that those accused of abuse are older than the complainants. Some of them are dead. Some left their congregations many years ago. Some have not been, nor ever will be, traced. Despite the formidable nature of the task, investigate we must. When announcing the measures relating to childhood abuse on the 11 May 1999, the Taoiseach said:

What the Government has decided on is not a break with the past; it is a facing up to the past and all that this involves. This may well be a painful process, but it cannot and should not be avoided.

The objectives from the start were to establish as clear a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the physical and sexual abuse of children in institutions and in other places and to afford victims of abuse in childhood an opportunity to tell of the abuse they suffered to a sympathetic and experienced forum. The Bill is part of that process. I accept that while it may not have been foreseen and may not even be desirable, it is, nonetheless, necessary. While some critics of the legislation claim that it is amending the 2000 Act despite the original, admirable objectives I have just listed, it is being introduced because of these original, admirable objectives. As Mr. Justice Ryan's review found, the primary legislation sought to marry the benefits of therapeutic telling of experience with those of vindication of complaints.

The problems of implementing the Act are created by excessive ambition. The Act tries to do too much at the same time. In the same way we as legislators had to enact the original legislation to establish as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of abuse, we also have a duty to address the problems in the process. While it may have taken time to discover the problems, which in hindsight were inherent from the beginning, the vastness of the undertaking only became apparent when the number of complainants opting for the investigation committee was known.

Politicians and legislators often face the criticism that when problems are identified, they are not addressed. We cannot allow that accusation to persist regarding this most serious issue.

The problems have been revealed and recounted by Mr. Justice Ryan. The essential problem with the commission is the work of the investigation committee and, according to the review, the essential problem of the investigation committee is one of case management. How can the allegations made by 1,712 complainants be handled within a reasonable time and at reasonable cost? The context of this Bill is Mr. Justice Ryan's correct assertion that the duration of the commission's work is of the greatest importance to all those who are concerned with its work and also to the public interest.

In her speech, the Minister outlined amendments such as that pertaining to the definition of a relative. In this regard, I ask that a clear definition of spouse is provided. I raised this in 2002 and at meetings of the Joint Committee on Education and Science. I am concerned about that definition as it is interpreted by other legislation that deals with inheritance and so on.

The persons for whom the original legislation was enacted to serve have had their childhoods ruined and adult lives blighted. What other group could be more deserving of our care and of a cautious legislative approach? Breaking a promise to them is difficult to countenance. On the other hand, we would be failing that same group if we did not take on board the recommendations of the review. In light of this, I welcome and support this Bill in the House today.