Mary Henry (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I would like to add to what was said by Senator Ulick Burke and Senator Minihan. We are quite sure of the Minister's bona fides in trying to bring forward the best possible legislation to deal with this very difficult situation. Like other Members, I have been in contact over the years with many people who were abused in the various institutions in this country. One can never be in a position to do enough to try to help them. It is not possible for us to understand their great pain and loss.

I took great interest in the Minister's speech, in particular, two parts of it. The first dealt with the investigation committee and the second dealt with the public hearings which are now being brought forward so that we could look at the historical basis of how child abuse emerged as an issue in this State. I have been concerned about the reports of these debates. In Letterfrack and in Dangan, it appeared to me that people were speaking in public about a time which they did not really know. Many of them are currently very senior members in the orders which had run these institutions and may not have been there at the time people were admitted. Distress has been caused to some people who were within those institutions where they felt that the sufferings that went on were minimised. It was known decades ago that abuse was going on in these institutions. The Kennedy report came out but we did nothing about it. It was not until five years ago that anything significant was done. I am anxious that many people feel that what is being said in public now is not exactly what happened.

The Minister has made changes to the way the investigation committee and the confidential committee will work in the future. She stated that the changes to bring forward witnesses will not be mechanical whereby a certain percentage or proportion of complainants are called to give evidence before the investigation committee. I hope that everyone who wants to come forward, can come forward. It is very important for the healing process that people feel that they have had their day before the committee. It looks to me as if this may not be so, but if the Minister can reassure me when she replies, I would be very grateful. The Minister stated that the way the commission will now work will reduce the likelihood of people who are less able for adversarial hearings being subjected to examination and cross examination before gatherings of lawyers and other interested parties. I strongly support anything she wants to do in that manner.

A letter appeared in The Irish Times on 19 May from a psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Corry, who has appeared before the commission. What he wrote was very disturbing. As we are all aware, the committee in question sits in private. In his letter, Dr. Corry states:

I have given evidence to the board on three occasions on behalf of three patients, all victims of layers of abuse, in particular sexual. Two of these have been under my care for over ten years. All will bring their pain and suffering to the grave. I was not allowed to be present when they gave evidence, nor indeed were their partners, a friend, an advocate, no one of personal significance.

I ask the Minister to address that. It is very difficult for someone to be in court without any friend. It is hard that those victims who come forward do not know what other evidence is given. I can only quote what Dr. Corry says. He continues:

They were alone. Alone in attempting to articulate their exposure to regimes of unbridled rape and violence which lasted for years, at the hands of sadistic sexual perverts answerable to no one. Alone in telling about how their chance of a normal life was diminished from the beginning. About how they learned to place no value on themselves, and with their lives totally derailed following their release at 16 years old, drifted from one crisis to another for the rest of their lives.

One patient was left alone, on the verge of a panic attack due to the intensity of his fear, to tell the board of a past littered with criminal behaviour, prison records, substance misuse, dysfunctional relationships, mistrust of authority, and family breakdown. I found the discomfort of waiting in a side room to give evidence, aware of my patients' fears and worries, unbearable. They dreaded getting a panic attack, a flashback to an incident of abuse, a rush of uncontrollable anger that would alienate the chairman and jeopardise the outcome.

In giving my sworn evidence I felt under time pressure, and worse, that I was an unwelcome irritation slowing down the proceedings. An atmosphere of minimisation prevailed. It was impossible to present a complete picture.

The "board" consisted solely of a judge and a medical doctor.

Looking at this new Bill, it appears to me as if the board can now consist of one person. Dr. Corry continues:

On two occasions that doctor, having had no experience of working with traumatised or abused children, let alone a qualification in psychiatry, was nonetheless there for the purpose of contributing to a judgment on the compensation deemed appropriate for each victim.

Not being a court, it is held in secret, away from the eyes of the community, and no perpetrator of a crime is ever sentenced to a punishment.

To this day, I am confused about those who are indemnified from litigation by the Government. I read a report by the Committee of Public Accounts and sections 4.87 and 4.88 address the issue of who is indemnified from litigation. In the report, there are some extraordinary parts where the then Attorney General, now a Minister, "flatly contradicted that this was his understanding of the position". In other words, people did not have to make a claim before the redress board for those against whom they were claiming to be eligible. It is a source of great confusion to me. The report states:

The Attorney General's office had been, effectively, out of the loop since the previous negotiations broke down. No reply was received. The Committee asked why it had taken so long to reply to the Attorney General's queries.

If there was such confusion at that significant time between the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Education and Science, it is very hard for any of us to know what the situation was. It should be remembered that the then Attorney General is now a Minister.

According to Dr. Corry's letter:

No apologies were offered as no one representing the religious orders can be held responsible. Justice for the victim is not the purpose; only financial compensation.

Dr. Corry also wrote:

The award is conditional on them signing a secrecy agreement and a waiver to taking further legal action. If the victims disclose the amount they were awarded or discuss the facts of the case in public, they face criminalisation.

That criminal cases can be taken against the victims is a matter we must address in the Minister's Bill.

Dr. Corry's letter continued to outline what happens before the committees, making very sad reading, but there was little response to it apart from a letter from Celine Henry, no relation, and Paddy Doyle of St. George's Villas, Inchicore. Ms Henry said she felt that while we could not undo the deliberate abuse of so many children in the past, we cannot plead ignorance. She suggested action should be taken. Mr. Doyle wrote:

I would like very much to comment on Dr. Michael Corry's letter concerning the Residential Institutions Redress Board. However, as one who gave evidence to the board, I am prohibited from saying anything under penalty of a €25,000 fine and/or two years imprisonment.

While it is very important to ensure those who were abused have the right to come before the committee, I cannot be sure from the Minister's contribution if that will be the case.

It has been well recognised for years that the education provided to people within residential institutions was woeful. The Minister was, therefore, quite right to try to establish an education finance board. It was odd that when the original legislation was enacted, it was passed one month before the educational trust with CORI was agreed. Not being a lawyer, I do not know where that leaves the legislative position, but it has always struck me as odd. There have been people who have said the process is not being used well but the Minister has taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to ensure it is better administered. I am very grateful that she has done so.

Senator Minihan spoke about who should and should not be able to apply and said spouses will not be so permitted. The Minister did the best she could in the Dáil. I have heard that 100 spouses have applied but some people have asked how they were affected by what happened within the institutions. If they are, I am not quite sure the Minister is not right to leave that in despite strong representations to us that it should be taken out. It will have to be discussed on Committee Stage. To marry someone without realising how devastating a time he or she had in the past could have important effects.

I am very glad the Minister has rectified the Ombudsman provisions. People would have felt they were being very hard done by if the Ombudsman had not been included. As we keep saying, this must never happen again. While the Minister will remember that when she brought the Children Act through the House we were all very supportive of it, she and I did not agree on a minor but important matter relating to the placing of children in residential care. If children are in residential institutions on foot of convictions against them, the institutions are inspected every six months. The institutions in which children are placed on foot of neglect are inspected only periodically. Contrary to the Minister's wishes, both groups of children are often placed together.

When she replied on my amendment which proposed regular inspections at six-month intervals of the institutions in which children are placed on foot of neglect, the Minister said there were an insufficient number of inspectors. I am sure she was right given that we are having enough problems getting inspectors to visit nursing homes. Children who are placed due to neglect, however, are probably even more vulnerable than children with criminal convictions. Neglect could involve parents or guardians but children with criminal convictions may, unfortunately, come from families who are enthusiastic to have them out and about with them again. If the Minister can do anything about it, she should take the matter on board. Abuse happens because places are not inspected on a regular basis. I would be very grateful if the Minister could ensure something is done.

I am delighted the Minister has brought the legislation forward. She is aware that there are concerns about it, many of which she addressed in the other House. I hope she will be able to address some of the other concerns which have been raised in the Seanad.