Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minster to the House. I am sorry I could not hear SenatorHenry's full contribution as the little I heard suggested she made a number of points on which I would have liked to be able to comment. I heard her discuss the inspectorate issue, which is relevant in other areas and which the Minister and ourselves will bear in mind.

As we were told growing up, a mistake is no longer a mistake if you learn from it. We are certainly on a learning curve in this instance as are people in other countries in which the same terrible and unfortunate events took place. None of us knows the best way in which redress can be provided to the victims of abuse, their rights vindicated and their allegations validated in the public arena. We are all in this together as Members of the Oireachtas working with the Government to establish the best formula. The Minister's Bill represents a substantial, significant step forward to facilitate the efficient, timely and cost-effective delivery of the service originally envisaged to address the issue in question.

We are no less scandalised on successive occasions on which we rise to talk about child abuse than we were when we first addressed the matter in 1999 and 2000. Every time we hear about it, it becomes more sickening and as more examples are brought to our attention, we become angrier. We are angry at the abusers and at those who facilitated, sheltered and protected them to enable them to continue with their abuse uninterrupted and unchallenged for such long periods of time. It is of no significance that these matters happened many decades ago before the reform of the 1970s and it does not justify what happened. Our predecessors in the Houses of the Oireachtas took no action and failed to acknowledge their responsibility as legislators for all the children in the State though I am sure that on many occasions over the period they acknowledged the constitutional rights of children. We must put those harrowing times of physical, mental and sexual abuse in context to establish a scintilla of understanding of the ignorance, reluctance, denial and apathy of the State and successive Governments.

There are many examples which we could cite today, but I will refer to the case of the Baltimore Fisheries school in the context of which 21 former residents gave sworn evidence of their horrible experience of appalling abuse and deprivation.

It was terrible hardship. There were horrific stories of physical and sexual abuse. Many other stories have come out that are no less horrifying and that are likely to induce anger.

If I was asked what is the fundamental principle underpinning the Bill I would say, "justice delayed is justice denied". That is primarily what the Minister has in mind, apart from the other obvious and justifiable considerations. The proposed changes to the two Acts for the roll-out of this service are very important to refocus the work, fast-track the timeframe for the delivery of the final report and reduce the legal costs that were originally envisaged.

The Government is the first in the history of the State to face up to the issue of child sexual abuse, to listen to the victims, to apologise to them — as the Taoiseach did in May 1999 — and to put a strategy in place to deal with the matter. The Government's action is an acknowledgment that we have been very wrong over the years in allowing our children to be incarcerated in such horrible places and in allowing them carry with them the physical, psychological and other scars they bear into adulthood.

The Government's commitment led to the setting up of the commission with a dual structure. The confidential committee and the investigations committee components have already been referred to here today and in the other House. The confidential committee is the forum in which people come to tell their stories. It is an important part of the healing process for victims to talk to experienced people in a forum in which the investigative process does not play a part. I understand it is working very well. I do not have the up-to-date figure as quoted by the Minister today. The figures I have are from 19 April when the cases of 1,060 witnesses had been heard and 35 cases were still outstanding. It is heartening that this committee is working extremely well.

The investigations committee ran into difficulties because its work involved carrying out detailed inquiries akin to trials into allegations of abuse. Before we look at the merits of the Bill we must look at the background that gave rise to it and why it was necessary to bring it forward. I share the sentiment of other speakers that it would have been preferable if there had been no need to bring the Bill forward but we must accept that it is necessary that it should be brought forward.

With the progress of the work of the investigations committee it became obvious that the delivery of the final report would not be done within the original timescale of two years. The commission advised that it would take eight to 11 years before the process would be concluded as there were 1,957 applications to the investigation committee. It became clear that it was unrealistic to expect the report to be delivered on target.

The implications for costs were also becoming more significant. One estimate of costs put the legal bill at €200 million. It was also likely the publication of the report might be challenged because the alleged abusers might consider they were not getting due process. A review was set up, initially by the Attorney General and subsequently by Mr. Justice Ryan. The Bill is the product of those reviews.

I commend the Minister on the Bill which was subjected to significant consultation with survivor groups and all other interested parties. I believe the Bill is a good one which will achieve its three objectives of fast-tracking the final report of the commission, making the process more efficient and producing results at lower legal costs than originally envisaged.

Two key elements of the Bill have been the subject of debate. One of these is the removal of the requirement that the investigation committee should interview each individual applicant. Although there is a some disagreement with this change, I support it because there are compelling reasons for it. There are 1,300 applicants and if each one were to be given an individual hearing the process could go on for ever, not just for eight to 11 years. Mr. Justice Ryan recommended this change. If the change were not introduced many of the victims could have passed away before they would have a chance to be heard. They have waited for long enough as it is. Not alone would many of the victims have passed away but many of the abusers would also no longer be around. That is not the objective for which this strategy was put in place in the first instance. There are many compelling reasons the change should take place, and I fully support the Minister in this regard.

The second proposed change is that the discretion of the commission to name individuals who have been found guilty of child abuse is being restricted to people who have already been found guilty in a court of law of a criminal offence of child abuse, or to those who have already pleaded guilty to such an offence. That is a necessary, desirable and sensible change to the legislation. I support these two key provisions, in addition to the other provisions such as the one referred to by Senator Henry which would allow an individual member of the board to conduct a particular hearing. She was concerned that this would mean that the board in that instance would be a board of one member. That is a legitimate question.

As an aside may I say I am sorry I do not have the same tolerance of heat as other Members of the House. I should have requested a fan but did not do so.

On the naming of individuals, I can see from where the Minister is coming and I can see the advantage of using that device to fast-track the system. If and when the situation arises that one member of the board interviews a particular applicant, would that member be obliged to go back to the full board? Supportive as I am of the proposal, I accept that Senator Henry may have a point.

While people are opposed to the first proposal, it is important to point out that others are supportive of it. I omitted to mention that one member of the survivors group from Artane, from where there were some 400 applications for individual hearings, made the point strongly to The Irish Times some time ago that not every individual applicant from a large group like that from a particular institution has to be heard to enable the commission to know what exactly went on there. That is an important point which I consider as a further endorsement of what the Minister is proposing.

The Minister has also proposed to amend the Residential Institutions Redress Act. She stated the amendments to this legislation are mainly technical in nature. One of the changes proposed would allow an applicant who has received an award a two-week period for the withdrawal of an application for review to the residential institutions review committee. That is most sensible. At times, on foot of an award, people can rush into making decisions to apply for a review, which is not necessarily always the wisest course. It is wise to provide a two-week period for people to consider and reflect on their decisions.

Another important change relates to the giving of false evidence. Anyone who gives false evidence, not just an applicant, may be liable to prosecution for perjury. I welcome this proposal. Other speakers have commented on the education fund for survivors. The legislation will set up an education and finance board and give statutory effect to the provision of €12.7 million. This is very important and I welcome it very much.

As regards the education and finance board, we should ensure the information we circulate in the public arena in respect of all the applicants is absolutely clear. This should be achieved as early as possible. The eligibility criteria for obtaining a grant should be very clear and known well in advance. When the relevant information is provided, all applicants should know whether they are eligible and what courses come under a particular scheme. When they participate in a particular education programme, the payments should be up front in so far as this is practicable.

I welcome the Bill. It will make a significant contribution to achieving the very desirable objectives which were inherent in the original legislation.