Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

At the outset I remind the House of the circumstances which give rise to the motion which is before it. In November 2002, an RTE "Prime Time" documentary reported on child sexual abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. The programme made a number of disturbing assertions as to the inadequate way in which allegations and complaints of sexual abuse of children by priests of the archdiocese were handled, for example, that the priests in question were simply moved to another position without persons being informed of the reasons for the move.

It is universally recognised that child sexual abuse is not only morally reprehensible but also a particularly serious crime. It is my duty, and that of the Government and the Oireachtas, to protect the most vulnerable members of our community who cannot protect themselves and this applies with particular force to our children. Child sexual abuse is associated with a range of adverse long-term effects such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and relationship problems. Characteristics of the abuse suffered, such as the type of abusive act, the duration of the abuse and the degree of physical or psychological force used, influence the severity of its effects. These effects extend well beyond the abused individual and can have a significant impact on secondary victims such as family members of the abused and the abuser. Furthermore, parents of sexually abused children also feel guilty because of a perceived failure to protect the child. It is also the case that where child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an authority figure such as a clergyman, its impact on the victim can have additional consequences such as alienation and a loss of faith, both faith in people and religious faith.

In addition to the grave psychological damage which such abuse can cause, the criminal offences involved are of the utmost gravity. It is important to emphasise that complaints of sexual abuse are fully investigated by the Garda Síochána and that all efforts are made to bring the perpetrators to justice. A significant number of clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse have been convicted following Garda investigations and many of them have served, or are serving, custodial sentences. Irrespective of any form of investigation that might be undertaken, it is a priority that every effort is made to ensure that anyone who has engaged in criminal behaviour of this type is brought to justice.

In light of the disclosures in the "Prime Time" programme and elsewhere, I announced my intention to introduce legislation for a new procedure which would, among other issues, enable a detailed and focused investigation into how church and other authorities dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and religious. I subsequently introduced the Commissions of Investigation Bill 2003 and the Commissions of Investigation Act was enacted by both Houses and signed into law by the President in July 2004.

A significant further development was the establishment in March 2003 of the non-statutory Ferns inquiry into the nature of the response to allegations of child sexual abuse by priests operating under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns. The inquiry's report, which was presented to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children on 25 October 2005 by Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy and his colleagues, contains a number of very valuable recommendations.

Under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, a commission of investigation may be established by the Government, based on a proposal by a Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to investigate any matter considered by the Government to be of significant public concern. An issue giving rise to significant public concern is one that is of more than mere interest to the public or the subject of vigorous political debate. It must be an issue which has profound implications for life in our society.

Both the Government and myself are satisfied that an investigation into the handling of child sex abuse allegations against the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin comes within that category. The very sensitive nature of the subject and the need to ensure the fullest confidence in, and compliance with, the investigation means that a commission, backed up by the statutory powers available to it under the 2004 Act, is the appropriate vehicle for investigating the matter.

It would not be appropriate for the Garda to investigate this matter as it is the handling of complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse, rather than allegations of abuse themselves, which are being investigated and this would involve matters which might not in themselves have been criminal offences. In addition, in investigating the handling of complaints or allegations, it may well be that the handling of complaints made to the Garda might itself require investigation. For all those reasons, the Government is of the view that the establishment of a commission is required.

The report of the Ferns inquiry made a series of recommendations with regard to lessons which could usefully be learned from how such complaints or allegations were handled in the past, and which will result in improved child protection. The inquiry's view was that the recommendation of the 1996 report of the Irish Catholic bishops' advisory committee on child sexual abuse by priests and religious entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response on the reporting of child sexual abuse is one of the most important and has had the most impact on the church's handling of this problem in the past nine years.

In regard to the procedure of holding regular high level meetings between the Diocese of Ferns, the Garda Síochána and the Health Service Executive, the interagency review committee, the inquiry saw this as having considerable merits and was of the view that the procedure should and could be adopted in any case in which continuing problems in relation to child sexual abuse were found. On 25 October, the Government accepted in principle the recommendations in the Ferns Report and gave a commitment to their implementation by line Departments and relevant agencies. The Government also authorised the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to write to the Irish bishops' conference to ask it to ensure individual and collective compliance with the inquiry's recommendations and to request the Health Service Executive to liaise with individual bishops to ensure implementation of the recommendations. The Minister of State consequently wrote to the president of the bishops' conference and the Health Service Executive on 26 October, with particular emphasis on the 1996 guidelines and the interagency review committee.

By pursuing the position on implementation by the church of its guidelines, the State is not handing over responsibility in this matter. Members of the clergy, like all residents of the State, are subject to criminal law and answerable before the courts. Furthermore, the State has developed national guidelines for the protection and welfare of children, Children First, and monitors their implementation on an ongoing basis.

As a further step in ensuring compliance with the inquiry's recommendations, the commission should undertake two further tasks in addition to investigating the Archdiocese of Dublin. First, following a notification by the Minister for Health and Children that a specific diocese may not have established the structures or may not be operating satisfactorily the procedures set out in church guidelines — whether the 1996 guidelines or any subsequent ones — the commission of investigation should examine the position in that diocese. Second, following a notification by the Minister for Health and Children that a specific diocese may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report, the commission should examine the position in that diocese.

The motion before the House is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the commission. The motion seeks approval of the draft Government order providing for the establishment of a commission of investigation into two matters, first, the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against clergy operating under the aegis of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and, second, the examination of the implementation of church guidelines or the recommendations of the Ferns Report in a particular diocese, if the Minister for Health and Children requests the commission to do so. The draft order contains a schedule setting out a statement of reasons for establishing the commission, as required by the Commissions of Investigation Act. A similar motion has been brought and approved in the other House.

The draft order sets out the terms of reference for the commission. I have circulated them to the Members of the House but I will not read them in detail as time is limited. I wish to draw the attention of Senators to a number of points about these terms of reference. They have been developed following a process of consultation with representatives of the victims and with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. In this context, I welcome the undertaking by Archbishop Martin that the archdiocese will fully co-operate with the investigation.

The commission will investigate the handling of two categories of cases in the Archdiocese of Dublin. First, it will investigate the handling of cases where specific complaints or allegations were made. Second, it will investigate the handling of cases where, while there were not complaints or allegations, there was knowledge or strong and clear suspicion or reasonable concern around sexual abuse.

The commission will cover a specific period — from 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004. While I am aware arguments exist for having a longer period of time specified, I believe it is a more productive use of the resources available to proceed in this way. It was suggested in the other House yesterday that perhaps the commission should look at cases from the 1930s up to the 1960s, in addition to the specified period. It was also urged that an inquiry should take place in every diocese in the country. If we were to do it that way, I estimate that it would take a century of investigation or else I would have to set up 20 commissions of inquiry that would have to sit for five years to achieve the same result. We must be practical in all of this. It would be possible to give the commission an open-ended remit — or to require it to look at every diocese in the State — but that would make it impossible for it to complete its work within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, the further back in time one goes, while it would be interesting from an historical point of view, the more fragmentary would be the records and recollections on the handling of cases by the archdiocese and consequently the more difficult the task of investigation. The most important task is to draw lessons from the mistakes of the past so as to ensure that nothing similar happens again.

The terms of reference specify that a representative sample of cases will be examined. The important word here is "representative". It will be incumbent on the commission to examine the cases which come to its attention, whether through an examination of documents and records it discovers or as a result of advertising for persons to approach it and, having examined these cases, choose a sample which is representative of that material. The terms of reference specify that where a case is among the representative sample, all complaints and allegations by that complainant are also examined. Nobody will find that only one aspect of what happened to them is being examined, the matter will be dealt with in the whole.

Furthermore, the terms of reference specify that all complaints and allegations against an alleged perpetrator named in a complaint or allegation being investigated will also be investigated. The situation will not arise whereby one will have a detailed report of one alleged action by a perpetrator and for some reason the rest of the person's history is excluded. Perpetrators will also be examined in the whole. How the commission will choose the representative sample will be a matter for it to decide, and it will do so on the basis of expert advice.

With regard to the length of time the commission will take, the Government agreed that it would submit a final report to me in not more than 18 months. However, I am mindful of the fact that the obligation on the commission under section 32(4) of the Act is to endeavour to submit its report within the specified time period. As the sponsoring Minister I have the right to extend the time if that were necessary. I place a high importance on the independence and expertise required of a member of the commission.

The powers and duties vested in a commission include the duty to caution witnesses, to compel witnesses to answer questions, to establish rules and procedures in regard to evidence and submissions, to adjudicate in regard to matters of privilege and to conduct the investigation. All have the potential to intrude into well established legal rights. For this reason I propose that an eminent judge with considerable experience of the criminal law be appointed as the chair of the commission. I am pleased to inform the House that Judge Yvonne Murphy of the Circuit Court has indicated that she will accept the appointment. I have already discussed the proposed terms of reference with her, and she is happy to accept the position on that basis. In approving these terms of reference the Government was conscious of the obligation imposed by section 5 of the Act on those framing the terms of reference, namely, that they specify to the extent possible the events, activities, circumstances, systems, practices or procedures to be investigated.

In addition, I am obliged as soon as possible after the terms of reference are set formally to prepare an accompanying statement containing an estimate of the costs of the commission and the length of time it will take. The costs of the commission will reflect the amount of work involved to fulfil the terms of reference, the number and levels of staff deployed, the duration of the commission and other administrative costs. This will be published as soon as possible after the terms of reference are set, in Iris Oifigiúil and such other publications, as I as Minister consider appropriate.

The draft order also specifies that I am responsible for overseeing the administrative matters relating to the establishment of the commission, for receiving its reports and performing any other functions accorded to the overseeing Minister by the Act. One such function is the obligation to prepare general guidelines. Once the commission has been formally established I am required, in consultation with the Minister for Finance and the commission itself, to prepare general guidelines concerning the payment by my Department of legal costs necessarily incurred by witnesses in connection with the investigation. The commission in turn is obliged to ensure that any direction it makes concerning the payment of legal costs by me comes within these guidelines.

The guidelines will also make provision for payment to witnesses of non-legal costs. Each witness will be furnished with a copy of the guidelines in advance of his or her giving evidence. This ensures that witnesses who wish to do so can arrange legal representation with full knowledge of the regime under which they may seek to have those costs recouped.

At the conclusion of its work the commission will prepare for me a written report based on the evidence received which sets out the facts it has established on the matter referred to it. In accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Act it is my firm intention to publish the report of the commission subject to the High Court powers to decide on the form and nature of publication.

I conclude by urging Senators to support the Government's proposal for the establishment of a commission of investigation in this case by supporting the motion before the House today.