4 February 2004
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister of State. This is a critical report on the workings of the commission to date and its relationship with the Department of Education and Science. The Government is committed to doing the best it can for the survivors of abuse in the various institutions but, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. We should be not be party political about this issue because all of us have encountered various people who resided in the institutions and we all want to progress the matter. However, the rate at which the commission is proceeding is similar to molasses flowing in January. It is unbelievably slow and this must be a cause for worry.
It must also be a cause for worry that a woman as distinguished as Ms Justice Laffoy has made such strong criticisms of the Department and they must be taken seriously. I take the Minister of State's point that it is normal for Departments against which criticism is made to conduct the investigation into the criticism and she referenced the Morris and Mahon tribunals and so on but, perhaps, a mistake is being made by doing so in this instance. We were all in the House when the legislation was introduced and we thought we were doing a good job but the report's criticisms of the delays in obtaining documents and funding and staff shortages are serious. Criticisms are also made of a number of people working with the survivors, for example, solicitors who were seeking compensation.
However, the issue must be seriously examined because it is dragging on. We have all been contacted in recent times by a number of the people involved. Their lives are continuing and some of them have cancer or are dying. Members of the commission have been good as they have travelled to interview survivors who were ill and cases have been brought forward. However, these people are concerned about Judge Ryan's review of the proposal that the legislation should be changed and the Minister's comments regarding sample cases and so forth. There is terrible unease among those who suffered, whom we are all trying to help. There is no more or less to it than that and the Government is not trying to do them down.
I am worried about the depletion of the commission's membership. Of the initial number, only three members remain. Ms Justice Laffoy resigned and Mr. Bob Lewis, CBE, a retired director of social services was only in position for a few months. He was appointed on 23 May and resigned on 19 July 2000 because there was a conflict of interest regarding cases of abuse in which he had been involved professionally. It took 18 months to replace him. Ms Ann McLoughlin, a senior social worker, was appointed on 23 January 2002. That was bad but, worse still, Dr. Patrick Deasy, a retired consultant paediatrician, and Dr. Kevin McCoy, a retired chief inspector attached to the social services inspectorate in Northern Ireland, both resigned in April 2003. Subsequently, the confidential committee comprised only two members - the chairperson, Ms Nora Gibbons, a child care director, who was appointed when the commission was established, and Ms Ann McLoughlin. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
Worse still, the investigation committee now consists of only two people. How can anything function like that? What are the views of the four remaining people regarding this report? Has any effort been made to find out? Why have they remained when the report contains such serious criticisms of the Department of Education and Science and why have the other people not been replaced? Are people throwing up their hands at the problem and is the Government's flesh too weak in term of replacing people?
The depleted commission has been in place for a very long time. It must be demoralising for those who remain. How can one have confidential inquiries when only two people are available? They must be working full-time. No wonder there is such a backlog of cases and investigations if so few people are involved. This must be looked at immediately. I would like answers from the Minister of State regarding the views of the four remaining people of this report. Is there any intention of replacing the people who have retired, or is it very difficult to find anyone to take their places in view of the controversy about the whole matter?
Professor Edward Tempany, a retired consultant paediatrician, is still there. He was brought in in November 2001 when we added the vaccine trials commission. At that time I said, in this House, that I thought we had strayed far beyond the bounds of physical and sexual abuse by including the vaccine trials in this area. I have known Dr. Irene Hillery and Professor Meenan for a long time; they are two of the most respected researchers in the country. No one has suggested that any harm was done to the children involved. The worst that has been suggested is lack of consent for the children to be involved in the trials and, as we know, consent in the 1960s was very different from consent in 2004.
A case regarding Dr. Irene Hillery which is ongoing in the courts is referred to in the vaccines section of the report. She put the vaccines division of the commission on notice that she is seeking a judicial review. She is threatening legal action if the Government does not revoke the order including the vaccines section. She and her legal team say it is ultra vires the Act. We know that when Professor Meenan told the court that he should not have to give evidence because of his age and lack of memory and the long time that had elapsed since the trials took place, the Government pursued the case to the High Court. In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, and Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman both said that they could not understand why the vaccine trials section had been included. This whole area was to be brought up when Dr. Hillery was seeking a revocation on 20 January last, but both the Government and the commission asked for extra time to present their cases as to why it should be included.
This sort of thing is causing delay and great amounts of money. It is all very well to talk about reviews, reports and so forth, but the Oireachtas, Ministers and Departments are receiving monumental criticism for the number of reviews we are bringing forward. I am sure the Minister of State knows this just as well as I do.
I notice that Judge Ryan, in his report, did not reply to the question regarding why the commission should not be moved and work under another Department. However, when Ms Justice Laffoy sent the information to the Attorney General, I am sure he told the Government. We would like more information as to why it is not being moved. To say it is not traditional is not good enough. Mr. Matthias Kelly's review - another review - is pending and I am sure it will be welcomed. There has been delay after delay, not to mind what is being said in the courts by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Hardiman.
The legalistic view taken by the religious bodies is most unfortunate and is much regretted. I commend those who did not take that road, but I suggest there are many things that could be done to speed up the commission. I would be very grateful for some reply regarding the depleted commission, the views of those who remain on it and the situation regarding this interminable court case about the vaccine trials.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
