23 June 2005
Dr. Henry: No one has any criticism of the Minister or her Department. I am quite sure that Senator Ulick Burke does not intend any either in putting forward this amendment. However, we all know by now the little we can do to actually heal the hurt experienced by the victims of child abuse. We are all trying to do the best we can. If it would help them at all to have the references made to the Department of the Taoiseach rather than the Department of Education and Science, I suggest we proceed on that basis. It would not cause delay, as Senator Fitzgerald has argued. That is the last thing we want.
The Taoiseach did a magnificent job in the apology he gave on behalf of the State in 1999. I only wish more fulsome apologies had been proffered since from some of the other parties who were involved in this. I know that the orders have made apologies, but in some cases it was dragged out of them. If there is anything we can do that stops this focus on the Department of Education, as it was then known, it should be done. Complaints were ignored and even comprehensive inspectors' reports were shelved simply because it was considered unsuitable to bring such matters forward. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
...
Dr. Henry: I am glad the Minister is present because I recall the great care she and all Members took when the House passed the Children Act, to ensure children were not slapped in and out of institutions. The insertion of subparagraph (ia) goes a long way towards improving the original Bill.
Senator Tuffy made a good point; people want to try to discover why they were placed in institutions and what went wrong. As she stated, children were placed in institutions for very little reason on occasion. Recalling the Minister's commitment during the passing of the Children Act, I suggest the amendment is worthy of acceptance.
...
Dr. Henry: The Minister is not disposed to accepting the amendment but section 4(1)(a) allows for inquiry into "the role of the courts in the manner in which children were placed in, and the circumstances in which they continued to be resident in, institutions during the relevant period". Would that allow the role of the courts to be investigated?
...
Dr. Henry: I am sure the Minister wants the workings of all committees involved to be as transparent as possible. However, there are justified complaints that people do not know how cases will be chosen to come before the committees. I am still not sure if people who wish to go before the committees will be definitely allowed to do so. On Second Stage yesterday, the Minister stated: "It will reduce the likelihood of people who are less able for adversaries hearings being subjected to examination and cross-examination before gatherings of lawyers and other interested parties". The Minister is correct because we have heard dreadful stories of how some people felt either before, during or after attending these committees. I was delighted that yesterday the Minister mentioned counselling is available for people before and after going before the committees. I found many people did not know this was available. It may explain why few offers of counselling have been taken up.
It is important for those coming before the committees to know the criteria under which they have been brought forward. It is important the general public also knows these criteria. Otherwise, we will only end up in a situation, which I believe the Minister does not want, where the committees' workings are accused of not being transparent. I accept they cannot all be totally open to the public as many committees will deal with subjects requiring them to sit in private. However, the public must know as much as possible about what is happening with these cases.
...
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister for highlighting the amount of moral support available to victims. I suggest the Department of Health and Children publicise it because not many people realise it is available and they would welcome it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
...
Dr. Henry: I received a considerable amount of correspondence, as I am sure the Minister did, from people who are concerned about the constitutionality of setting up the board and the fund because the agreement between the Conference of Religious in Ireland and the then Minister for Education and Science was reached after the Bill went through the Houses of the Oireachtas. No more than anyone else, I am sure the Minister would not want anybody to challenge the fact this board is being set up in amending legislation. I note the Minister said that "relevant deed" means the deed made on 5 June 2002 between the Minister for Finance of the one part and the persons listed in the First Schedule to that deed of the other part. I gather the Minister has executive powers whereby she can settle claims. It might have been better if this had gone before the Dáil but it may be perfectly all right. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate that she has been assured it is all right so that the trust is on a statutory basis and will allow for the money to be used.
Ms M. Hanafin: I am advised that the office of Minister for Education and Science is a corporate sole under the Ministers and Secretaries Act and, as such, the Minister has the power to sue and be sued. In dealing with litigation, the Minister can decide upon strategies to reduce or minimise his or her financial exposure. The indemnity entered into with the religious congregations is an example of the exercise of this power.
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister for that clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
...
Dr. Henry: It is very hard to understand why people should be criminalised for disclosing that they were abused. I support this amendment because from what one reads in the newspapers and hears victims who have been before the redress board say, people would like to be able to say they were justified in making their complaint and that the State recognises this and has done something to try to give them some recompense. It is difficult to understand why another shameful secret should be made of this procedure. It was put to me in the case of the original abuse that sometimes people were given sweets or money to shut up. For them, to give them a few euro to keep quiet is the same thing happening again. It is important that the amendment be accepted.
...
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister and her officials for the time and effort they have put into this delicate issue. All of us want the best possible outcome for those who were so sadly abused in Ireland for decades. Apologies have been made and that is all any of us can do. It is important that the board be as fine-tuned as possible to enable those who wish to do so to tell their stories and that the public also has a knowledge of what happened. It is important also that those who can be indemnified are indemnified.
The educational aspect is extraordinarily important because some got little or no education. It is important that they and any relatives who may have suffered because of the lack of education are in a position to avail of it now. I thank the Minister and her officials for all the help they have given to all of us who have taken part in the debate.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
