Speeches
Speech by Fiona O'Malley TD on Child Abuse Commission
Speech by Fiona O'Malley TD on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Dail Eireann, 21st April 2005
Ceann Comhairle, I am glad to have these few minutes to discuss this Bill. The changes proposed in it stir up a lot of anguish and distress in the people it affects, so we must debate it, debate it fully, and debate it sensitively.
The fact that this Bill is before us today shows that at least this awful topic is being addressed. For so long, the issue of child abuse, and in particular child abuse in institutions, was not discussed openly, or even at all. I take some solace from the fact that no one or no place is above scrutiny, and also that this Bill means that abused people will continue to be heard.
I am also re-assured by this Bill in that it is part of a process of the State facing up to its responsibilities. Again, this is something that was inexcusably delayed. This Bill, and the Act that it proposes to amend represent progressive steps by the State. We shouldn’t forget that.
It is true that that even though well-intentioned, problems arose following the original 2000 legislation. The State made moves to both investigate and recompense survivors of abuse, in a way that was effective and sensitive. And this is to be commended.
Notwithstanding this, as I said, problems emerged. The suspension of the Commission, the resignation of Miss Justice Laffoy, and the acceptance by the State of her criticisms – all evidence that there were problems. And we have a duty to investigate and fix those problems. I am satisfied that this Bill before us is an important part of that.
The appointment of Justice Ryan was meant to probe these issues and having established the review, it is our duty to act upon his findings. We have a duty to give effect to its recommendations.
That is what this Bill will do.
I want to return briefly to the original legislation and its purpose. I mentioned that it was well-intentioned. Victims were promised an inquiry that would investigate every single claim of abuse.
Not long after the establishment of the Commission, it was realised that this expectation was unrealistic. Importantly, victims realised this. If I can quote the One-in-Four group directly:
“People are perhaps beginning to realise that this was never realistic, and that the inquiry would never do what civil law could not do. The expectations created were not realistic”
That’s what victims felt. The then Minister, Noel Dempsey, admitted that the State was guilty of an error of judgement in mandating the inquiry to investigate every single claim of abuse.
(Leas) Ceann Comhairle, victims have every right to feel disappointed. To feel let down. To feel that what they were promised is now being reneged on. They have that right. No one should try to say other wise.
Yet, the State must be responsible. It must provide an enquiry that can actually deliver. Deliver closure to victims. Deliver it to them in a reasonable length of time.
I mentioned the resignation of Miss Justice Laffoy. She estimated that the Commission could take up to eleven years to complete its work. Eleven years. By October 2002 only 40 of the 1,700 complaints received by the Commission had been heard. The State could not let that situation persist. Not in its own interest but in the interests of the victims.
(Leas) Ceann Comhairle, amendments to Bills should not in any way diminish the good intentions of the original legislation. I am reminded of the doctor’s motto: “first do no harm”. I would not support this amendment Bill if I did not feel that, not only is it necessary, but also that it serves the victims. That is the point.
The Bill serves the victims.
As I said, the State must be responsible. It must provide an enquiry that can actually deliver. Deliver closure to victims. Deliver it to them in a reasonable length of time.
All of the 1,300 people who have applied to have their cases heard before the investigative committee will be invited for interview. Information obtained in these interviews will be recorded and will be reviewed.
This is the point. If there are material areas of dispute, the committee will arrange for further investigation. This will include further hearings if appropriate. These will be heard in public where possible.
This is a change from the original set up. A change to allow closure is a timely fashion. As I have said, I would not support this amendment Bill if I did not feel that it serves the victims.
To this end I am encouraged that the victims groups have indicated that while victims are not getting what was initially intended, it is significant that everyone will be heard in some context by the investigative committee.
I want to expand on the importance of this point for a moment. I was lucky enough to see the formidable and excellent one man play James X, by Gerard Mannix Flynn. It is a powerful piece about a victim’s attempt to salvage the truth of his childhood. It is all at once raw, moving, witty, sophisticated and disturbing. And it conveys many messages. I believe anyone who can see the play, should do so. It will leave an indelible mark.
It has particular relevance to the point I am trying to make
The play is a monologue and this is particularly appropriate, because it deals with the struggle to make a lone voice heard. The need for the victim’s voice to be heard within the institutions of the State. This Amendment Bill would not have my support if it meant that all victims’ voices would not be heard.
I listened with interest to Jan O’Sullivan and others across the House speak about the issue of ‘sampling’. Sampling would imply that only some victim’s stories are chosen to be heard. To represent the views of the entire group. This Amendment Bill would not have my support if it meant that all victims’ voices would not be heard. Everybody will be interviewed.
Notwithstanding this, can I restate my view that the survivors of abuse have the right to feel let down. And specifically, I hope that absolute clarity will be given in relation to how the decision to bring cases to full hearing will be made.
I’ll conclude now (Leas) Comhairle with just a few points. The resignation, the projected duration, the review- they all pointed to the fact that changes were necessary.
In so far as this Bill, gives effect to those necessary changes, I welcome it in the House today.
Changes do mean that the original idea has been deviated from and that is regrettable, but it is also necessary.
The views of survivor’s are paramount. I do hope that as this process goes forward, the Minister will meet regularly with them and their representatives.