Speech delivered by Alan Shatter TD
Like other Members, I thank the Ryan commission and Mr. Justice Ryan for the report, which clearly vindicates the claims made over so many years by those who found themselves, at a young age, in residential institutions in this State and who were subjected to barbaric, inhuman treatment which no child, in any country, should ever experience. We could describe what occurred in our residential institutions as the systemic torture of children.
Unlike other Members, I cannot say the revelations in the Ryan commission report came as a surprise to me. I should make a declaration of interest. A partner in my own law firm, Mr. Tim O’Sullivan, has represented more than 100 victims of abuse before the redress board. I am aware of many of the experiences victims had, from my meetings with some and from being present at meetings they held many years ago when they were crying out for recognition and help. My firm has experienced how the church and religious congregations dealt with victims of sexual and physical abuse and sought, until very recently, to deny all responsibility, as well as the credibility of those who made claims.
In view of my position as a lawyer, I have a duty of confidentiality to clients. However, certain individuals have shown great courage, publicly told their story and laid the foundation for many other people to come forward to explain what happened to them. One of those was Mr. Andrew Madden, who was represented in the early 1990s by the firm of which I am a partner. Mr. Madden claimed he had been sexually assaulted as an altar boy by a priest named Ivan Payne. Court proceedings were taken on his behalf. He was the first individual to take a civil action against an alleged perpetrator of clerical abuse in this country. He also took an action against the then Archbishop of Dublin. Proceedings were issued by Mr. Andrew Madden and he subsequently told his story and the outcome of the proceedings publicly. That is why I feel at liberty to make reference to them.
Mr. Madden’s experience is a microcosm of that of so many people. With great courage, he went to the courts. His claims were heavily resisted but they were ultimately settled outside the door of the court. I am not breaching confidence by stating that under a confidentiality clause he was not permitted to publicly state the outcome of his proceedings or the compensation he was paid. However, Andrew Madden breached this clause. As his lawyers, we had to advise him that he had to abide by the clause but he went to the newspapers because he believed that if he remained silent, others who had been the victims of abuse would never be told. Following his story becoming known, he hoped he would give them the courage to come forward and, more important, that by going public he would ensure action that had not previously been taken would be taken by the State and church authorities and children would be protected who might otherwise find themselves the victims of abuse.
What was learned from Andrew Madden’s case was that once he came forward, a number of other men came forward who, as altar boys, had been abused by Ivan Payne. It was only through Andrew Madden going public that Ivan Payne was prosecuted through the courts by the Garda Síochána and Director of Public Prosecutions and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
What was extraordinary about the case was that the abuse suffered by Andrew Madden had been reported when he was a child and Ivan Payne, as a priest, had been moved by the Archbishop of Dublin from one parish to another and proceeded to abuse altar boys in two different parishes. When the church realised he could not be left to deal with altar boys he found himself in a different position. By sheer coincidence, at the time our firm was representing Andrew Madden, I was representing a young woman who was seeking to have a church annulment from the marriage tribunal in Drumcondra. She went to have a private interview in the tribunal and when I subsequently asked who had interviewed her, I learned to my astonishment that Ivan Payne, the person who had been transferred out of two parishes and had been abusing altar boys, was operating in the marriage tribunal in Drumcondra, adjacent to Archbishop’s House, where he had engaged in conversations with men and women seeking annulments, some of which conversations required that they discuss with him the intimate details of their married lives. I found that extraordinary.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Deputy Alan Shatter: When we broke unexpectedly for lunch — I did not realise there would be a sos — I had made reference to the courage of Mr. Andrew Madden. We must praise the courage of all of the victims of institutional abuse for coming forward and describing to the Ryan commission the dreadful events suffered by them during their childhood. Parliament must acknowledge, as others have acknowledged, that the State abjectly failed them. Indeed, this Parliament did so also in the sense that past Members of this Parliament in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s appeared to either have no knowledge or no interest in the dreadful plight of those consigned to the residential institutions. We now have a duty to acknowledge that this is the people’s Parliament. It is the Parliament of all of the people of this country, of all of those whose lives have been blighted by their experiences as so graphically depicted in the Ryan commission report.
The Government has an obligation to the survivors of abuse to address all of the issues that now must be dealt with. It is right that we implement all of the recommendations contained in the Ryan commission report, both those recommendations that directly relate to the survivors of the institutions and those that relate to the manner in which we today run our child care services.
The survivors of the institutions are entitled to justice. One of the important elements of the all-party motion before the House is that when this motion is passed we, as Members of the Oireachtas, across the Chamber on a united basis, acknowledge that crimes of a barbaric, sadistic, appalling nature have been committed against children in this country. Everything must be done to bring to justice those who perpetrated the barbaric physical and sexual abuse described in the Ryan commission report.
For too long the religious orders have not only attempted to evade their responsibility, but conspired in covering up the true extent of the abuse that took place. There is an absolute obligation on these religious orders. Much has been stated in the past two or three weeks about money matters, but there is an absolute obligation on the religious orders to make available to the Garda Síochána all files and papers they have relating to members of religious orders who are currently alive and who perpetrated the dreadful violence and sexual attacks that are the subject matter of this report.
For too many years the religious orders moved the perpetrators of physical and sexual violence from one part of the country to another and exported it across the world. Some of those who perpetrated violence physical and sexual attacks on the residents of institutions found themselves transferred to England, Newfoundland, Canada, Australia and America, and perpetrated similar appalling torture on children in other countries around the world. I do not believe the religious orders and congregations have adequately co-operated with the Garda Síochána in ensuring that those who perpetrated these offences were brought to justice, and they must do so.
It is stated in the motion before the House that an assistant Garda commissioner has been asked, presumably following appointment by the Garda Commissioner, to review the Ryan commission report and to consider what further action the Garda Síochána might take. I believe there are people who have suffered greatly who have information that they can give to the Garda which may now result in prosecutions, either that would not otherwise happen or of people previously identified who the DPP, without adequate information being available, determined should not be prosecuted.
There must be co-ordination in this area. If victims of abuse want to report to the Garda Síochána they should not be put in a position where they are visiting different Garda stations in different parts of the country dealing with persons, perhaps members of the Garda, who are not trained to deal with the circumstances that these people have experienced. There should be an assistant Garda commissioner not merely reviewing the Ryan commission report but co-ordinating a Garda task force to talk to and interview those who come forward and to co-ordinate the conduct of any further investigation that may be necessary, and to co-ordinate the obtaining from the religious orders of any information and documentation.
We know from the Ryan commission report that files were sent outside Ireland to Rome relating to a number of religious who engaged in the most despicable sexual violence against children. Those files went to Rome because in some instances ecclesiastical action was taken against these individuals, but reports were not made to the Garda and it is crucial that they are. Of course the support services the victims require must be put in place.
The motion passed in this House two weeks ago — we repeat it today — calling on the religious congregations to make a greater financial contribution is important because it gives the Taoiseach the moral authority of all Members of this House representing the people of this country in the conduct of his discussions with the religious orders. Like many outside this House, I am somewhat cynical still about the sincerity of the apologies being given. I say so from experience. I do not need to read the Ryan commission report to form such a conclusion.
My experience and that of a colleague in my law firm in representing victims of abuse has been, in dealing with allegations before the redress board, various religious orders, in particular the Christian Brothers, were in denial up to five days before the report was published. The Christian Brothers’ response was that the congregation did not accept that systemic abuse took place. This was the order’s standard response, until the Ryan commission report was published, in circumstances in which they had to know the abuse was systemic. The order had to know because it, on occasions, attempted to deal with some of its members who misbehaved but the practice was to transfer them to somewhere else where they continued to misbehave. It was almost impossible not to know how systemic were the violence and sexual perversions in which the individuals were engaged, using children as objects, and their failure to recognise the children’s humanity.
I remain cynical about what is being stated by the orders and congregations on their additional contributions. Their contributions should comprise 50% to the redress payments being made to victims of abuse. There should be an additional financial contribution to the trust fund under discussion. The congregations’ statement following their meeting with the Taoiseach is noteworthy, as it gave no commitment towards contributing a cent extra to the redress fund. The language used was careful. Reporting on it, The Irish Times stated:
The Congregations, who had an initial meeting with an Taoiseach today, indicated their willingness to make financial and other contributions towards a broad range of measures, designed to alleviate the hurt caused to people who were abused in their care. The Congregations will contribute towards a trust, proposed by an Taoiseach, and a process has now commenced to establish how this can be achieved.
They should contribute to a broad range of measures to assist the victims, but the last thing they should do is get involved in the trust in any shape or form.
The assets that the religious congregations will contribute to the trust must be identified. However, they must contribute to 50% of the redress fund separately. There has been no such commitment following the meeting. Let no one fool himself or herself. Will the Taoiseach clarify the intentions of the congregations and orders when he next meets them? The public has a right to know, as do the survivors of institutional abuse. I do not want the Dáil to go into recess, leaving the Taoiseach’s office and the religious orders and congregations to do a merry dance for weeks or months, hoping that pressure will recede from the latter as time passes. Pressure must be maintained.
At no stage should we be under the illusion that the religious orders are more at fault than the State. They are equally at fault. The State put young children into institutions and abandoned them, as the report comprehensively describes. The State did not ensure that its own guidelines were properly applied. The then Department of Education received a myriad of reports on children being physically and sexually abused in institutions, but it looked the other way.
Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to a 1954 Dáil debate, when Captain Cowen brought to the attention of the then Minister for Education a vicious and brutal attack on a young child. I was going to bring the same report to the House’s attention. In 1954, a Deputy told the House that a child had been assaulted in a manner that should have had every alarm bell ringing, but everyone involved in the exchange in the Chamber looked the other way and the world continued on as if nothing needed to be done. Judging from the cases that came before the redress board, many other incidents of physical and sexual abuse of young boys were regularly perpetrated in that very same institution over the following years. If someone had done something during the 1950s, lives might not have been blighted and so grievously damaged, but the State looked the other way. It should never do so again.
The contribution of the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, was interesting. It was different from any contribution he has made in the House since his appointment. In the past two years, a period encompassing his predecessor and him, I have made the case in the House that our child protection guidelines of 1999 are not being uniformly applied throughout the country. Children were at risk yesterday, last week and last year and are still at risk. Being at risk, a child’s situation is reported to one of the HSE’s 32 child care offices. However, the plight of children is being ignored because the system is broken. Consistently, the Minister of State has defended the indefensible in the House.
I have been critical of the fact that no real-time information is available to him on what is occurring within our child care services. I have brought to the House’s attention that more than 20 children have died in the HSE’s care during the past six years. I knew more about them than the Minister of State did. I have sought details on the number of children in the health service’s care who have died in the past ten years. Two or three months later and the HSE still cannot provide clarity on the matter. I have criticised the fact that the HSE is in breach of its statutory obligation to report on our child care services. At the beginning of June 2009, we received a report on child care services for the year ending 31 December 2007. Yet again, this report confirmed their dysfunction. Until now, however, the Minister of State has defended the way in which the system has worked. I welcome that he has changed his tune today.
The HSE’s 2007 child care report established that 23,268 reports on child abuse, neglect and child welfare concerns were made to the HSE, but initial assessments were undertaken in only 15,074 cases. No initial assessments were undertaken in 8,194 cases. The 2007 document showed widespread discrepancies between different areas in terms of the number of children determined to be at risk pursuant to reports. No detailed explanation was given for those discrepancies.
The Irish Examiner has done a public service today by publishing the details that helped the HSE to formulate the 2007 child care report. The newspaper confirmed that social workers in the child care services have claimed they are being overwhelmed. They cannot deal with the number of reports of children at risk or carry out proper assessments. A proper out-of-hours service is necessary. They lack the back-up they require in terms of children with intellectual disability. Let us not just assume that simply because of the Ryan commission report, which addresses and reveals the horrors of the past, that no horrors of today need to be remedied.
An important element of the motion is the Government’s commitment to taking steps to ensure the uniform application of the child protection guidelines. I have sought their being made statutory. In today’s motion, Fine Gael would have liked a Government commitment to giving them statutory effect. However, it could not be agreed. For the first time, however, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, has acknowledged in the House a number of important factors. While he has finally acknowledged that making the guidelines statutory needs to be considered, he should go beyond this point and ensure they become statute.
There is an urgent need to take action to ensure the discrepancies across the HSE are addressed. The Minister of State described the difficulties he faces. He has finally accepted that he has no up-to-date information on how our child care system is operating. He is the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children and youth affairs. We have a Minister of State who reports to this House on child care issues who does not know how the child care service is working and has no real time information about it. It has taken him a year to admit that is the situation.
He said the situation will be remedied. He makes reference to what he referred to as the health board legacy and alluded to the fact that different computer systems are working in different areas and in some areas there are no computer systems at all. This Government has been in office for 20 of the past 22 years. It has been in office consistently for the past 12 years. It is the same Government that, in 2005, put the HSE in place.
The HSE has been operating for four years and is the body that has an obligation to protect children. It is indefensible that systems were not put in place to ensure that the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews knew how the child care service was operating. It is indefensible that, as of today, we do not know how many reports have been made to social workers about children at risk and that information is gathering dust on shelves because the resources do not exist for assessments to be undertaken.
We do not know how many children have been damaged, brutalised or sexually assaulted, or whose welfare has been irrevocably affected by the failure of our current child care system. We do not know how many children of today will be the adults of the future and the survivors of our failures today.
There is terrible lethargy on the part of the Government in addressing these issues. There has been a denial of the reality that our system is dysfunctional. There is a denial of the reality that there is a need to radically reform and change the way it is operating. I welcome the fact an identifiable person will be appointed to be in overall charge of our child care services, but there is a need for far more radical change.
We need to get away from the corporate structure that exists so we have an holistic and sensitised structure — if that is the best way of putting it — so that if a child is in trouble or there is a need for an out-of-hours service, one does not need to go up through three, four or five managerial levels to someone who has no training in dealing with child care issues, no social work qualification and does not know the child concerned, who will then make a decision as to what is in that child’s best interests.
There is a need for radical change and reform. I welcome that the Minister of State is finally realising that to some extent, but it is an indictment of this Government that is had taken the publication of the Ryan commission report for this to be acknowledged. There is a need for other changes.
Regarding children who have died in care, we know reports have been made to Government that have not been published. We must shine the light on what is wrong with our current child care services so we make the corrections that are required. The Taoiseach referred to the Ryan commission shining the light on the grievous wrongs of the past. We must shine the light on what is happening today.
I have very little time left, but I will briefly refer to two matters. David Foley, a young man of 14 years of age, sought help, wished to be taken into care and died at the age of 17, while in the care of the State. I believe a report into this case was prepared by the HSE, which has not been published and has been suppressed. A young girl, Tracey Fay, who died at the age of 18 after a fatal drug overdose, was also supposed to be in the care of the State. She was shifted from one social worker to another and was in and out of an out-of-hours service. I understand a report containing 50 recommendations was prepared on this case. It has been suppressed but should be published.
The suppressed recommendations contained in the Monageer report should be published. We have a plethora of reports detailing what is wrong with our child care services. We do not need reports, rather we need action. The victims of yesterday are entitled to reparation, recognition and justice. The children of today are entitled to the protection of the State and to know that we genuinely cherish them and want to provide them with the protection to which they are entitled.
In the context of the victims of abuse, it was suggested to me that not simply a general apology, such as has been made by the Taoiseach and his predecessor, should be delivered. Where we know the individuals and their addresses, a letter should be sent to each individual survivor by the Taoiseach on behalf of the State. It should apologise for the manner in which they were treated, ignored and abused. This would show a degree of commitment and sincerity and confirm to them personally that the State will do everything it can in the future to try to facilitate them in coming to terms with their suffering and lead reasonable lives.