This is a list of CB schools in Ireland taken  from Wikipedia.  Some schools are missing from the list so please feel free to point out omissions.

===================

Clare

C.B.S. Primary School Ennistymon, County Clare
C.B.S. Secondary School (“Meanscoil na mBraithre, Inis Diomáin”) Ennistymon, County Clare
Ennis C.B.S. (Scoil na mBraithre, Inis) [73], Ennis, County Clare
Rice College Ennis, County Clare

Cork

C.B.S. Midleton, Midleton, County Cork
C.B.S. Charleville, Charleville, County Cork[74]
Blarney Street C.B.S, Cork
C.B.S. Youghal, Youghal, County Cork (closed 2005)
Christian Brothers College, Cork [75], Cork, County Cork
Deerpark C.B.S. St Patrick’s Road, Cork; North Monastery C.B.S., Cork
Gaelcholáiste Muire, Cork
Christian Brothers School, Mitchelstown, Co. Cork

Dublin

Ardscoil Rís [76], Dublin
Artane Industrial school, Artane, Dublin (closed 1969)
C.B.C. Monkstown [77], Monkstown, County Dublin
Carriglea Park Industrial School, Dún Laoghaire (closed 1954)
Christian Brothers’ Primary School (James St. C.B.S.) [78], Dublin
Clonkeen College [79], Blackrock, County Dublin
Coláiste Éanna [80], Ballyroan, Dublin
Coláiste Eoin, Booterstown, County Dublin
Coláiste Mhuire [81], Dublin
Coláiste Phadráig, Lucan, Co. Dublin
Drimnagh Castle Primary School [82], Dublin
Drimnagh Castle Secondary School (Meánscoil Iognáid Rís) [83], Dublin
Oatlands College [84], Mount Merrion, Dublin
O’Connell School (North Richmond St. C.B.S.) [85], Dublin
St. Aidan’s C.B.S. (Scoil Aodhain) [86], Whitehall, Dublin
St. Declan’s secondary school
St. Fintan’s High School, Sutton, Dublin
St. Joseph’s C.B.S., Fairview, Dublin
St. Vincent’s C.B.S., Glasnevin
Synge Street C.B.S. [87], Dublin
C.B.S. Westland Row [88], Dublin

Galway

St. Joseph’s Industrial School, Letterfrack (closed 1974)
Tuam CBS (later St. Patrick’s College, Tuam)

Kerry

St Mary’s CBS (The Green) [89], Tralee, County Kerry

Kildare

C.B.S. Naas [90], Naas, County Kildare

Kilkenny

Callan CBS, Callan (grounds include ancestral home of Edmund Ignatius Rice)
Kilkenny CBS (primary), St. Stephen’s St., Kilkenny
Kilkenny CBS (secondary), James’ St., Kilkenny

Laois

St Marys C.B.S. [91], Portlaoise, County Laois

Limerick

Ardscoil Rís, Limerick [92], Limerick, County Limerick
CBS Sexton Street, Limerick
St. Fintan’s C.B.S. [93], Doon, County Limerick
CreaghLane
John the Baptist

Louth

St. Joseph’s C.B.S. [94], Drogheda, County Louth

Mayo

Rice College Westport C.B.S. [95], Westport, County Mayo

Meath

St Marys (secondary), Drogheda, County Meath
St Patricks (Classical), Navan, County Meath

Roscommon

St.Mary’s Christian Brothers Secondary School, Roscommon, Roscommon

Tipperary

Abbey C.B.S. [96], Tipperary, County Tipperary
C.B.S. High School, Clonmel (Ardscoil na mBraithre) [97], Clonmel, County Tipperary
Our Lady’s Secondary School, Templemore, County Tipperary
St. Joseph’s C.B.S. [98], Nenagh, County Tipperary

Waterford

C.B.S. Tramore [99], Tramore, County Waterford
Dungarvan C.B.S. [100], Dungarvan, County Waterford
Edmund Rice Primary School [101], Tramore, County Waterford
Mount Sion, Waterford, County Waterford
Waterpark College, Waterford, County Waterford

Wexford

C.B.S. Wexford [102] Green Street, Wexford
C.B.S. New Ross [103], New Ross, County Wexford
St. Mary’s C.B.S. [104], Enniscorthy, County Wexford

The Christian Brothers religious order is to give €161 million (£146 million) in cash and property in reparation for its role in decades of child abuse in Ireland.MBT 

The Brothers said that €34 million in cash would be used to help victims of abuse, whose plight was identified in a government report in May. However, the move was criticised, with one victims’ group describing it as “mere smoke and mirrors”.

The Ryan report chronicled cases of tens of thousands of children who suffered systematic sexual, physical and mental abuse over decades at residential homes run by 18 congregations. It concluded that the Brothers order was responsible for most of the cases.Mbt Lami

A transfer of €127 million in property will be used to “begin to repair trust with so many people in Ireland, who felt betrayed by the Brothers”, the order said in a statement. “We understand and regret that nothing we say or do can turn back the clock for those affected by abuse,” the statement said. “Our response reflects the moral obligation we collectively and individually feel.”

One victims’ group called the announcement “an exercise in the art of sophistry by its supreme practitioners in Ireland”. Irish Survivors of Child Abuse said: “An Enigma machine is not needed to see through the smoke and mirrors delivered by the Christian Brothers today.

“The only ‘new money’ on the table appears to be €34 million — payable over a number of years.”

The Christian Brothers made their announcement on the eve of publication of another report, which is expected to shake the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. A long-awaited interim report of the commission of investigation into clerical sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin is expected to say today that the church hierarchy covered up allegations of sexual abuse by priests.

The report was discussed by the Cabinet on Tuesday. Publication has been repeatedly delayed over fears that it might prejudice further prosecutions. For this reason, some parts of the report will be withheld. The Brothers, which played a leading role in the education of Irish children and were Ireland’s largest male teaching order, said they were shamed and sorrowed at the extent of abuse of children in its care.

The pledge follows a wave of public anger. The order came in for devastating criticism in the Ryan report.

Its publication was delayed by several years after a lengthy legal battle waged by the Brothers to withhold the names of all its members, dead or alive. An agreement was eventually struck in 2004, allowing the Brothers’ institutions to be identified.Mbt Chapa

More than a thousand witnesses testified to abuse in 216 schools and residential settings between 1914 and 2000. More than 800 individuals were identified as physical or sexual abusers — an extraordinary number compared with the handful of prosecutions and convictions. Ninety per cent of witnesses reported physical abuse while half reported sexual abuse.

“Acute and chronic contact and non-contact sexual abuse was reported, including vaginal and anal rape, molestation and voyeurism in both isolated cases and on a regular basis over long periods of time,” the report said.

The commission found that the worst offender was the Brothers’ order, which ran most of the institutions for older boys, while the another Catholic order, the Sisters of Mercy, which was supposed to care for girls, also came in for heavy criticism.

The report said that cases were managed “with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation”.

“A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from,” it said.  Mbt Sport

Hundreds of pages detail the horrors of life at specific institutions. “It was a secret enclosed world, run on fear,” one Brother told the commission about St Joseph’s Industrial School in Tralee, Co Kerry.

Glin Industrial School, Co Limerick, was where “Brothers with a known propensity for sexual abuse were transferred, indicating a serious indifference to the safety of children”.

A chapter is devoted to a Christian Brother given the pseudonym of John Brander — real name Donal Dunne, who was convicted in 1999 of his crimes and given a two-year prison sentence — which describes his progress through six different schools where he physically terrorised and sexually abused children in his classroom. Mbt walking shoes

The report says that his career, while shocking in itself, illustrated the ease with which sexual predators could operate within the educational system of the state without fear of disclosure or sanction.

Once a mighty institution which did much to form Ireland’s national identity, there are now just 250 Brothers in Ireland, with an average age of 74.

Today’s report into clerical abuse in Dublin Archdiocese will reveal that the Catholic hierarchy and state authorities failed to respond to allegations of clerical child abuse made against a sample of 46 priests.

“The Dublin Archdiocese behaved in a manner that was absolutely reprehensible. Over the space of 20 years, they moved the problem on, looked after their own financial interests, looked after their priests and not the victims. The Archdiocese is centre-stage. Once you read it, it jumps out at you,” a Government source told the Irish Independent newspaper.

The report contains 100 pages of findings and 500 pages of specific detail on cases of abuse by 46 priests. The compensation bill for the victims of child abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese is set to double to more than €20 million.

The Archdiocese has identified up to 450 suspected victims who were abused as children and 120 civil actions were taken against 35 Dublin priests, or priests who held positions in the diocese.

//

There is a group of believers within the Catholic Church that I like to call the Jesuit cult, a subject that has called  forth on my part an  unreserved outspokenness.  Having been educated at a Catholic college, I came across several teachers who were Jesuits. From this experience, I felt that despite Jesus, who taught love and humility. I got the feeling that Jesuits think they’re better than anyone else, smarter, more knowing and wiser. I  sometimes felt they thought that they, not Jesus, led the church. Not drawn to arrogance in people or priests, I was put off.

But for some years now, I’ve been having second thoughts, and have arrived at a greater respect. Some of the Church’s greatest saints have been Jesuits. St Ignatius Loyola, the founder, for one. Maybe Jesuits have something other orders don’t have–a gifted intellect? The Franciscans excel  in helping the poor, the Christian brothers in teaching. It seems to me that the  Jesuits have excelled in intellectual capacity.

A national memorial will be erected in Ireland for tens of thousands of children who were abused over decades in church-run institutions. So it was claimed to-day .Children’s Minister Barry Andrews said a national day of remembrance for survivors and those who died at the hands of sexual, emotional and physical torture is also being considered.

Mr Andrews insisted the Cabinet has rubber-stamped the 25 million euro (£21.5 million) plan to deal with what he branded a dark passage of Irish history.

Dark is not the word I would use here it is shameful, and what about naming the Minsters who were responsible for allowing these crimes to continue for years

Why are these people not brought before the courts of the land?

They are still enjoying massive pensions when the victims are subject to levies and dole cuts

It’s not enough to say we will do something

Action speaks louder than words, we’ve had enough of false promises!

Liz McManus
(Wicklow, Labour)

Question 22: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the matters discussed at his meeting on 4 June 2009 with representatives of the religious orders that ran institutions identified in the Ryan report in which children were abused; if the question of additional payments by the orders was discussed; his plans for further meetings with these orders; and if he will make a statement on the matter

Mary Upton
(Dublin South Central, Labour)

Question 24: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if, arising from his public statement on 26 May 2009, he has received a response to his call to the religious congregations to articulate their willingness to make a further substantial voluntary contribution arising from the Ryan report; if a meeting has been arranged with representatives of these congregations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Ruairi Quinn
(Dublin South East, Labour)

Question 166: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the matters discussed at his meeting on 4 June 2009 with representatives of the religious orders that ran institutions identified in the Ryan Report in which children were abused; if the question of additional payments by the orders was discussed; if he plans further meetings with the orders; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 22, 24 and 166 together.

On Thursday 4th June 2009, the Taoiseach, along with myself and other Cabinet colleagues, met with representatives of the Religious Congregations to begin the process of addressing with them the issues arising from the publication of the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The Taoiseach conveyed the view of the Government and indeed the wider public that further substantial contributions are required from the Congregations by way of reparation. Furthermore, the contributions need to be capable of being assessed by the public for their significance by reference to the full resources available to the Congregations and in the context of the costs of well over a billion euro being borne by the State. The Taoiseach asked the Congregations to revert with proposals in this regard.

The same group again met with the representatives of the various religious congregations on Wednesday 24th June at which the Religious Congregations reported on the progress they had made in compiling reports on their financial positions. It is expected that reports signed off on by their financial advisors will be submitted by the congregations to the Government by mid-July when a further meeting will be held.

The Taoiseach has stated that the Government would now move to appoint a panel of three independent persons to assess the material submitted by the congregations and report to Government as to the adequacy of these statements as a basis for assessing the resources of the Congregations.

Liz McManus
(Wicklow, Labour)

Question 18: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if he will adopt the Institutional Child Abuse Bill 2009, a Private Members Bill proposed by the Labour Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

Following the publication of the Ryan Report the Taoiseach and members of the cabinet met with representatives of the survivors of abuse. Meetings were also held with the relevant religious congregations. At these meetings and through other submission a range of matters were raised including issues such as those raised in the proposed Bill referred to in the question. These matters will be considered fully by the Government with a view to giving a comprehensive response as soon as possible.

Liz McManus
(Wicklow, Labour)

Question 177: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the redress entitlement of a child in a case where they were in an institution providing for mothers and babies, were then fostered with the agreement of the mother and then abused by their foster parent; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

During the passage of the legislation governing the establishment of the Redress Scheme (Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002) through both Houses, the issue of including children who were in foster care was discussed and it was decided not to extend the legislation, as children in foster care were not in a residential institution. However, this statutory redress scheme was an additional benefit introduced by the Oireachtas for a particular category of persons and left unaffected the right of anybody to bring legal proceedings. Consequently, a person’s ineligibility to be considered for an award under the terms of the Redress Scheme does not effect their statutory right to pursue any other legal avenue which may be open to them.

Just to let you know, that the Labour Party Private Members Bill in respect of redress has now been entered by the Labour Party as a Private Members Bill and has been accepted as such by Government. Obviously Government has not allocated any time to it.

However, we have decided to allocate next weeks, Tuesday and Wednesday 7 to 8.30 each evening, of our last Private Members Time, our last Private Members Time before the summer recess, to debating our redress Bill.

In that context I would be grateful if you would let people you know, with an interest in the issue, know and also if they wish to come and hear some or all of the debate they will be very welcome.

They can either arrange to come and view the debate through my office or any other Labour Party TD or through Cathy Flanagan who will arrange for them to be admitted to the public gallery.

I hope that this will raise the profile of the various issues which the Bill seeks to redress.

I attach a summary of the Bill for your information.

Best regards

Joan Burton TD.

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

Taken from www.alliancesupport.org

Sister Stanislaus Kennedy has apologised unreservedly to survivors of child abuse in Catholic-run institutions.

Sr Stan said the Sisters of Charity were sad, sorry and ashamed that children suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse while under their care.

She also said that the order must now live up to its financial responsibilities.

 Sr Stan is a prominent campaigner for homeless people.

The order is holding a conference on social justice in Dublin today.

The Ryan report into institutional child abuse the economic downturn will be discussed at the conference.

Sr Miriam Hennessey of the Sisters of Charity told the conference that the findings of the report were ‘overwhelming and disturbing’ for all her nuns.

On behalf of the congregation, she apologised again to all past pupils for what took place in the institutions under the congregation’s care.

President Mary McAleese has described the institutional abuse of children as ‘a milestone of biblical proportions in Irish history’.

Addressing a conference organised, she said the abuse of some of the children in the nuns’ care was a sad chapter in their history, which calls for resilience, determination, humility and focus in the journey of amending and healing that lies ahead.

Comment from Machholz

While this apology is very welcome the fact is that the survivors of this injustice are

Still having to fight to get justice

They should not have to beg for help. A well thought out plan of action, that will meet the current needs of the survivors is desperately needed now!

The various groups that have sprung up all over the country are at best well meaning individuals but they do not have the necessary skills to meet with the challenges that have yet to be faced up to in the future

We are dealing, it must be remembered with well established organisations that have enormous resources, and can protect themselves very well indeed

we need to be equally competent with our dealings with these organisations if we are going to succeed in bringing this very sad chapter of Irish history to a close.

Un’intera nazione sconvolta dal rapporto della Commissione sugli abusi sui minori, secondo cui stupri e molestie erano “endemici” nelle scuole industriali e negli orfanotrofi gestiti dalla Chiesa cattolica. Il noto editorialista dell’Irish Times Fintan O’Toole si chiede come possa una società aver consegnato i propri figli a “un sistema di terrore”.

Il sadismo organizzato inflitto ai bambini dalla Chiesa cattolica e dallo stato, rivelato dalla Commissione sugli abusi sui minori, è troppo grave per essere accettato. Tra il 1936 e il 1970, 170mila bambini sono stati consegnati alle circa 50 scuole industriali, più di un bimbo su cento nella fascia d’età in questione. Dato che le cifre sono difficili da concepire, è meglio concentrarsi su singole immagini. Uno dei Padri si era arrabbiato con un alunno troppo lento a rispondere: “Colpì il ragazzo, gli prese la testa e la sbattè contro il banco. I calamai si rovesciarono, era tutto coperto di sangue e inchiostro.” Il ricordo di un bimbo dell’uomo che lo picchiava: “Era come un lupo. Spalancava le mascelle e mostrava i denti…” Il Padre che accese la radio a tutto volume quando un bambino gli fu portato in stanza. Gli disse: “togliti quel pigiama, puoi gridare quanto ti pare, piccolo bastardo”.
Che problema aveva una società che si permetteva di consegnare dei bambini a un tale sistema di terrore? L’Irlanda, fresca d’indipendenza, gestiva un sistema di campi di prigionia per ragazzi, caratterizzati da violenza arbitraria, profonda depravazione e un senso di assoluta impunità. Simili istituzioni sono solitamente associate al totalitarismo. L’Irlanda non era un regime totalitario, ma ne riprodusse le caratteristiche, specialmente per i bambini poveri. I metodi in uso nelle scuole industriali ricordano i campi di concentramento: le teste rasate, il ricorso all’umiliazione e al disorientamento per distruggere il senso dell’identità degli ospiti, l’uso dei cani, il pestaggio dei ragazzi appesi alle pareti.
Come abbiamo potuto creare questo sistema totalitario? La risposta più semplice è parlare di mostri. Ma le suore e i Padri che gestivano questi campi di prigionia erano figli di normali fattorie, botteghe e strade. Erano bravi figli di buone famiglie, che avevano fatto la gioia dei propri genitori quando avevano preso i voti. La maggior parte di essi non erano dei sadici all’inizio. Impararono, come i torturatori hanno sempre imparato, a deumanizzare le proprie vittime e a considerare normale l’orrore. Questo senso di normalità era rafforzato dalle dinamiche di gruppo in cui quelli che si sono macchiati di violenza mettono pressione sugli altri. Un Padre ha raccontato alla commissione “un incidente in cui i suoi colleghi erano scoppiati in un applauso quando avevano appreso che aveva punito un alunno prendendolo a pugni in faccia – non aveva mai fatto ricorso a metodi brutali prima di allora.”
Le informazioni circolavano costantemente. Non solo il Dipartimento d’istruzione sapeva benissimo delle violenze, ma anche lo stato e la chiesa. Alla fine degli anni sessanta sia il primo ministro Eamon De Valera e l’arcivescovo di Dublino McQuaid erano stati informati personalmente. La cultura della brutalità non sarebbe sopravvissuta alla divulgazione di queste notizie se non fosse stato per tre ragioni: potere, sesso e classi sociali. I colpevoli godevano dell’immenso potere della chiesa, che divenne un velo d’impunità. La violenza delle istituzioni era un’espressione di potere assoluto. Un Padre ha dichiarato alla commissione che “poter pestare i ragazzi lo faceva sentire potente”. Il grado di perversione che veniva spesso raggiunto fa pensare a gente poco abituata ad avere potere. Figli di una società colonizzata, con un forte senso d’inferiorità, membri di una struttura religiosa autoritaria, alcuni di loro cominciarono a vedere il loro potere come la libertà di fare qualunque cosa. In un caso, un Padre costrinse un dodicenne a leccare degli escrementi dalle sue scarpe. In una cultura in cui si poteva fare qualsiasi cosa, non c’era niente che uno non avrebbe fatto. Il secondo elemento era il sesso, un odio del corpo di carattere religioso, espresso dalle sofferenze che i Padri infliggevano ai corpi dei loro sottoposti. C’era una sessualità perversa che oscillava tra l’ossessione della purezza e quella della predazione sessuale. Un testimone ha dichiarato alla commissione: “La mia prima esperienza sessuale è stata essere stuprato da Padre Dax in cucina, schiacciato contro una caldaia che mi ha ustionato una gamba.”
Il terzo elemento era la classe sociale. Era una società in cui la classe media esprimeva l’insicurezza del proprio status con un isterico disprezzo dei poveri. La violenza era alimentata da un odio psicotico verso tutto ciò che non era conforme al modello della rispettabile famiglia cristiana. A Goldenbridge si diceva alle ragazze che erano “sporche”, “peggiori dei soldati che crocifissero Cristo”. I ragazzi figli di madri single si sentivano dire che le loro genitrici erano “vecchie troie”. Questi perversi rapporti di potere, sesso e classe sociale affioravano con una chiarezza da incubo nelle istituzioni, ma erano intessute nella trama stessa della società. Erano il lato oscuro di una Repubblica d’Irlanda che non era mai davvero diventata tale.

MaryA.White@oireachtas.ie to me

Dear Thomas,

Many thanks for your email. The debate was a very important debate for Dáil Eireann and it was good to see so many deputies took part in the debate.

You are right that it is essential that the State continues to support and encourage victims of abuse in whatever way it can for the remainder of the victims’ lives, and also that the recommendations of the Ryan Report are implemented in full and as soon as possible. I called on the Government to declare a national day of remembrance for all victims of abuse and I hope this is taken up by it in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Mary White

Mary White T.D.

Green Party Deputy Leader

Leinster House

Kildare Street

Dublin 2

eamon.gilmore@oireachtas.ie to me

show details 5:07 PM (9 minutes ago) Reply

I would like to thank you for your message regarding the Ryan Report to Inquire into Child Abuse. I have received many messages from many people both at home and abroad telling of their history and giving their opinion on this shameful treatment of Irish children in the care and responsibility of the religious orders.

Your concerns and your opinions have very much helped us in addressing this difficult issue and in drawing up our own proposed Institutional Child Abuse Bill 2009 (a copy of which follows) . The Labour Party Bill attempts to acknowledge the failure of the State and of the religious congregations to protect children from abuse and that crimes were committed against such children in state care. It also attempts to cover a number of the points which have been raised with me such as the age definition of the child with regard to the legislation and the definition of institution, timeframes with regard to applications, privacy and other issues. It also makes related proposals regarding the financial affairs of the religious congregations.

The Labour Party will be pressing to have this legislation considered by the Dail at the earliest possible opportunity. Thank you again for communicating with me and if there is anything further which you feel might be of help don’t hesitate to contact me.

Eamon Gilmore TD

Labour Party Leader

On my recent attendance of the march to the Dail with fellow victims of Institutional abuse

I came across this victim support group

Check them out   at  www.alliancesupport.org

Tom Hayes is the contact name

TC

Statement by Ruairi Quinn TD

Spokesperson on Education and Science

The Institutional Child Abuse Bill we are launching today is part, but only a part, of an attempt to acknowledge the failure of the State and of religious congregations to protect children from abuse, the pain and suffering they endured and that the Ryan Report vindicates their claims of abusive crimes committed against them by members of religious congregations and others while they were ostensibly in State care or under State supervision.

It goes without saying that the Bill is not of itself a full or satisfactory response. It should also be acknowledged that nothing we can do would undo the damage done to so many children in institutions or adequately compensate them for the physical, sexual and emotional abuse, neglect and wanton cruelty recorded by the Ryan Report in 216 schools and institutions.

However, in the Bill we are trying to deal with a number of specific issues of serious concern to the survivors of abuse that have been raised with Labour Party TDs by individual constituents or publicly by representative groups.

The publication of the Ryan Report shocked Irish society to its core and created a new understanding understand that the abuses carried out in these institutions have left a enduring legacy of pain and suffering. There is now a groundswell of public goodwill towards those who suffered abuse and a desire to see their outstanding grievances addressed.

The proposals in the Bill are set out in easily understandable form in the ‘Principal Features’ document included in your press pack, but I would like to refer to a few of them.

One of the principal complaints we have received is that some people for very legitimate reasons missed out on the deadline for applications to the Redress Board. This issue has particularly been raised with us by groups in Britain who represent people who simply did not know about the existence of the Redress Board or who were simply too ill or traumatised to be able to apply. Others were excluded because they were abused in an institution which was not listed in the Schedule to the Redress Act. Others lost out because, although they were underage under the law as it stood at the time they were in institutions, they would not be considered to be underage in modern law.

Our Bill seeks to correct all these defects. It also deals with concerns of abuse survivors that, in some way, they have a criminal record by virtue of having been committed to one of these Institutions. The Bill proposes that those persons must be treated for all purposes in law as persons who have not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for any offence. Their records will, in other words, be wiped clean.

The Bill proposes the deletion of section 28 (6) of the Redress Act which prohibits an applicant to the Board from publishing any information concerning their application to or their award by the Redress Board, if it refers to any other person or institution by name or could reasonably lead to the identification of another person or an institution. This effectively prohibited applicants from recounting the stories of their childhood.

There have also been reports that both the Redress Board and the Child Abuse Commission may be considering the destruction of documents they hold relating to the testimony or witnesses or other papers. To destroy these documents would add insult to injury for those who suffered abuse.

The Bill insists therefore that, when it comes to making a order for the dissolution of the Board or the Commission, the Minister must include in the order his or her proposals for the maintenance of these records and to provide access to them “as a consistent reminder of the damage done to children whose upbringing, care and welfare was consigned to the State”.

This is a serious effort by the Labour Party to address matters of concern that have been raised with us. We don’t claim any monopoly on wisdom in this area and we would be happy to hear suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved or strengthened. Of course as an opposition party we have only very limited Private Members Time. We would be very happy for the government to take over the Bill and to have in enacted in government time. This would be the speediest and most effective way to proceed.

This statement is very welcome but I come back to the question of a way forward now for the victims of these Institutions

See my letter to Deputy Joe Costello

TC

Deputy Joe Costello

Speaking on the Adjournment Motion in Dáil Éireann Deputy Joe Costello said that the Department of Education and Science should open a Book of Condolences for the victims of child abuse.

Virtually all the children in the Reformatories, Industrial Schools and Marlborough House were of school going age. The Department of Education had a statutory responsibility to fund, inspect and supervise the welfare and the education of those children while they remained in these institutions up to the age of sixteen.

Quite clearly they were negligent and failed to do so as the needs of the institutions were put before the needs of the children.

Consequently the educational provision and the educational attainment of the children in the words of the Ryan Report were deplorable. Indeed, the Department of Education was for decades a major obstacle to children and their parents obtaining any redress or satisfaction when they made complaints in relation to the treatment experienced by the children in the institutions under the supervision of the Department of Education.

I believe that the Department of Education which has failed the children entrusted to their care should now as a State institution in its own right make a symbolic statement of apology and atonement by opening a Book of Condolences in its main office in Marlborough Street in Dublin 1.

Dear Mr. Costello,

As a survivor of the institutional abuse by the Christian Brothers in St Josephs school in Tralee and as the Last registered inmate to Artian Industrial school I call upon you to support me and all others who wish now to obtain the education that was deprived of us in our youth .

As a 53 year old now I have No hope of obtaining any employment without any formal educational qualifications.

It makes no sense for me to do a Fas Course and then end up back on the dole

Many others want to go back to full time education (as mature students) and I believe that the State should now support this without any means testing

TC

Dear Thomas,

Thanks again for your email and comments on the Ryan Report and its implications for the Irish State today.

The Labour Party is to publish a Bill today the Institutional Child Abuse Bill, to deal with a number of issues of concern to victims of abuse in religious run institutions. Please be assured that the Labour Party will continue to do everything possible both inside and outside Dail Eireann to address all of the very important issues that you raised in your email.

Please keep in touch,

Very Best Wishes,

Tommy Broughan T.D.

Thank you again

Thomas Clarke

ruairi.quinn to me

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your email. I enclose my latest press release on this subject, in light of the important speech made by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin last night.

Yours sincerely,

Ruairi Quinn TD

Labour Party Spokesperson for Education and Science

Leinster House

STATEMENT BY RUAIRI QUINN TD

Labour Party Spokesperson on Education

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

QUINN WELCOMES ARCHBISHOP’S COMMENTS ON ROLE OF CHURCH IN EDUCATION

The Labour Party welcomes the recent comments made by Dr Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, about the need to review the role and the size of the Catholic Church in controlling 93% of the primary schools in the country. As he has indicated, that legacy of history no longer meets the reality of modern Ireland. Nor does it allow the Catholic Church to genuinely develop its own role as one of six patron groups in the country. The others are the Protestant Churches, the Muslim Community, the Gaelscoileanna Movement, Educate Together and recently the VEC sector.

Article 42 of the Republic’s Constitution recognises the primary role of parents in the education of their children. Access to a school with an ethos of the parent’s choice should be provided, where practical and feasible.

The Taoiseach and Minister for Education should take up the Archbishop’s suggestion of the establishment of a ‘National Forum on Education’ to explore the many issues that have to be resolved.

Labour has already called for the 18 Religious Orders, cited in the Ryan Report, to hand- over the legal ownership of the buildings and lands of their primary schools, with the assurance that those schools would continue to operate under their present Patronage arrangements. This measure would secure for the community that the school infrastructure would not be subject to an arbitrary selling off in order to raise funds. In addition, it would meet, in part, one of the unanimous demands of all parties in the Dáil. This was that the Religious Orders increase the contribution which they have already made to the overall costs of the Redress Board.

Archbishop Martin has previously indicated that he thinks that his archdiocese should cease to manage all of the 477 primary schools under his patronage. These schools are staffed by 8,298 teachers and cater for 127,814 pupils. Under his suggestion many of these schools could have, subject to his agreement, new Patrons, such as Educate Together, the Gaelscoileanna and perhaps the VECs. The remaining Catholic schools could enhance their own ethos with the involvement of committed practicising Catholic parents and their children.

There are complex issues to be discussed and resolved. Labour recognises that complexity and fully supports the Archbishop’s proposal. Labour is committed to the establishment of a genuine pluralism in our school system that would enable parents to make the choice they want for their children in so far as that is possible.

We call upon the Fianna Fail/Green government to show courage and leadership by establishing the Education Forum without delay.

Dear Mr R Quinn

Thank you for keeping me and my readers up to date on the latest developments

Your efforts are deeply appreciated

Thomas  Clarke

Re: Dail’s recent debate on child abuse

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your email in relation to the Ryan Report debate in the Dáil last week. I know that people feel very strongly about the issues outlined in the Ryan Report, and I appreciate you taking the time to express your feelings about it.

The debate took place last Thursday and Friday. I have attached a copy of Enda Kenny’s speech, which he made last week (you may have read it already). He speaks about what we have learned from this awful discovery about the treatment of children since this first came to light and highlights the steps which desperately need to be taken to protect child safety. The horror of what so many children endured must not be forgotten and the recommendations of the Ryan report, the Monageer Enquiry report, as well as the recommendations of the other child protection bodies must be implemented without delay.

Again, I appreciate you getting in touch and please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Tom Hayes

T.D. for Tipperary South

Thank You again T.Clarke

Speech by Enda Kenny on the Ryan Report

The Report of the Ryan Commission shames us. It shames us as a State and as a Society.

Down all the decades, we repeated that mantra about cherishing all the children equally – and, at the same time, we now know, the State ignored the neglect and abuse of the most vulnerable of our children.

This was not cherishing the children. This was not Christian compassion. This was a failure to care. We stand complicit in the criminalising of little children as a consequence of their poverty. But that’s just the beginning. This State was responsible for the destruction of life itself. It was responsible for the destruction of that precious, formative gift: childhood.

We are, as a country haunted by the Great Famine. We wonder at the inhumanity shown to the starving, a century and a half ago.

We should all be haunted by what Ryan has found out. Because he has revealed a Great Famine of compassion. A plague of deliberate, relentless cruelty. We stand shamed – and we must not excuse ourselves of that shame. Burke said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stay silent.

The reality is that generation after generation of good Irish people knew enough about these institutions to raise questions, to make themselves unpopular – and to rescue children. But our society stayed silent.

Therein lies a crucial lesson.

• None of us can ever outsource human concern.

• None of us can ever ignore evidence of societal failure.

• None of us can ever hand over our responsibility for the unprotected to some State agency or religious congregation and wash our hands.

And that applies, particularly, to politicians. On every side of this House, we must remember that we are the voice of the voiceless. We must relentlessly question. We must have a passion for justice and a bottomless well of anger against injustice.

Above all, we must listen. It should not have taken television producers and a State enquiry to give the victims of institutional abuse permission to tell their stories and be heard. Each and every story – told and heard only now, decades after the horror – fills us with shame.

Like the incident where a Br Percival ordered a boy out of his class for talking. A little boy wearing callipers on his legs. A little boy who tried to obey the brother’s orders and was fisted in the face as he stumbled to his feet.

And when the child fell, did the man, committed to a religious life, repent his actions and help him? No. Instead, we’re told, he jumped on him ‘like he was a bag of potatoes.’

But it wasn’t all violence. Sometimes, it was psychological torture. A boy in Letterfrack had his head shaved and was ’sent to Coventry’ for a period that was to end when his hair grew back. A child was isolated from his friends, his companions, the only human contacts he could trust, and that lasted until his hair grew. The simplicity of his account of waiting to be let back into the human race is heartbreaking.

‘I don’t know how long it was,’ he recalls. “But it felt like an awful long time.’

I’m sure it did. I’m sure it did. As a teacher, and as a parent, I know – as do most members of this House – that children have an unformed notion of time. Any postponement is painful. Tomorrow seems forever away.

The brother who shaved this child’s head and isolated him until the hair was long enough to “justify” returning to his group had a sophisticated understanding of how to deprive and damage, how to diminish and degrade. Another witness told the story of a brother who thought he was being laughed at and who threw the child around the classroom.

“I hit desks, I hit the floor,” he remembers.

He remembers, too, that the commotion of boys screaming brought another brother into the room. The other brother pulled the violent man off the child, who, at that point, was unconscious from the beating he had received. To this day, that abused child, now grown, believes he would have died at the hands of a religious had the second man not intervened.

Let me read the words of his account into the record.

“I know to God that if it hadn’t been for him coming in, I do not think I would be here today, in all honesty…When you seen this man when he lost his temper he was like a wolf. His jaws literally went out and he bared his teeth and he just lashed at me. I was running trying to get away from him. He hit me, it didn’t matter where, legs, back, head, anywhere. During that I must have passed out because when I came around there was water running on my head and … I thought I was drowning. I drew back and I cracked my head on the nozzle of the tap so I had blood coming down, I had tears, I was soaking wet. He wasn’t finished then. He threw me on the ground and he said ‘you’ll walk that floor for the rest of the night.” The watchman didn’t come that night. Nobody came and I walked that passage until 6.30 the next morning. I was so terrified of going to bed that he might come back and beat me again. I walked the whole night without sleep, I swear to God…”

Imagine it. Just imagine it.

A bruised and bloodied child – not convicted of anything, mark you, just suspected of – God help him – laughter. A bruised and bloodied hungry child, cold from the water used to restore him to consciousness. A bruised and bloodied child walking a corridor in the dark hours of the night, never ceasing to move, filled with fear…

Some of us, growing up, read Charles Kingsley’s accounts of what the Victorians did to the poorest of their children. Some of us read the Bronte’s accounts of what their powers-that-be did to orphans. We were horrified. It gave us bad dreams. But it was fiction. That was the great thing. It was fiction. It hadn’t happened. Not really. And certainly not in Ireland.

Now, we know different.

Now, we know, courtesy of the Ryan Commission, that, within living memory and within our own country, we visited comparable horrors on our children. Let us not hide behind euphemisms. This was not just “failure to protect.” This was torture, pure and simple.

The State and the religious congregations must make atonement for the crimes they committed, and the 2002 deal – as we now know – doesn’t come near to what is required.

This is about money – but it’s about a lot more than money. Ireland has become a world black spot for decades of institutional and State child abuse.

Ireland must become a world leader in reconciliation and reparation. We must seek world experts in helping adult victims of child abuse to achieve wholeness. We must set up a body, independent of Church and of Government, which will work with support organisations and individuals to develop the best response to this tragedy.

There is no solution.

That’s sadly clear. But that does not absolve us. There must be a response that draws together all the generosity, sensitivity and compassion that should have been shown to survivors when they were children.

Then, we must move on to abolish the culture of secrecy and denial still to be found in some aspects of childcare services. That culture means that some reports on child welfare – who are citizens of this State and entitled to the protection of this State as much as anyone else – have not yet been published. The culture of secrecy must end – and the Monageer report is the latest example.

The solemn commitments that we make in this regard should be clear and unambiguous. By our actions we will be judged. So we must:
• Implement in full the recommendations of the Ryan Report
• Implement in full the recommendations of the National review of the compliance with children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of children (2008)
• Implement the published recommendations of the Monageer Enquiry report and to make arrangements necessary to publish the redacted recommendations.
• Implement the report of the Joint Committee on Child Protection (November 2006)
• Implement the First Interim Report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and prioritise the publication of legislation to give legal authority for the collection and exchange of information concerning the risk or the occurrence of endangerment, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children.

We must seek to lead Europe in child care and prevention of child trafficking.

The corpus of legislation passed during any Dáil term is an aspect of national record-keeping. It is part of the first draft of history.

But the stories told in passion and pain by individuals — that’s ultimately what matters.

Media is frequently criticised by politicians on all sides. But in this instance, we must register the pivotal role played by media in allowing survivors’ stories to be told – and heard. Television, radio and print media did the State – and the survivors – some service.

We cannot re-write those stories.

Nor can we write a happy ending to them.

But it is our clear and inescapable duty to reach out and rescue, to listen and to learn and to create something out of this catalogue of cruelty in which, as a nation, we can take some pride.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Brian Hayes suggested that my Department’s failure to co-operate with the commission in its early stages somehow contributed to the perceived delays in the commission publishing its report.

I will acknowledge that prior to 2003 some difficulties were encountered in my Department’s dealings with the Commission—–

Aengus Ó Snodaigh
(Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Some?

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

—–especially in regard to complying with a small number of discovery directions. However, in this regard, the commission’s third interim report of December 2003 acknowledges some of the difficulties that were caused or contributed to by the committee, in that, for example, there was not sufficient clarity about what was sought or insufficient time was being allowed for compliance.

Furthermore, I would point out that in December 2003, in order to ensure that criticism of the Department’s responses to the commission was fully explored, the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, appointed an eminent QC and former chairperson of the Bar Council of England and Wales to conduct a review of the Department’s interaction with the commission. That report reached the conclusion that the difficulties over discovery were not due to obstruction or concealment but rather to poor historic record storage systems and misunderstandings about what was required. In all cases, my Department fully complied with the discovery directions. The issue of including day schools in the redress scheme was also raised.

I want to address the rationale behind the setting up of the redress scheme which was that children in institutions were separated from their parents and dragged from their homes while other family members watched on. Others spent years in these institutions, their only crime being that they had a single parent or a parent who could not feed them or look after them. They woke up in institutions, spent their full day in institutions and went to bed at night in the institutions. They had nobody to whom to talk or tell their stories nor did they have the benefit of the care and protection which children living with their families usually enjoy. In the case of abuse which occurs in day national schools, my Department has been found not liable for such abuse by the Supreme Court judgment. This is not to say that the abuse suffered by persons in this setting is in any way less serious or abhorrent.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

However, the Minister is washing his hands of it.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

It simply means that the plaintiff is suing the wrong party in taking an action for damages against the State.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

The Minister should put that on a memorial.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

Of course, for the State to accept liability in all such cases where it does not have a legal liability would be irresponsible in light of its duty to the taxpayer. A further consequence would be to distract from where that liability might lie. There have been some cases where my Department was made aware of allegations of abuse but did not take appropriate action. As a result, my Department accepted partial liability in those cases even though the abuse occurred in ordinary national schools.

I again reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the recommendations of the report are implemented in full and the needs of survivors are fully considered. I again reiterate the State’s apology. I commend the work of Mr. Justice Ryan, Ms Justice Laffoy before him and the members of the commission.

I hope that the full support of the House for this motion will be another acknowledgement of the acceptance by the people of the shameful manner in which these children were treated and that it demonstrates our united determination and commitment to ensuring that such appalling events will never be repeated.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

As Minister for Education and Science, I want to apologise unreservedly for the way the Department of Education and Science failed children in residential institutions.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

What will you do about it? That is the question. It is not the apology; it is what the Minister will do about it now.

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

Please allow the Minister to make his contribution.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

The report clearly shows how the Department failed to protect these children for whom it had a duty of care. Had the Department done its job properly, thousands of children would not have suffered the way they did. We failed them. We are all united in our abhorrence at the findings of this report and the sheer scale of the abuse which children experienced in these institutions over a long period of time. The then Taoiseach apologised in 1999. My Secretary General acknowledged the Department’s failures at the commission’s public hearings in 2006. I unreservedly reiterate that apology today.

I can only imagine the frustration of survivors up to this point when they tried to speak out and their claims were rejected or denied. This report unequivocally supports the stories told by those who were abused and highlights the pain, suffering and abuse to which they were subjected for most of their young lives. For many, the continuing pain has remained with them and blighted their lives to this day. The report lays bare the reality of life in these institutions and the neglect, fear, and abuse experienced daily in an environment which, in the main, did not even provide them with their most basic needs.

I commend all victims on their bravery in coming forward to the commission and divulging the most painful and traumatic events of their lives.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

For goodness sake spare us this. What are you going to do about it?

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I commend them on their persistence in ensuring the story was told, heard and, most importantly for the victims, that it was believed. Without them, this report would not have been possible nor could we have ever hoped to learn from the mistakes of the past. Their bravery and determination is a lasting tribute to those former residents who are no longer with us and whom we should remember at this time.

Today, above all other days, we must be humbled and contrite for the wrongs that have been inflicted on innocent lives. The American author, James Baldwin, once said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed but nothing can be changed unless it is faced”. We have now faced the reality that thousands of young people lived in a regime that was harsh, severe and abusive. There is no denying it—–

Joan Burton
(Dublin West, Labour)

It was savage.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

—–but now, as a society, we will be judged on how we respond to this reality, learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure our children are protected and cared for.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

And how we can reform the Department that covered it up.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

The Taoiseach, together with myself and other Ministers, met representatives of the survivors of abuse on 3 June during which the Taoiseach reiterated the Government’s full acceptance of all the recommendations in the commission’s report and that it is committed to their implementation. The groups were also advised that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will develop an implementation plan to be brought to Government by the end of next month.

In respect of my own Department, the erection of a memorial dedicated to all survivors, living and dead, has been already the subject of discussions with survivor groups and of consultation with the Office of Public Works.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

The Minister still does not get it, just like the religious orders.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

It is proposed to hold further discussions with the survivor groups to advance the implementation of this recommendation.

The report also made recommendations relating to education, counselling and family tracing services. Funding for education grants is available from the Education Finance Board which is funded by €12.7 million of the religious orders’ cash contribution. At the end of last year, some €7.35 million of this remained to be spent on education for former survivors and their families.

Funding has been provided to some survivor groups primarily for information and referral during the commission and redress processes.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

Put a price tag on that too.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

Last year, the Department provided funding to these groups as follows: Irish groups – €143,239 and UK groups – €428,312.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

That is an insult to the people in the Gallery.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

They will continue to be funded by my Department in the current year. Barnardos is being funded to provide a family tracing service for former residents, which is highly valued by them.

My Department will continue to consult with the survivor groups on the recommendations relating to education, counselling and family tracing services.

At the meeting on 3 June, the survivor groups paid tribute to the residential institutions redress unit of my Department. That unit will continue to be available to them as a point of contact as we pursue implementation of the report’s recommendations.

Joan Burton
(Dublin West, Labour)

Many people do not have trust in that.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

Deputies have raised the issue of the commission’s records. While, under the Act, decisions on the commission’s records are a matter for the commission, the commission has assured my Department that no action will be taken on these documents for some time. I assure the House that the Government supports the desirability of preserving, in so far as possible, these records for posterity.

A range of issues were raised by the survivor groups including contributions by the congregations, redress, future needs of the former residents, criminal records, counselling, therapy services and a memorial. Some of the issues raised by the survivor groups have been also raised—–

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

What about responsibility?

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

—–by Deputies in the course of this debate. These and all of the other issues raised by them will now be given further consideration.

I do not want to move from focusing on the needs of the survivors. However, a number of comments were made by Deputies relating to my own Department with which I must deal.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

That is right.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

Good.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

In a recent “Questions & Answers” programme on RTE, Michael O’Brien, a former resident, implored all of us to stop making a political football of this issue. I ask the same of Deputy Ruarí Quinn. Deputy Quinn has every right to engage in robust debate about current policies and structures and changes he considers are desirable. I would welcome such a debate. Deputy Quinn also has every right to express his views in this House on my performance as Minister or that of my Department. Deputy Quinn is right to point to areas where improvement is needed. I and my Department would agree with him in regard to some of that.

I accept it is a problem that the information sought by the Deputy is not readily available because of information technology and database inadequacies. I have already asked my Department to go through individual school files and compile the ownership information for all schools into an accessible format for presentation. However, I do not accept that Deputy Quinn has the right to use the privilege of this House to impugn the personal integrity and motivations of civil servants working in my Department or any other Department. His language and personal allegations about those civil servants would be risible if it were not for the serious context in which they were made.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

But in the past senior civil servants hid this abuse. The Minister knows that.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

I want to put on the record of the House that in my year as Minister—–

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

A former Secretary in the Department of Education said everything was wonderful in Daingean.

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

Deputy, allow the Minister make his contribution.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

dealing with my Department’s civil servants, I have always found them to be motivated by a strong desire to make the best choice in the public interest.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

What does the Minister intend to do about the problem in his Department? Will he ask any questions?

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail

Far from the laziness and destructiveness Deputy Quinn alleges, I have found a huge commitment to their work and willingness to go the extra mile but I will not dwell on that matter today.

The focus of this all-party debate is on the serious issues covered in the Ryan report—–

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

That is right.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

—–and our responsibilities to those former residents whom we failed in their childhood.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

What about the Minister’s responsibility and the role of his Department?

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

Please Deputies, allow the Minister to make his contribution.

Batt O’Keeffe
(Minister, Department of Education and Science; Cork North West, Fianna Fail)

However, I could not let such an unprecedented attack on the personal integrity of my staff lie unchallenged on the record of this House.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

And nothing about the past.

Mary Harney
(Minister, Department of Health and Children; Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Mary White.

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mary Harney
(Minister, Department of Health and Children; Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

The publication of the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, under Mr. Justice Seán Ryan, is the most important social event in Ireland in recent decades. It is a truly profound moment in the life of the nation. It confronts us with an awful truth, the fact that we should be ashamed of our past when it comes to our treatment of children. It is tempting to believe that our shame relates to events long ago, but the sad and disturbing truth is that the hurt inflicted on the survivors of abuse has continued to this day. In the ten long years since the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, apologised for the abuse of the past, we have, until now, collectively failed to fully appreciate the injustices of the past. Nothing less than a full appreciation must now be displayed by society and must inform the actions of the State.

The Ryan report forces us to confront the true scale of the savage inhumanity that has devastated so many young lives, and the awful inertia and neglect of people in authority that allowed the abuse to continue when it should have been rooted out. For too many decades we chose to turn away from this hidden misery. But now we have a solemn duty to face it, to digest its significance and to act in a manner that provides justice to the survivors and protection against such abuse ever happening in the future. While there have been many scandals, and reports on scandals, on child abuse and other evils – some yet to come – this time, it is different, and it will be different. This report is our truth commission.

We owe a great debt to Mr. Justice Ryan and the many people who have served on the commission. Without flinching, the report covers the worst of human depravity and abuse of children. The terrible truth that this report unveils, in the most thorough, judicious, and razor-sharp analysis, calls for the deepest, sustained reflection, so that all that can be learned from it will be learned. It raises profound issues of justice, redress, crime and punishment, the ethos underlying the laws we enact, questions of good and bad authority, the hideous corruption of the values and ideals of founders of religious orders, and the failures and neglect of the State, and agents of the State, purporting to act in the name of the people. In recounting the testimony of the abused children, it finally gives voice to the truth of their suffering. In so doing, it recognises the injustice and hurt of this truth having been suppressed in their childhood, and for most of their lives.

In all the darkness, there are points of light, that final recognition of the truth for those who were abused, the clarity and balance shown in the report, the acknowledgement of good done by some people, even where abuse was institutionalised and systemic, the understanding it helps us reach of what did go on, and of the need for vigilance to prevent such abuse ever occurring again.

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

I know people are very deeply involved in this debate but I ask that Members could be heard without any interruption from the Gallery. I understand how deeply people feel about this matter but it is important that what is being said is heard.

1:00 am

Mary Harney
(Minister, Department of Health and Children; Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats

Most importantly, this report is compelling because it puts the abused children of decades past, and the vulnerable children of today, at the very centre of its concerns and compels our entire society to do the same. It is fundamentally about their story and their welfare, and it demands that we, as individuals and particularly as public representatives in Dáil Éireann, ask ourselves the hard questions and deliver a response that fully meets the challenges.

For so many victims of abuse set out in this report, there has been and can be no real balancing of the scales for lives lost, psychological trauma and childhoods starved of human warmth, love and trust. The survivors live in Ireland, England and right around the world. I hope that wherever they live, and in whatever circumstances, whatever their status, health or well-being, they hear the message the Irish people and this House is sending today – you are not forgotten and we are determined to do justice, to repair damage as far it can be repaired, and to honour your lives and your human dignity.

We are determined to ensure that survivors of abuse are provided with full access to the entire range of health and social services they need. Many have ongoing and particular needs in the areas of housing, health care, education, counselling and support services, areas which cut across a number of public service providers. Our job is to align our services so that we are proactive across public services in meeting their needs. Nor will we forget those who live outside the jurisdiction whom we can also help with better services.

We are also determined as a House and as a Government, as the Taoiseach has said, to ensure Ireland reaches the highest standards of child protection. I am confident the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, will present the Government with a comprehensive set of practical measures needed to implement fully the recommendations of the report. That work is already well underway. The Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, set out yesterday some of the challenges that this will pose for him and for all of us involved in the design and implementation of public services. The challenges presented to us are nothing to the suffering of the survivors. Our challenge is to make sure we put the survivors first in designing the public services they now require.

Redress and compensation is one small part of justice, and an entirely appropriate part. However, our response as a society also demands a greater financial contribution from the religious orders involved to right the wrongs of the past and to take all possible measures to prevent abuse now and in the future. The Government is reflecting the interest of our society in requiring far more from the religious orders, and the Government and the House expect they will meet their responsibilities, which are grave indeed.

We are all thinking again about the agreement on redress in 2002 and the capping of the legal liability of the orders involved. They might well reflect that, while it sought to limit the damage to their finances, it has had the effect of causing immeasurably more damage to their reputations. It is a lesson for all organisations and institutions that catastrophic reputational damage is caused by allowing injustice to persist and by failing to act, and that damage is only exacerbated by legal or financial moves to deny or evade full responsibility. Reputations are much more difficult to repair than balance sheets. Lest there be any doubt, damaged lives are the hardest thing of all to repair.

Criminal prosecution and punishment is another necessary part of justice and redress. Our response as a society to evil and injustice includes criminal sanction; that is what our laws provide. There cannot be any reason the due process of criminal law should not take place in regard to those who have a very serious case to answer. There is every good reason it should.

In 1999, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, rightly and unreservedly apologised on behalf of the State for the failures over decades to protect children. Often, when we mention “the State” in these matters, it can sound like a cold, legal construct, an entity we all own but that somehow is above, beyond and detached from us as individuals. The State is all of us, and in a particular way those of us who are now, or were in the past, Members of the Oireachtas. In this debate we can recount all the horrors and the appalling incidents of abuse, reading out parts of the Ryan report. However, the public, and more importantly, the abused, can rightly ask of those of us speaking today, “What about you? Your institutions? Your role?” Let us address this. The failure of the State included our failure. Let us acknowledge that fully. The elected representatives of the people, ourselves, even in this generation, and our predecessors, did not adequately scrutinise, question and call to account the system that caused this abuse of children. The institutions of the State – the Oireachtas, this House and Departments – all failed.

For example, year after year, Estimates for the Department of Education were proposed, analysed, discussed and passed. That process provided an opportunity for a closer scrutiny of the workings of the industrial schools, in particular of the financial incentives underlying them. How often did we and our predecessors raise the question of abuse or the system of industrial schools? Clearly, nowhere near enough.

The report comments tersely on what happened in the 44 years between the Cussen commission’s report into reformatories and industrial schools in 1936 and the Kennedy report in 1970. It states:

The Cussen Report endorsed the system contingent upon the implementation of its 51 principal conclusions and recommendations, but the implementation of these recommendations by the Department of Education was inconsistent and intermittent. Consequently, the system continued largely unchanged until the late 1960s. By the time the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, the system had greatly declined and the report itself was more of an obituary than a death sentence. The events that led to the ending of the system had little to do with policy decisions by the Department of Education, and that also is part of the story.

One of the many lessons in this is surely that we should question more and better, not less or superficially. Whether as Ministers or TDs, we must be constantly vigilant to allow the possibility that there can be another truth other than the traditional line or that which supports the status quo. By this, I mean responsible, considered, deep and balanced questioning. As we know from some parliamentary inquiries, it is only a high standard of questioning and a high standard of ministerial and administrative response and accountability that will ensure scrutiny actually works to prevent failures, including what are often called systemic failures. A lesson of this report is also that any institution, be it religious, political, administrative or professional, can – indeed, will – end up being self-serving and abusive of power if it does not question itself and is left without effective external accountability.

What we mean by “the State” is also all those who run and administer the institutions and arms of the State. Many people advise and act in the name of the State and, ultimately, there is political control. However, there is no small measure of administrative responsibility either. In fairness, the report records the statement of the Secretary General of the Department of Education accepting its failures. However, as important as recognition, acceptance and apology is to learn and fully apply the lessons as quickly as possible.

High standards of public sector management must mean the public service carries within itself the ability to question its own methods and processes so that failures and deficiencies are addressed, not suppressed. The challenge of this report is not just about the past, but about the ability of an administrative system now and in future to question and improve itself constantly. Otherwise, self-preservation, the status quo and even illegality and deep injustices can become institutionalised. The price of not doing so may be hidden in the short term but the long-term consequences can be appalling for individuals.

There often can be unsettling and deeply challenging new facts, or new legal or financial advice, presented to Ministers and Departments. We must listen and apply considered judgment to what we hear. As Ministers, we must never abandon our critical faculties. In this case, the damage to children and the liability of the State simply accumulated over decades. It never went away because not enough people listened, heard and acted. Had we acted earlier, we would have saved both. So, it is a lesson for public administration, Government, Ministers and the Oireachtas to deal with issues when they arise, no matter how awkward, difficult or revealing they are. It is about the courage to speak the truth, as well as the courage to listen and to act. As the report states, “…openness would probably have reduced the level of abuse: sunshine is the best disinfectant”.

The report also offers lessons on what it calls “agency capture”, that is, organisations funded by the State which dictated terms even though one would imagine that he who pays the piper calls the tune. These agencies argued that they were unable to meet standards because they were not receiving sufficient funds. They claimed, for example, they did not have the money to provide meat to children. This turned into a form of blackmail against the State and a means of excusing injustice, wrongdoing and the failure to meet standards. Echoes of these arguments can be heard today. To avoid this danger, a clear and accountable governance system is needed for agencies and organisations which receive substantial State funding so that resource limitations are not used as excuses for bad practice or management.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was a truth commission for Ireland. It revealed a truth that is both disturbing and shameful but it is infinitely better that the truth be told and the lessons learned for the sake of the abused and all our children, particularly vulnerable ones. If we could give to the born the level of care and concern rightly shown in some quarters to the unborn, we would serve this country better.

As a pupil of the convent in Goldenbridge, I was treated very well and had a good experience. However, I went home to my parents every evening. Many of my teachers were the same people who inflicted such awful pain and suffering on those held in their care. It is difficult to understand how these teachers could treat two students so differently simply because one went home every evening.

Mary White
(Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)

Today’s debate addresses a truly horrific chapter in our country’s history and the lessons we must learn as a nation, a country and a human race. The Ryan report documents systemic abuse in industrial schools, reformatory schools and other institutions spanning a period of decades. It chronicles shocking physical and emotional abuse, a climate of fear in the institutions concerned, the endemic sexual abuse of boys by abusers who were protected by their congregations and a catalogue of crimes against the most vulnerable of children, including the emotional abuse that disadvantaged, neglected and abandoned children suffered at the hands of staff in these institutions.

Children with learning and other impairments were even more powerless in the presence of those in authority. The report states:

Children with intellectual, physical and sensory impairments and children who had no known family contact were especially vulnerable in institutional settings. They described being powerless against adults who abused them, especially when those adults were in positions of authority and trust. Impaired mobility and communication deficits made it impossible to inform others of their abuse or to resist it. Children who were unable to hear, see, speak, move or adequately express themselves were at a complete disadvantage in environments that did not recognise or facilitate their right to be heard.

Neglect and emotional abuse were widespread but the Department of Education took a deferential and submissive attitude to the religious orders and failed in its duty to inspect or regulate them. There was a lack of response to the complaints of those who were abused from either the congregational authorities or the Department. Complainants were not heeded, secular authorities were not alerted to cases of abuse by members of the religious orders and the Department generally dismissed or ignored their complaints.

Two industrial schools were located in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, St. Patrick’s and St. Joseph’s. The report states in regard to St. Patrick’s that men who were employed in the school appeared to have ready access to small boys and that awareness was lacking about the risks posed by this. In St. Joseph’s, two periods of serious sexual abuse were not adequately addressed. In the first period, the perpetrator was not reported to the Garda even though the Department confirmed the cases and no comfort was offered to the girls who were abused. In the second period, the Sisters of Charity were found to have failed to deal decisively with two abusers of boys. Both men went on to abuse again after leaving St. Joseph’s.

I cannot help contrasting my own happy childhood in County Wicklow, sitting on haystacks beside my brothers and sister or doing my homework at the kitchen table in the expectation of cocoa and Marietta biscuits with the butter oozing out the little holes, with the horrendous beatings, floggings, sexual abuse, lack of love and lives full of terror experienced by the children in these institutions. The contrast is grotesque but this happened at the hands of the so-called guardians and pillars of the church who wore the soutane and the biretta and wielded the cane to abuse their positions of power and destroy lives.

However, we must recognise the parallel failures of the State during the period in question. The 1936 Cussen report, which recommended integration into the community of those in industrial schools, was not implemented until the 1960s. The Ryan report states that the industrial training afforded served the needs of the institutions rather than the children. This failing was only one of many.

The Ryan report’s recommendations on child care policy and methods of evaluating the success or failure of services are all the more important when we consider that the Government is in the process of reforming early child care policy and provision. The findings of this report confront us with an enormous challenge in terms of examining the relationship between church and State both then and now. The report’s final recommendation on the implementation of national guidelines for the protection and welfare of children is crucial. While I welcome the Government’s commitment in this regard, it must also engage the Catholic church on its currently inadequate child protection guidelines. Guidelines which offer no input from the victims of abuse cannot be deemed adequate. Finally, I suggest that a day of remembrance be called by the Government. This would be an important occasion for us to remember what happened and to listen without interrupting and learn from those who for so many years never had a voice.

Brendan Howlin
(Wexford, Labour)

This is a very important debate. I ask people in the Gallery to allow Members to make their contributions in this national Parliament on this most important issue without applause.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

I am glad to have several minutes to make a short contribution on this motion. Unfortunately, the limited amount of time allocated to the debate means that many Members who would have liked to make contributions do not have opportunities to do so.

I hope the publication of the Ryan report heralds an honest and sincere response from the State and the religious congregations which were responsible for the gross depravity and savagery inflicted by many of their members on the most vulnerable in our society. I am not sure, however, whether the current debate on this all-party motion is the correct way to deal with the issue. A lot of breast beating is going on, accompanied by talk that I find difficult to stomach. We should have dealt with the issue differently and I would have liked more honesty in the debate.

Regrettably, we continue to await a full acceptance of responsibility on the part of the State. The rewriting of history which Deputy Woods engaged in this morning is not helpful. Time does not allow me to provide the details but I utterly refute many of the Deputy’s assertions. The agreement reached with the 18 congregations was grubby in the extreme. It entailed the State stepping in and taking on legal responsibility for clerical abuse not just in the distant past but up to 5 June 2002. Essentially, it was a cheap insurance policy for the perpetrators of criminal abuse and the fact the State was party to that is a disgrace. It flew in the face of modern day thinking on the need for those perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions and it is not until this requirement is satisfied that people can begin to recover. How can the survivors of abuse ever start to move on if the perpetrators of abuse continue to refuse to take responsibility for their actions?

The State, in reaching this deal with the 18 congregations, facilitated that avoidance of responsibility on the part of the congregations. The religious fought tooth and nail to limit their financial liability for this open-ended indemnity provided by the State. They succeeded in including in the deal many properties that had nothing whatsoever to do with redress. They put a €10 million price tag on their counselling services and that is a measure of the hard-nosed approach they took to this. This was not about atonement or seeking forgiveness or facing up to responsibility; this was about striking the toughest bargain they possible could. They had the State and the then Minister, Deputy Michael Woods, over a barrel and God did they strike a tough deal.

Seven years after that deal in the middle of 2009 they have yet to honour it. Incredibly, many of the properties have not yet been transferred and as of December last year less than 50% of those properties had been transferred. I am glad to say the Committee of Public Accounts continues to monitor this issue and we are seeking six-monthly reports from the Department of Education and Science to ensure the congregations live up to their responsibility and to ensure the Department ensures they live up to their responsibility. We will continue to do so until each and every one of those properties is fully transferred. Worst of all, the congregations are still more concerned with saving their own faces than in honest atonement. As recently as two weeks ago, some of those orders were still apologising “if” they caused hurt; in spite of all the money they spend on public relations and all of the spin in which they are engaged, they are still talking about apologising “if” they caused hurt. This country has serious questions to ask itself on the morality and legal liability of continuing to allow our education services and large parts of our health services to be controlled by organisations which have been proven to be systematically and systemically abusive, depraved, criminally violent and which have not yet faced up to that culpability.

We know that down through the years at political and senior official level in some Departments too many people were prepared to turn a blind eye. Worse than that, some senior officials facilitated and were complicit in the abuse. This was not just in the distant past; up to very recent years certain officials with responsibility in this area were moved around by more senior and political figures in those Departments, much in the same way as abusing priests and other religious were moved around by their superiors. Will the Taoiseach undertake to carry out an investigation into the manner in which senior officials in the Department of Education and Science in particular, but also within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, handled complaints about systemic abuse in our education and health services over the years up to the present? People who are still alive, some of them still in positions where they are paid by the State and others who have recently retired, have serious questions to answer in this regard. If we are serious about dealing with this, the Taoiseach will be determined to get to the root of it and to find out who are those officials responsible for facilitating this abuse. This is not something that happened in the long and distant past; it continued up to very recent years and there is an onus on the Taoiseach to take responsibility to root out that attitude at certain levels in certain departments of the Civil Service . Will the Taoiseach give a commitment to ensure this happens?

I will ask three questions which members of the survivors’ groups in the Gallery asked me to pose and they relate to an entirely different aspect of the issue. They are very anxious to find out the answers to them. Who decided to add a gagging clause to the redress board scheme? Who decided to add the threat of imprisonment if people spoke about their experience after having been before the redress board? Was it the former Attorney General, Michael McDowell, who was responsible for adding those two provisions? He is not in a position to make a statement in this House but I call on him to make a public statement on those provisions.

Dan Neville
(Limerick West, Fine Gael)

Some of these people have nowhere to go when they are discharged. There was some discussion about the usefulness of a nursing home or halfway house for survivors who have to leave hospital but are not well enough to return to independent living in the community.

I will quote from a professional who identified suicidal behaviour among survivors. Speaking about a married woman, the professional stated:

I do not think she will ever tell him because when he hears the [television] programmes, he says “look at all those dreadful people lying just to get money”, so of course she is never going to. “That never happened,” he says, so she will never tell him now. Well, she says she will not. So, all her life this was a piece kept away. Her deepest friends do not know … and her husband knows nothing.

John Perry
(Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)

From 2002 to 2004, which covered the period in question, I was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. We began our consideration of the matter by examining Chapter 7.1 of the 2002 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The committee under Deputy Noonan examined Chapter 9.1 of the 2003 report. During its deliberations, the committee also met the representatives of the religious congregations involved, with officials from the Department of Education and Science and the Office of the Attorney General. The committee considered the matter five times. I received the record in question from the committee yesterday, but it is important to put it on the House’s record in the aftermath of Deputy Woods’s contribution.

The committee first met the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, his officials, a Second Secretary General of the Department of Finance and his officials on 2 October 2003, a meeting that I chaired. Following the first meeting, the Department made available to us a large set of documents supporting the negotiation of the agreement with the congregations. In light of this additional information, a second meeting was held with the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, his officials, a Second Secretary General of the Department of Finance and his officials on 4 March 2004, a meeting that I also chaired. To achieve a full consideration of the accountability issues involved, the committee held an in-depth all-day meeting with a delegation from the congregations on 8 July 2004. The delegates appeared as voluntary witnesses.

The committee considered Chapter 9.1 of the 2003 report, itself a consideration of Chapter 7.1 of the 2002 report, and Vote 13 – Office of the Attorney General on 25 November 2004. This meeting was chaired by Deputy Noonan. The consideration of the accountability issues was achieved through an in-depth examination of the three audit objectives covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office. The Laffoy inquiry, which had powers of compellability, was running in parallel to the committee’s inquiry.

The specific accountability issues covered by the then Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Purcell, followed the chronological sequence of events. They were the State’s potential financial liability arising from the redress scheme, the negotiation of the agreement with the congregations, the mandate and the negotiating position, the early negotiations, the agreement in principle, the finalisation of the agreement, the role of the Attorney General’s office, the involvement of the Department of Finance, the implementation of the agreement and its concluding perspectives.

The committee’s findings and recommendations regarding redress were important. It found that a significant contingent liability existed in respect of victims of child abuse, suffered in institutions where the State had a regulatory or inspection function, who sought compensation through the courts. On 11 May 1999, the Taoiseach issued a public apology on behalf of the State to the victims of such abuse. A redress scheme was launched to facilitate the compensation of victims. The final cost of the redress scheme must be viewed in the light of the substantial costs that would have been incurred in any event if no such scheme had been established and if the cases had been processed in the normal manner through the courts.

The Government’s decision on the establishment of the redress scheme was informed by estimates of the scale of the likely claim load by the Department. However, it did not use all the data available in estimating the potential ultimate liability from the scheme and did not update its estimate of the liability as new information came to light. Mr. Purcell was vigorously challenged in committee in 2004. The latest estimate of the final cost of the redress scheme was €800 million, a figure given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The initial estimates were prudent and sought to take account of the ultimate number of claims that might be filed and the appropriation accounts of the Department for 2002 and 2003, which were certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Department stated, “The amounts involved cannot be determined at this point”, yet at the time it was aware of the position.

A mandate, which was approved by the Minister for Education and Science for pursuing an agreement for a contribution from the congregations, was drawn up by the Department, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General. The mandate was to provide to congregations contributing to the scheme an indemnity in respect of all civil actions arising from acts of abuse against people who were eligible to make a claim to the compensation scheme. In return, a minimum contribution of €128 million towards the costs of the redress scheme was expected from the congregations.

The mandated minimum contribution bears little relation to the negotiating position that was favoured by the Department of Finance. Insufficient use was made by the Department of the information held about the likely final liability in establishing the mandate and the negotiating position. The underestimation of the final liability had implications for the negotiating mandate adopted by the State side.

The State negotiating team had no prior knowledge of the ability of the congregations to pay the contribution expected and should have pressed for contextual information about the extent of available assets. It is acknowledged that pursuit to a negotiation strategy based on ability to pay would have had implications for the likely time required for the finalisation of the agreement. The State adopted a negotiating position to seek a 50:50 sharing of the ultimate cost of the redress scheme. The congregations viewed this position as unfair.

The initial offer of the congregations of €50 to €60 million, made in June 2001, was considered unacceptable by the Minister and was not taken to Cabinet. In October 2001, the State’s negotiation team believed the negotiations had stalled and underestimated the desire of the congregations to be part of the scheme. Media coverage of the negotiations affected the trust and confidence of the congregations in the State’s negotiation team.

A letter issued by the Department on 6 November 2001, supported by two meetings between the congregations and the Minister and Secretary General of the Department, enabled agreement in principle to be reached on all main issues, in particular, the amount of the contribution to be made, the extent to which property already transferred could be included and the indemnity.

Written documentation of the original negotiation mandate of April 2001 exists. The documentation of the meetings with the Minister in November 2001 and January 2002, when agreement in principle was reached, was not good. No contemporaneous minutes were kept by the State. The congregations wrote to the Department in January 2002 to ensure a record of its understanding of what had been agreed was available.

Regarding the question of indemnity, a Government decision in principle to approve the Minister’s proposals for a deal with the congregations was made on 31 January 2002. When the Government reached this decision, the detailed terms of the proposed indemnity or the value of the previously transferred properties were not known. Formal documentation of policy positions and the progress of the negotiations left a lot to be desired, as reflected by the uncertainties raised by the Office of the Attorney General. There was a considerable difference of understanding over the agreed extent of the indemnity on the State’s side. Between January and March 2002, the Attorney General wrote two letters seeking details of the agreement. Officials in the Attorney General’s office were not sufficiently aware of the original mandate agreed in April 2001. This was only clarified by a letter from the Minister to the Attorney General in April 2002.

While resort to the indemnity has been low to date, the court award of €370,000 on 1 March 2005 could lead to a change of approach by some claimants, which would favour recourse to the courts rather than the redress board. A substantial change of this kind could have implications for the ultimate cost of the redress issue. The State’s power to enter into such indemnity agreements has been based on the premise that the Executive branch of Government has exclusive powers to do so. The Department of Finance was satisfied that the original mandate for reaching agreement with the congregations was met.

Regarding implementation, the full cash element of the contribution has been paid. The Department has been diligent in pursuing the transfers of property and in following up the counselling and education fund elements of the agreement.

It is important to discuss the recommendations, which is where the real problems arise. The strength of the State’s negotiation team should be equal, at all times, to that of those with whom they are negotiating. Departments involved in significant negotiations that commit large amounts of money should provide appropriate training and development for staff expected to serve on negotiation teams.

The Civil Service  should aim to ensure its capacity to negotiate on significant issues is maintained at a sufficiently high level to match the negotiating strength of the opposing side. Where required, the facility to import the required specialist skills and expertise should be available. To remove any potential doubt about the State’s authority to enter into indemnities of this nature, the committee considered that there may be merit in having the law officers of the State review the appropriate measures, statutory or otherwise for authorising indemnities or material financial commitments of this kind.

The Department of Finance accounting procedures for contingent liabilities should be reviewed and brought into line with good practice. The general approach to identifying, recognising and measuring contingent liabilities should be reviewed and updated in light of the experience of the redress scheme. Guidance on suitable approaches to estimating contingencies should be developed so that departments can estimate and report on contingencies in a more realistic way.

A statement of good practice for the formal documentation of policy positions, negotiating positions and mandated positions should be developed by the Department of Finance. There should be a practice note regarding the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General in major negotiations with a legal dimension, particularly where the legal dimension is complex and where large amounts of money may be involved. Further guidance on negotiation strategies should be developed where more than one department is involved. This should include appropriate standards for the documentation of meetings and key decisions and of the information to be provided to Cabinet. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of 2002 details the appalling deal which was negotiated and the lack of accountability, such as notes not being taken by the Secretary General of the Department. It has had an impact on many people, regardless of the transfer and value of the assets of the religious to the State. It was poorly done, there was a lack of knowledge and we are now dealing with the current situation.

James Reilly
(Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I welcome the Ryan report as the first meaningful exposure of a system that inflicted systematic abuse on generations of children in this country. I hope today can be the start of the healing process, for us as a nation and for the victims.

The abuse was sexual, emotional, psychological and physical and was endemic. The report confirms the culpability and failings of the State, of the congregations, of gardaí, of professionals, of educators and our broader society. As the report points out, surely people knew what was happening and could see the state of these children as they supplied whatever goods or services were needed to the institutions, and yet nothing was done and any attempt to do anything was stifled.

The fact that religious orders allowed their Christian ethos to be so savagely subverted that they could inflict such cruelty and then go on to protect those who had inflicted that cruelty is mind-boggling. The report reflects a terrible shame on a nation that turned its back on its children and allowed a system evolve where a mini industry could exist, where capitation payments were made and the more heads in beds, the more money the orders got.

A stark reminder is stated in one chapter of the report. The committee concluded that large, mainly boys schools, with big productive farms and industrial training geared to the needs of the school rather than the children, and sufficient numbers to allow economies of scale to apply were well-resourced. It also states these schools should have been able to provide a good standard of care, however the evidence indicates that the children in these schools were some of the most poorly provided for. This was noted by the Department of Finance, but the resident managers association did not and would not co-operate, and, thereby, condemned many children in the less well-resourced institutions to needless poverty.

I wish to read one case of the many that struck me. It relates to the Rosminians. There was a pattern of systematic, severe, physical and sexual abuse of the boys in Ferryhouse extending over many years. Perhaps the worst effect of gratuitous and capricious punishment was its unpredictability. No matter what the boys did, a punishment was still a possibility. The result was a climate of fear. A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s vividly described the kind of fear he experienced every day. He told the Investigation Committee:

I cried most days in that school. I was so scared when the next beating was going to come, whether it would be me. I mean I cried for my friends, my friends cried for me. We didn’t deserve this stuff, we really didn’t deserve this…It was the beatings that was given and dished out in there was savage, man, savage…I was a child you know, a child. I’ve walked landings with hard men in the Joy [prison], in Cork, wherever. I was never afraid. I would stand eye to eye with people that killed people. I wasn’t afraid. But I was afraid when I was in that school, every day of my fecking life. That is what I want you to understand.

We need to understand that. Let us look at the inspectors and their position, which was compromised by a lack of independence from the Department and a statutory obligation to inspect more that 50 residential schools. That was clearly too much for one person. Inspections were supposed to be carried out at random, but they were well flagged and the institutions could prepare for them. The inspector rarely spoke to the children in the institutions. The appalling emotional hardship that was virtually universally applied is underscored by the line in the report which says “more kindness and humanity would have gone far to make up for poor standards of care.”

The report is damming of the Department of Education and Science that knew that violence and beatings were endemic within that system and the upsetting truth that children who ran away were subjected to extremely severe punishments. Schools that were known to have very high rates of absconding associated with chronic sexual or physical abuse were ignored. Complaints made by parents and others to the Department were not properly investigated. Some laypeople who were accused of abuse were reported to the Garda but members of congregations were protected and moved elsewhere to continue their barbaric ways.

Sexual abuse was endemic and the recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to the religious authorities but the danger to children was never taken into account, only the risk to the order, the institution and its reputation. Often children were beaten and punished severely for reporting sexual abuse even where it was acknowledged that it happened. The victims were viewed as corrupted by the orders. In more recent times the fact that the religious orders sought to protect themselves all the way down the line and used the legal niceties of law to fight their case is something that can no longer be tolerated. In summary the report is a damming indictment of the religious orders, of the Department of Education and Science and of broader society. It is the clearest evidence ever to support the contention of Edmund Burke that, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

Having suffered humiliation, hardship and abuse those victims went to a redress board where they were re-victimised by barristers who browbeat them. I met many victims on Wednesday, including Michael O’Brien, Christine Buckley and many others who might not want their names mentioned. They all felt belittled and dehumanised by the redress board and the manner in which its adversarial approach demeaned them. The only authority any church has is a moral authority and until it acts in a moral fashion it has no authority. Those religious congregations did not do that, but I hope they have now turned the corner. They now wish to atone in a meaningful way. As State legislators and leaders of our community we must atone as well for the dreadful shame and stain that is on our nation.

All this is meaningless if it does not bring change, if the culture of secrecy is not removed. That culture still lives strong in many parts of Irish life. On the same day we began this debate there was a press conference across the road in Buswell’s hotel. Patients 4 Dignity outlined how a medical consultant abused young men for 30 years, yet was found innocent in a court of law, but subsequently guilty by the Medical Council. The fact that man could operate for 30 years without being stopped is another black mark against society and against my profession in particular. There is a common theme here, namely, that perverts, abusers and psychopaths will be always with us, but what we must do and what must come of the debate today is a system that catches them early, punishes them and protects the vulnerable, whether they be children in institutions or any other area of State care.

Three principles must underline everything we do, namely, transparency, accountability and fairness. Even as we speak, there is no independent inspectorate for approximately 450 children with disability who are in institutional care. How ironic it would be if, having had this great national outpouring, we allow that situation to continue and find that in five years’ time those children too were left unprotected. Further, the abuse of intellectually disabled children in the Brothers of Charity residential home in Galway has not been properly investigated. That must be done.

I wish to finish by saluting the bravery of all those such as Michael O’Brien, Christine Buckley and the thousands of others who have exposed the deep, dark wound at the heart of Irish society. I thank them for giving us the opportunity to correct the wrongs and to ensure it cannot happen again. If there is a bright light that shines, it is theirs. I salute them. I commend the motion to the House.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

Once again the Deputy is wrong. The indemnity was before the joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad. It was fully and openly discussed and had the benefit of the advice of the Attorney General. Incidentally, the Deputy did not use the opportunity to use any of the regulations to have a discussion on it at the time which could have been held separately after the Attorney General had completed his side of it.

Of his office and of the experts in the Departments of Finance and Education and Science and others, it did not, as the Deputy says, apportion various liabilities because that was not its function.—–

Joan Burton
(Dublin West, Labour)

It was to cap liability.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

In addition, the capping of the contribution was brought before the House. I notice that from March of this year there have only been three cases which had to be covered fully through the courts. There were 23 in all and 20 of those were settled separately. Why is all that going on? It is because the Deputies are trying to use the victims for political purposes—–

Liz McManus
(Wicklow, Labour)

That is an outrageous statement.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

It worked and it worked well.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

The Deputy used the victims’ groups throughout.

Liz McManus
(Wicklow, Labour)

Deputy Woods is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

In addition, the capping of the contributions was brought before the House. It is time now for Deputy Gilmore to withdraw the statements he made in the House last week. At all times the Government was guided by the interests of the victims of child abuse and ensuring that no extra burden was placed on them by the State. The redress board was set up to enable survivors to be compensated without having to go through the pain of the court process.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

The Deputy should ask them how they got on.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

Now that the full extent of child abuse has been revealed in the Ryan report, the Government and Dáil Éireann rightly support a call for additional contributions from the religious congregations. This could be provided in substantial support for a foundation for the future education and welfare of the victims and their families. I welcome the publication of the Ryan report and agree with the Taoiseach that now we must implement all the recommendations, establish a fitting memorial to the victims, establish a trust or foundation to assist the children of the victims in their educational welfare, and arrange for the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions to actively pursue any criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Taoiseach on his very fine speech yesterday.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

No one knew it was an indemnity up to June 2002.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

On 20 February 2002, the Final Stages of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill were taken in Dáil Éireann. The CORI package and indemnity were discussed again. It was estimated at the time that the overall cost could be up to €500 million. However, since neither the number of victims who were abused nor the extent of injuries was known, the figure could be considerably higher.

Joan Burton
(Dublin West, Labour)

The Deputy is rewriting history.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

I am not and Deputy Shortall will find much of this information in the Ryan report.

The Bill passed its Final Stages with the stated agreement of all parties. Deputy Michael Creed, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, and Deputy Róisín Shortall, on behalf of the Labour Party, thanked me, as Minister, and my officials for the work done on this complex Bill and both Deputies regretted that day pupils in ordinary schools were not included.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

The Deputy has the dates wrong. No one knew it was an indemnity or what were its terms at that point.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

While I understood the Deputies’ concern, I stated we were only dealing with the residential schools and reformatories which were under complete, 24-hour control of the Department of Education.

On 8 March 2002, the CORI package was outlined in Seanad Éireann and fully discussed and approved by the House. The Bill was finalised in Seanad Éireann on 22 March 2002 and in Dáil Éireann on 28 March. It became an Act at the beginning of April.

Further meetings involving officials of the Departments of Finance and Education and Science took place on 7 May 2002, at which issues relating to the property transfer part of the agreement were discussed. At a meeting on 16 May 2002 between officials from the Department of Education and Science and Office of the Attorney General, changes to the draft text of the indemnity were discussed and subsequently carried through.

The agreement was finally approved by Government for signature by the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science on 5 June 2002 and then completed on the direction of the Government. This enabled the Residential Institutions Redress Board to begin its work. At last, those who had been abused and injured would be compensated by the State for this horrible period for children in the history of our young nation. This generation of Irish men and women can be proud that they made amends in some small way to those who, as children, were injured and abused in the State’s residential schools and reformatories, mainly from the 1930s until the 1970s.

I trust the sequence I have set out will be helpful to any genuine person who is anxious to understand what was done and why. The Ryan report greatly expanded on our knowledge of how child victims were treated in the State’s residential schools and reformatories. The Government knew in 1998-99 the nature of these abuses and injuries but not the full extent of the awful crimes committed against incarcerated children. Mr. Justice Ryan and his predecessor, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, and their teams of experts and officials have done the State a great service.

Some commentators stated and still state that we should have had a full inventory of all the lands, schools, hospitals, care centres and other facilities before accepting the contribution of religious congregations who ran most of the institutions on behalf of the State. This would have resulted in delay and more pain and suffering for the victims. The scheme was based on taking a no fault, no quibble, no legal context approach. We knew that few cases would succeed in court and, accordingly, the cost of the scheme would be much greater than if cases were contested in court. It was the State’s decision to behave at last in a magnanimous manner to those whom it had offended by its actions in placing children in horrific circumstances, grossly neglecting them and ignoring all warnings and reports. The system, which the State ran, was the cause and opportunity for these grievous offences against children.

Others argue we should have taken time to allocate blame to all the parties involved. This, too, would have involved delay and adversarial court proceedings. It would also have placed victims under renewed stress, which the Government was not prepared to do. The Government determined that the redress scheme be provided regardless of the involvement of anyone else. This was done by the State paying full compensation. The issue was regarded as one for society to be dealt with fully and firmly and once and for all. The most effective way the Government could achieve this outcome was to take responsibility for the matter, which is what it did. The scheme was to be fully funded by the State – that was the starting position – and full awards were to be paid.

It has been alleged repeatedly by some Deputies that a sweetheart deal was done with the religious congregations. The Committee of Public Accounts chaired by Deputy Michael Noonan examined this allegation and concluded:

The Minister had set up a meeting with the Congregations where he wanted to move the agenda forward, re-establish a position of trust and see if an agreement could be reached. He only asked the Secretary General to come along with him and was aware that the Secretary General worked closely on this issue with the Legal Adviser. Suggestions have been made of a sweetheart deal at the meetings with the Minister. The Committee is satisfied that this is not the case.

The reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of March 2001, the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 2002 accounts and the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service all found there was no collusion with anybody, no sweetheart deal was made and every step taken was in line with the Government’s commitments.

I will address two allegations made by Deputy Gilmore on 26 May 2009 in this House. Deputy Gilmore stated:

In the case of Deputy Woods, he has explained why he did not include the Attorney General in discussions because, as he put it, the legal people had fallen out with the religious. [I did not say that.] Therein lies a clue as to why the blind eye was turned over decades. There was an unhealthy deferential relationship between the State and its institutions and the Catholic Church and its religious orders.

The Deputy omitted to refer to the strong rebuttal of the article he cited. It was in the next issue of the Sunday Independent dated 19 October 2003. I refer to a letter which I sent to the newspaper to make quite clear that what they said was wrong. It read:

Dear Editor

Your article published in last Sunday’s Independent October 12th 2003 concerning the agreement between the State and the 18 religious congregations, was a fabrication and a misrepresentation designed to suit a preset agenda. In discussion with your journalist I never mentioned my faith nor my religion nor did I suggest that they influenced me in any way in the manner in which I conducted the negotiations. Throughout the long negotiations involving many meetings from November 2000 until May 2002, all the officials, Ministers and the Attorney General acted with probity and in a fair and objective way. They did this in the full knowledge that the Government, on behalf of the nation, wanted at long last to make amends to those who had suffered injury in residential institutions and to allow the orders to make a meaningful contribution to that process. At all times I acted as an experienced Minister and not on the basis of my religion, as your article implies. Whether I was a Protestant, Catholic or Dissenter, it would have been my duty to do the same. Finally, may I say that your article highlights the need for an independent press council to prevent such irresponsible journalism.

They left that last line out when they published the article.

The second allegation by Deputy Gilmore is contained in the Official Report dated 26 May 2009 at 16.50 p.m.:

It is a pity that in 2002 he [Dr. Woods] did not bring the indemnity deal before the House for approval. What he did was to bring before the House the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, which enjoyed cross-party support at that time as the appropriate way of dealing with this issue. However, the indemnity deal which apportioned the various liabilities and which capped the contribution of the religious orders was never brought before the House.

There is a bit of confusion in that but I will leave that aside.

Pat Rabbitte
(Dublin South West, Labour)

What confusion?

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

It is his confusion, not mine. Once again, the Deputy is wrong. The indemnity was before the Dáil and Seanad committee and it was fully and openly discussed—–

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

That is not true.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

—–and had the benefit of the advice of the Attorney General—–

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

The indemnity never came before the committee.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

—–of his office and of the experts in the Department of Finance, the Department of Education and Science and others.

Pat Rabbitte
(Dublin South West, Labour)

No, it did not.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

On a point of order, Chairman.

Charlie O’Connor
(Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Woods, I am obliged to take a point of order.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

The Deputy is misleading the House. The deed of indemnity never came before the Joint Committee on Education and Science.

Charlie O’Connor
(Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy’s comment is noted but I am advised it is not a point of order. I ask Deputy Woods to continue and he has five and a half minutes remaining.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail

The indemnity is in the legislation. What the Deputies are referring to is the final details which the Attorney General —–

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

Those are the important details.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

That can be got any time; all those things are done by the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor all the time.

Pat Rabbitte
(Dublin South West, Labour)

They were not done and that is the whole point.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

The Deputies are caught out now, they are on the bounce, they have their press release out, trying to tie Fianna Fáil in with the church. I know that is what they are at; that is the preset agenda that they have.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

No, it is not.

Róisín Shortall
(Dublin North West, Labour)

It was done in secret.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

That is being driven by the former Sinn Féin-Workers’ Party and by Deputy Rabbitte in particular.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

There was no hidden agenda. That is the kind of cheap comment we would expect.

Charlie O’Connor
(Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

Order, please. I ask Deputy Woods to speak through the Chair.

Catherine Byrne
(Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)

We have all heard the land of saints and scholars being mentioned during this debate. I want to know where the saints were while the little children threaded wire until their fingers bled to make rosary beads and where the scholars were, doubtless locked up in their ivory towers behind closed doors. Why did they not use their wisdom and knowledge to cry “Stop”? Instead they allowed the children to suffer at the hands of Satan. These landmark buildings, which were institutions of terror, should all be wiped from the landscape forever. People have suffered enough and should not be constantly reminded of what has happened to them when they pass these monuments of cruelty.

One would need to be subhuman not to be outraged and appalled by the contents of the Ryan report. It sickens me to the core to think I live just three minutes’ walk from the gates of one of these institutions where such depravity was part of everyday routine. Now I know why my grandfather before he died begged my grandmother not to put their children into an industrial school. He had on occasions maintained the washing machines and had witnessed the children’s workload and the conditions under which they performed their duties. Owing to family circumstances, mainly poverty, young defenceless children were abandoned to a life of extreme cruelty in these institutions. Corporal punishment was the norm and the children lived in constant terror for decades. Catholic priests and nuns terrorised thousands of boys and girls while Government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beating, rape and humiliation.

Children’s safety and self-preservation should be to the forefront of our education system but, sadly, this was never a priority in the network of industrial schools. In reformatories, orphanages and hostels, children were demonised from the 1930s until the last facility closed down in 1990.

Although the Ryan report has been published, we must accept that nothing can compensate for the damage done to small defenceless children. Many were trying to cope with the loss of a parent or a separation from siblings, or had committed petty crimes in a time of desperation. St. Vincent’s Industrial School in Goldenbridge opened its doors in 1880, run by the Sisters of Mercy order. When the first allegations of abuse emerged in 1992, the country was in a state of shock. My community of Inchicore was saddened and horrified at what had happened on our doorstep. In the years that followed, two documentaries broadcast by RTE, “Dear Daughter” and “States of Fear”, further depicted the horror endured by young innocent children in Goldenbridge. The official silence about the schools, held by the State, the Department of Education and Science and the Catholic Church, was finally broken but the road to truth and justice was a long one for those people who had suffered at the hands of so-called figures of authority and respect.

Young girls in St. Vincent’s Industrial School in Goldenbridge were held in conditions of neglect and near-starvation, and were subject to repeated beatings. One testimony revealed the horror and the long-lasting psychological impact and cruelty experienced by the children: “The screaming of children in Goldenbridge will stay with me for the rest of my life. I still hear it and have not recovered from hearing children crying and screaming. It was endless. It did not stop for years in that place.”

The extent of abuse in industrial schools in this country outlined in the Ryan report deeply saddens me. The report and the details of abuse sicken me. How could it happen? How did people stay quiet, turn a blind eye and bow to the power of the clergy? They had the power to put a stop to the misery and suffering of children but did not act. This is our greatest failure. Given my own experience of growing up in Inchicore, coming from a family where love was in abundance, in a community where the Oblate Fathers and the Sisters of Mercy played a vital role in the well-being and education of my community, it saddens me all the more to think of all the good people who have been let down by the sins of the past. Let us not forget those members of religious orders who have done good work but are now forever tarnished by the terrible scandal of abuse in industrial schools.

We must also remember the ill-treatment of children who were in places other than these schools. The classrooms of fear existed everywhere. In my own school children were subject to strap beatings on the knuckles or with the cane and were made stand on tables when they could not repeat the “Our Father” in Irish. Often their ears were pinned to the walls.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse interviewed 1,090 former residents of 216 schools and reformatories, 90% of whom said they had been physically abused, with over 500 abused sexually. After nine years of hearings and the publication of five volumes containing 260 pages of horror, have the victims really seen justice? Have those who committed the crimes outlined in the report been justly punished? They have not. The secrecy surrounding the identity of those who committed these horrible crimes is very troubling. Why should they be allowed hide behind faceless names, escaping criminal proceedings with no accountability for their actions?

We know that those—–

Charlie O’Connor
(Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy has one minute remaining. I am sorry.

Catherine Byrne
(Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)

I shall finish. We know that for those who have spoken out about their experience money is not the main issue, but I agree with their claims that the religious orders have got off lightly in terms of compensation.

I wish to spend the last part of my contribution to this debate in a moment of silence to remember those who are not here today to tell the tale of what happened to them, and the many children who were murdered in these institutions.

Deputies observed a minute’s silence.

Frank Feighan
(Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)

Seeing so many people on the streets of Dublin a few days ago and reading this report of endemic rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care has left most Members of this House numb and cold, and with a sense of shame. The nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns terrorised thousands of boys and girls in the Irish Republic for decades while Government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rape and humiliation.

The Ryan report unveils 2,600 pages of fine reporting by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. It draws on testimonies from thousands of former inmates and officials from more than 250 institutions run by the State or the church. More than 30,000 children passed through these schools. They were deemed to be petty thieves and truants, or from dysfunctional families – a category that often included unmarried mothers. They were sent to the industrial schools, reformatories and orphanages from the 1930s until the last facilities closed in 1999.

My mother’s uncle was a Christian Brother. Many years ago when my brother became 12 or 13 years of age, it was considered that it might be ideal for this young man to go to Dublin to the school where this Brother taught. In a coded word to my mother, the Brother said, “Your son may not be safe in this school.” All along, we felt the meaning to have been that he would not have been safe from the other pupils. Little did we know that the Christian Brother was saying he would not be safe from the teachers and his associates.

This country has grown up and woken up for the first time since the foundation of the State. As a country, we always aspired to a united Ireland but failed to unite our people. We blame Britain for most of our ills but for this we can only blame ourselves. The founding principles of the Irish Republic, as mentioned in the House several times, was to cherish the children of the nation equally. This country has never been equal, not since the foundation of the State. In the church people sat up at the front, in the middle or at the back. There was a hierarchy in this country. We had deference towards the church but also towards intellectuals, doctors and solicitors. Often we heard it said: “God, he is a complete alcoholic and a boor but he’s a great doctor.” We needed to grow up.

Over the years we had the Irish solution to divorce, namely, the husband living in the UK. We exported all our difficulties to the UK and Australia. On the record, I wish to thank the people and the Governments of the UK for treating equally the Irish people who went there to work. We failed to do that in this country.

It was said that times were harsher and poorer but what happened was unacceptable. It was out of sight and out of mind. Society was at fault, as were our Governments over the years. We must question the whereabouts of State assets that were misappropriated over the years by institutions. People were obviously on the take. Children were put into care and financial assistance was claimed from the State for their welfare. The commission interviewed 1,000 people, mainly aged between 50 and 70. I pay tribute to their courage and to the several hundred who travelled back to Ireland, from the US, England and Australia, to describe their childhoods of terror and intimidation. They are angry and bitter and feel cheated and deceived.

The church must live up to its obligations. The contrition expressed by the 18 congregations is too little and too late. No sum of money can ever adequately compensate for what was done. The church has moved on in recent years and much good work has been done. I would like to believe that what has happened will not affect the liberalisation of a Catholic church which for too long had too much influence in the matters of the State. We must listen to the victims and act.

Kieran O’Donnell
(Limerick East, Fine Gael)

Today is a day we as a nation are growing up and acknowledging that what happened in these institutions was wrong. We are shamed by what happened and owe the victims and their families a huge apology. It is critical we get something positive from this debate. We must agree and state that all the recommendations of the Ryan report will be implemented in full. I welcome the fact the Government is meeting with the religious orders and that it will seek to implement the recommendations in full.

When we look back on what happened, we see we must question and investigate how we got to that stage. Nobody is above or beyond reproach. For too many years the word of the religious was taken as their bond, but now politicians, the religious and people in all walks of life must be open to question. That is the essence of democracy.

I want to focus on two areas. I read the section of the Ryan report that referred to St. Joseph’s Industrial School in Glin, which was in my region. No doubt, what happened in Glin mirrors what happened in many other industrial schools. The average age of boys committed to Glin was nine years and ten months. These were very young children and their average stay in Glin was five years and eight months. They were put into a prison type environment for that period. I have met constituents who had a family member who was sent to this school. Mr. Justice Ryan states in the report that even if crimes such as larceny, truancy and housebreaking – which may well have been motivated by poverty – are excluded from the list of offences directly attributed to poverty, it is clear that over 48% of the boys were committed to Glin as a direct consequence of their impoverished backgrounds. People are aware of the level of poverty that existed, as described in Frank McCourt’s book “Angela’s Ashes”. People had large families and little or no education, yet young boys who were supposed to stay in school until the age of 16 were sent to Glin.

People should read the general conclusions of the Ryan report. We must acknowledge what happened before we can move forward. The report states that Glin had a severe systemic regime of corporal punishment. It points out that the Christian Brothers congregation sent two brothers to Glin despite the suspicion that they had sexually abused boys in another institution under the control of the order. It protected the congregation of brothers, but endangered the boys in Glin. The report points out that the problems affecting the standards of care in Glin persisted, despite being reported by both visitors and Department of Education inspectors. It states the Department failed in its supervisory duties, its role was protective of the institution and its response to serious complaints was cursory and dismissive. Not only were the institutions and religious orders derelict in their duty, we – the State and overseeing bodies – were remiss in our duties.

Michael D Higgins
(Galway West, Labour)

When Jim Kemmy raised the issue he was abused for his trouble and attacked by the activists and frontliners who set about attacking those of us who raised all these issues over 30 years.

Kieran O’Donnell
(Limerick East, Fine Gael)

That is the reason it is important we raise these matters now.

I want to move on to a current issue. Children with physical and intellectual disabilities are extremely vulnerable. Currently we have no independent inspectorate for institutions with children with intellectual and physical disabilities. Inspections only take place where a child is committed under a court order. We must introduce standards on a legislative basis so that institutions with children with physical and intellectual disabilities will be independently inspected.

National standards were published on 11 May for institutions with adults with intellectual and physical disabilities. However, the standards came with a rider, that it would cost up to €10 million to employ 50 inspectors. I do not want to hear any more of this. The Government must provide the €10 million. We need an inspectorate for both adults and children in these institutions. These people are vulnerable and we must be proactive and do something positive for them in memory of past and current victims. I want a commitment from the Government today that it will put an inspectorate in place for institutions with children with disabilities. There are over 400 of them in full-time care and 500 in part-time care. The Government must also put the resources in place to implement the standards published by HIQA on 11 May 2009 for adults with intellectual and physical disabilities. Until that is done, I will continue to raise the issue in this Chamber.

Michael Woods
(Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

There has been a great deal of poorly informed comment on the agreement the Government made with the religious congregations in 2002. I wish to place on the record of the House the facts regarding that agreement. It was my privilege as Minister for Education and Science to bring through the Oireachtas, in the timescale set by the Government and requested by the victims, two seminal and historic pieces of legislation – the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Act.

The Government and the Oireachtas did not have to wait for this extensive and searching report to know what to do. We knew enough and we knew that in the interests of the victims we would have to act with speed. The policy of the Government on the Residential Institutions Redress Board was informed first and foremost by the consideration of what would be in the best interests of the victims of abuse in residential institutions. This dictated that the compensation should be provided to them on a basis which would be generous, expeditious and involve the minimum of stress to them in progressing their claims. In other words, anything that involved them in an adversarial court process should be avoided if at all possible.

To understand the context in which the Government decided, once and for all, to address the pain and lifelong suffering of children who were abused in the State’s residential institutions and reformatory schools, we need to examine the sequence of events that began in 1967. In that year the Government established a committee chaired by Ms Justice Eileen Kennedy which, in 1970, produced the Kennedy report. The report found that the reformatory and industrial schools were inadequately staffed; the institutions were housed in old buildings which were unsuitable for use as residential homes; an institutional approach pervaded the care of children – an approach harmful to their development; the system of inspection was totally ineffective; financial provision was totally inadequate; and the system of payment to the school on a capitation basis should be discontinued and payment should be made on a budget basis.

There was little evidence prior to the 1960s of any understanding of the issues of abuse of children. Neglect and deprivation due to poverty or lack of education were the key areas of concern. Up to the 1970s the focus of child protection was on familial neglect. The Kennedy report led to the closure of the industrial schools and reformatories.

In 1996, RTE broadcast “Dear Daughter” which dealt with abuse in Goldenbridge industrial school. In 1998, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Micheál Martin, brought the issue to Government for the first time with the focus on counselling for victims. The Department of Education and Science employed a social historian from Trinity College to examine the Department’s archives to see what evidenced there was of past abuse, how much the Department knew about it and what it did about it. The Minister also gave access to these files to Mary Raftery who, with Eoin O’Sullivan, made the “State of Fear” series broadcast by RTE in 1999.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet had set up a sub-committee to deal with the issue of child abuse and a working group of secretaries-general and officials. I was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee. This working group reported on 28 April 1999 with the report on measures to assist victims of childhood sexual abuse. They proposed a proactive approach to the needs of victims of abuse, rather than relying solely on a reactive response to litigation. They also proposed changes in the statute of limitation, funding for counselling and related services, and funding for research. They suggested a commission where those who were abused could tell their story to a sympathetic panel. In this way they could be assured that the abuse they suffered was wrong and is utterly condemned by Irish society.

On 10 May 1999, the Government agreed these proposals and decided to set up a commission chaired by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. The next day, 11 May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, announced the proposals and made an apology to the victims, in effect accepting moral and social responsibility on the part of the State for past abuse in these residential institutions. While a full investigation and review was still to take place, the initial departmental examination had shown that children were incarcerated for flimsy reasons, for example, unfit mothers, children born out of wedlock, absence from school, or petty theft such as taking an apple from a shop. Many were orphans or from homes which were too poor to care for them. Many children were wards of court sent into the care of the Department of Education. The State had a duty of care, supervision and inspection, and a moral responsibility. The State sub-contracted that duty.

There were reports on the record of various serious physical and sexual abuse, but they were buried and hidden at the highest levels in the Department. There was correspondence from a bishop stating that serious abuse was occurring and this was denied in writing by the then Minister on the advice of officials. There were letters from Daingean reformatory stating that children were starving and dressed in rags, and begging for some extra funding. The letter of reply said, “Make do with what you have”.

Similar institutions in England got ten times the allowance per capita. It was clear that a full examination, eventually known as the Ryan Commission, would show an appalling neglect by the State and so it did. The Government at this stage decided to establish the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on an administrative basis and when that had completed its work to then look at the question of compensation. This was a logical approach, but it was not tenable.

Some reporters and members of the Opposition have been asking why this was not done and criticised me for not waiting. The answer is very simple: it would take too long. In practice, we now have the Ryan report eight years later. This would not have been acceptable because victims were suffering in the meantime and some died. They begged me to press ahead urgently with the establishment of the redress board and not to delay the legislation.

On 27 January 2000, I assumed office as Minister for Education and Science. On 2 February, I published the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Bill 2000, accepting the recommendations of the interim administrative commission presented by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. On 9 March, the Bill began its Second Stage reading in Dáil Éireann. Representatives of the victims followed the Bill every step of the way. Meanwhile, three schemes of payment of legal costs for solicitors were proposed. Each was rejected by solicitors acting for the victims and then by the commission. I pressed on with the Bill as urgently as possible and it finally passed all Stages. By June, the Bill had passed into law and became an Act.

At that stage it seemed that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was under way but, alas, this was not to be. On 20 July, the commission indicated to me as Minister that solicitors for the victims would not co-operate with it unless a compensation scheme was established. Work on a compensation scheme was already under way and on 7 October the Government approved in principle the draft proposal. On 24 October, I agreed to meet the solicitors regarding the compensation tribunal and assured them of our bona fides.

Meanwhile, on 10 November, senior officials from the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance, and the Office of the Attorney General first met with CORI regarding what was termed the “meaningful contribution” which they wished to make to the compensation scheme. They met on nine further occasions. Work on the compensation scheme had been progressing and on 27 February 2001, the Government approved the proposals for the child abuse compensation scheme. It would be open-ended and the Government would provide such moneys as needed, with a contribution from the 18 religious organisations involved if that could be agreed. This was consistent with the Government’s approach from the day the Taoiseach apologised to the victims on behalf of the nation.

Problems were still ongoing with the solicitors with regard to their participation in the commission. A fourth legal expenses scheme was accepted by the commission, but lawyers for the victims and for the congregations also rejected this legal expenses scheme. Meanwhile, lawyers for the victims refused to attend the commission thus delaying its progress.

On 13 June 2001, the child abuse compensation scheme was published. Its title was the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. This allowed time over the summer recess for the contents of the Bill to be considered before it was taken in the autumn. On 5 July, the proposed contribution of the congregations made on 26 June was rejected by the negotiators and by me as Minister for Education and Science. On 16 October, the negotiating team, comprising officials from the Department of Education, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General, with ministerial clearance from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Finance, proposed a 50-50 contribution with a cap of €127 million together with an indemnity. This was not accepted by CORI. At this point the negotiations broke down. Furthermore, a leak to the media resulted in a breach of trust between the parties to the negotiations. Thus the full negotiating team was out of the loop for some months. I decided in the interim to press on with the Residential Institutions Redress Bill and leave CORI to consider its position if it did not make any contribution to the Government’s scheme of redress.

In line with the Government’s commitment to have both the commission and the redress board up and running during the life of the Government, which was into its final year, the Residential Institutions Redress Bill commenced its Second Stage in Dáil Éireann on 7 November 2001. On the same day, together with the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, who is also the Accounting Officer, I met with the representatives of CORI. This was simply to say that the Bill would be concluded early in the new year and that they must now decide whether they wanted to be in or out of the legislation. Everyone wanted to know. I was being pressed by Deputies in Dáil Éireann, and by representatives of the victims, to say what the position would be. I said that unless they agreed to the minimum contribution which the negotiating team had put to them in a package, they could not be included and they would not have any indemnity. They also wanted to get credit for properties given to the State over the past ten years. I told them that the day the Taoiseach made the apology, 11 May 1999, was the implementation date for the whole scheme, and that I would bring their request for credit to apply from that date to the Government, but I would not consider the ten years’ request. The representatives of CORI agreed to go back to the 18 religious orders to ascertain if they would agree to a figure of €127 million as the minimum acceptable to the negotiating team and Government. This meeting lasted only 20 minutes because it related solely to a policy decision.

On 22 November 2001, Second Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill concluded in Dáil Éireann. This was a long debate and once Second Stage was passed, the Bill could go to the Select Committee on Education and Science. I explained that we were awaiting news from CORI as to whether it would be included in or excluded from the legislation and that it could be included before Committee Stage concluded if it met the minimum requirements.

The Labour Party tabled a motion which would have delayed the conclusion of Second Stage from 22 November until the end of January when the House was due to resume. The motion was to see and discuss the report of the compensation advisory committee chaired by Seán Ryan SC. The Fine Gael Party stated it would oppose taking Committee Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill until after the compensation advisory committee report was available. This greatly upset the victims of abuse and their representatives. I pointed out that the delay was unnecessary as I had included provision for regulations and that Fine Gael and the Labour Party, if they were not satisfied with the report of Seán Ryan SC and his expert committee, could bring the report before the Dáil for debate. However, the motion was moved by the Labour Party and had to be put and voted on at the conclusion of the Second Stage debate. In the event a voice vote was taken and the motion was defeated. The Bill then moved to Committee Stage, much to the relief of the victims present.

The compensation advisory committee reported early in January 2002, having studied schemes in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Its report set out criteria and levels of compensation based on physical, sexual or psychological injury and increased the levels of compensation to reflect the higher awards given by the Irish courts. The Government accepted these levels of awards, as did Deputies and Senators, and delay was avoided.

On 7 January 2002, CORI met me, as Minister for Education and Science, and the Secretary General of my Department. It confirmed its acceptance of the package proposed by the negotiating team, agreed to the inclusion only of properties transferred or being transferred since 11 May 1999, the day of the apology, and agreed to be bound by the indemnity, as proposed by the Government on the advice of the Attorney General. Detailed discussions on the indemnity would follow, involving the negotiating team and Office of the Attorney General. I agreed to take this proposal, which involved a package valued at €128 million, to Government for approval in principle. On 30 January 2002, the package was agreed in principle by the Government. The final agreement was to be prepared, including the indemnity and a list of properties, for the approval of Government and signatures of the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science.

At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science held in public session on 12 February 2002, I outlined the details of the Government’s decision regarding the whole package as well as the inclusion of the indemnity and list of properties, some of which were known at the time. The meeting was attended by 15 Members, myself and my officials. No one was in any doubt about the inclusion in the Bill of the indemnity and the list of properties.