Ten months ago, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy and her colleagues on the Commission on Child Abuse, applied to the Department of Education and Science, for additional resources to enable it to complete the first part of its investigatory work by the end of 2005, writes Vincent Browne
On November 29th last, it supplemented this application with a statement underlining the urgency of the commission's work, given the advanced age of many of the complainants of abuse in residential institutions and the advanced age of many of those against whom complaints had been made.
On December 3rd, the Government decided to conduct a review of the commission's mandate, a review that was to be completed by mid-February. But it also agreed in principle to provide the additional resources requested and advised the commission to continue its investigatory work, implying there would be no change to its mandate in that respect at least.
The review was undertaken by the Attorney General, Rory Brady, and the expectation was that the legislation to give effect to the outcome of the review would be published at Easter. But nothing was done. Repeatedly during the nine months that have elapsed since the review was first announced, Ms Justice Laffoy expressed concern about the failure to provide the promised additional resources and the delay in concluding the review. Then last week, Noel Dempsey, the Minister for Education and Science, announced yet another review, this time implying the commission's work would be altered and much of the work already undertaken rendered useless. It is a piece of incompetence almost beyond belief, even on the part of a Government that has spectacularly mismanaged the economy and public finances, that has allowed capital projects to run over budget by mega amounts (the Glen of the Downs motorway through what was a magnificent forest, is now to cost €90 million, double the original budget), that has deepened inequity over the last six years, that has presided over chaos in the health service. That is, if incompetence is all it is.
What do we now know about the difficulties being encountered by the Laffoy Commission that we did not know last December, when the first review was announced and a decision in principle was made to resource the commission to enable it to complete its investigatory work by the end do 2005? Why should the plug now be pulled on the work of the commission - at least as far as its investigatory work is concerned - when a decision was taken nine months ago to proceed and to provide the necessary means to do so?
Yes, there has been the Supreme Court judgment on the Meehan case which, effectively, scuttles the work of the inquiry into the vaccine trials, but that was incidental to the overall work of the commission. Yes, there is the constitutional challenge taken on behalf of alleged abusers who are dead or, through infirmity, unable to defend themselves. But were such challenges not anticipated from the outset? Of course the number of complainants - now over 1,700 - are more than originally anticipated, but we knew that last December, which was why a decision in principle was taken to provide additional resources.
Michael Woods is being asked to carry the can for the outrageous deal done to indemnify the religious orders, although the Government as a whole authorised it and the then Attorney General, Michael McDowell, had responsibility to advise on its legal significance (the deal is a legal disaster).
Michael Woods might be blamed for the 21-month delay in dealing with the compensation issue and the 21-month delay in dealing with the issue of legal costs at the commission, but he wasn't around when the decision was taken last December to institute a review of the mandate of the commission and complete it within three months, nor was he around when a promise was made in principle to provide more resources, and he can't be blamed for breaking both of these promises. Nor can he be blamed for the recent decision that has caused the commission's investigatory work to stop and the resignation of its chairperson.
This State placed thousands of children in residential institutions run by religious orders. In many instances, the State actually took these children from the care of their parents, without any reasonable cause. The State therefore had a special duty to ensure that these children were looked after properly. It did not do that.
But not alone that. The State was aware in many instances that these children were being abused and it allowed the abuse to continue. Now when the scandal has come into the open, the State, coerced into an apology and instituting a commission of inquiry, fails to resource that commission properly and then scuttles its work. And the purported reason for this is money. But it can afford an everlasting inquiry into abuses of the planning process - apparently that is more important than the abuse of children.