Survivors feel that nobody is listening at abuse hearings

Christine Buckley, campaigner and childhood abuse survivor, sat in the front row of this week's hearing of the Government's child abuse commission wearing a bright pink outfit. She was flanked by lawyers in dark suits, but none of them was representing her.

Many were there on behalf of the religious congregations whose role in ruining the childhoods of Buckley and hundreds like her was uncovered in successive RTE documentaries.

It was the public outrage over abuses in State institutions and religious-run schools revealed in the States Of Fear series last year which prompted the Taoiseach to apologise on behalf of the State and pledge a package of measures including the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.

Given the profound distrust of the State which many survivors harbour, the task of a Government-appointed commission was never going to be easy. And it has lived up to expectations, having been hampered by delays and criticised publicly by some survivors' groups who are urging members to boycott it until its terms of reference are changed.

A further blow came this week with the resignation of one of its six expert members, Mr Bob Lewis, amid reports which he said unfairly linked him to police investigations into child abuse in residential homes in Britain.

The contrasting reaction of survivors' groups to the departure of the former director of social services in the UK highlighted the deep divisions among the varied constituencies whose ongoing plight the commission was set up to address.

Ms Buckley, from the Association for the Healing of Institutional Abuse, said she was terribly saddened by Mr Lewis's departure, while Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, led by Mr John Kelly, felt vindicated as they had raised concerns that his professional background in care institutions made him unsuitable.

Mr Kelly maintains that things could have been different had survivors been consulted more about the establishment of the commission. "We said six months ago it's all about survivors' input and they haven't listened to us," he said.

Irish SOCA is currently boycotting the commission and has questioned the suitability of a further three of its remaining five members.

Ms Buckley, however, said she just wants the commission to get down to its vitally important therapeutic work and is terrified of it being hijacked by solicitors.

"An awful lot of victim-survivors really have no idea what's going on. These people are too traumatised, wouldn't have the language, don't have the education, and feel that people are being used to benefit solicitors," she said.

"Solicitors can have their big fat day in court, but why are they infringing on the commission? We feel this should be about victims and their needs. The first time solicitors came on board was after the Taoiseach's apologies last year. It's a very major worry for us who's going to benefit from this."

THE issue of compensation is a significant cause of tension between survivors' groups. There are rumours that some survivors have been advised by solicitors not to accept anything less than £350,000. Buckley wants a compensation tribunal, but says the issue should be set aside for the moment to give the commission scope to work. Others want the issue to be addressed now and not to be left on the backburner while the commission gets down to its work, which is likely to last at least two years.

"There's a lot of bitterness among some survivors to do with the fact that all they are getting is talk and blather and they want to see something up front," said one source.

"People have differing agendas, not all of which are particularly commendable," added another. "Some people are in it as a power kick, some are control freaks. They want their clutch of victims to do this or do that."

The commission's chairwoman, Ms Justice Laffoy, is currently considering a submission by solicitors for up to 1,000 survivors urging it to make an interim report calling for such a scheme. She will reply at the commission's next public sitting due in August.

It is likely that a compensation scheme will eventually be established, but the question is whether it will run in tandem with the commission or begin after it has finished its work.

There are tensions inherent in the remit of the commission, a unique body with a combined brief to give a sympathetic and confidential hearing to survivors of child abuse while also investigating allegations and making recommendations.

Its offices off St Stephen's Green in Dublin may be designed in neutral shades and decorated with pleasant and inoffensive art work, and its chairwoman may wear ordinary clothes instead of robes and a wig, but it is a formal body with the powers and privileges of a High Court. Both survivors and people accused of abuse have an absolute right to be legally represented before such a body.

While some of its hearings will be private and confidential, others will be held in the full glare of up to 10 lawyers. One option to get round this for testimonies of survivors may be to have a video link.

The difficulties ahead of the commission in striking a balance between its legal and therapeutic functions were apparent at its second public sitting this week.

Survivors competed with solicitors and barristers for seats in the crowded main room while Ms Justice Laffoy dealt efficiently and politely with procedural and legal issues which were at times difficult for all but lawyers to grasp fully.

One man clearly frustrated by the technical tenor of the proceedings appealed to the judge from the floor: "You are talking way above our heads. We have no education. Could you talk our language because we haven't a clue what you are on about?"