Explore the Ryan Report

Chapter 1 — Establishment of the Commission

Back
Show Contents

The Investigation Committee Policy Paper – May 2004

35

At the meeting on 7th May 2004, the Committee published and circulated a position paper on the question of ‘naming and shaming’ abusers, which stated that the Inquiry was not going to be able to complete its work if it proceeded on the basis of naming abusers. The document suggested that, because of difficulties of proof, there would probably be many abusers in respect of whom the evidence fell short. There were risks that people not guilty of abuse could be named. A further point was the disparity that would exist between people who were named – necessarily, a limited number – and the larger cohort of people who had indeed committed abuse (as a matter of probability) but who were not named. These and other points were made in proposing the policy that the Investigation Committee would not name abusers in the report, and would proceed with the investigation on that basis.

36

Time was allowed for submissions to be made, and all parties were asked to assist the Investigation Committee with suggestions that would allow the process to move forward. No substantial submissions were received in respect of the policies outlined above.

37

At a further meeting in June 2004, the Committee announced its decision to proceed on the basis of selection of witnesses for the hearings. This applied only to the larger institutions, which were Artane, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, Upton and Daingean. The policy of not naming abusers was applied generally.

38

The Commission sought amendments to the legislation to incorporate these changes, and these were set down in the Act of 2005.

39

The Investigation Committee at this time wrote to all complainants/solicitors to ascertain the number of complainants who wished to proceed with their application to be heard. As a result of this, 143 complainants withdrew their request to give evidence to the Investigation Committee, while 174 other complainants transferred to the Confidential Committee.

40

The Investigation Committee then proceeded with the work of the Inquiry.

The Emergence hearings

41

The Emergence hearings began in June 2004. They were held in public at the Distillery Building, Church Street, Dublin 7. The function of these hearings was: to re-commence the work of the Investigation Committee, to place the work of the Investigation Committee in historical context, to understand the reasoning behind the Government’s public apology, to understand the Government’s decision to institute a Scheme of Redress, to understand the reason why the Religious Congregations came to contribute to the Redress Scheme, and why some of them had also issued public apologies, to understand the reasons why support/survivor groups were set up, and how they were organised.

42

The Commission wanted to assure the public and the various stakeholders that the work of the Commission was resuming in full. The hearings were scheduled for June and July 2004, and took place over a period of about four weeks.

43

In advance of the Emergence hearings, the Investigation Committee’s legal team wrote to representatives of the State institutions, the Religious Congregations, and to survivor groups, setting out the types of questions that the Investigation Committee wished to explore. In the case of the State and Religious Congregations, the Investigation Committee asked questions on the following issues: insofar as the body concerned has ever issued a public apology in respect of child abuse, the reasons for issuing such an apology; the reasons why the body contributed to the Redress Fund; the timing and manner in which allegations of child abuse emerged as an issue in respect of institutions under the management or regulatory control of the body; a brief account of the protocols or procedures, which were in place from time to time within the body which were designed to prevent, investigate or deal with allegations of child abuse; the extent to which the body made enquiries as to how other similar institutions, whether in Ireland or abroad, dealt with such matters and, if so, the result of such enquiries; and the extent to which any enquiries carried out within the organisation (concerning whether there was child abuse within the institutions managed or regulated by it) led to it forming a view that such abuse did occur, together with the extent to which any such view may have contributed to (a) and (b) above.

44

In the case of the survivor groups, the Investigation Committee asked questions on the following issues: the timing and manner in which allegations of and knowledge of child abuse emerged as an issue in Ireland; how the group was formed; by whom the group was formed; when the group was formed; who were the groups members (in general terms without any individuals being named); how did the groups members come to join the group; what the group had done since its formation; and how the group was funded.

45

There was a very positive response to these questionnaires, and the Committee received comprehensive statements from the various State agencies, the Religious Congregations, and the survivor groups. Statements were received from the Department of An Taoiseach, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Education and Science, and the Department of Health and Children. Statements were received from all of the 18 Religious Congregations that contributed to the Redress Fund, and statements were received from 10 survivor groups.

46

In order to place the emergence of child abuse as an issue in Irish society in its historical context, the Investigation Committee invited Dr Eoin OSullivan, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, to give evidence, and this is included in the historical overview.

State evidence

47

In order to explore the State’s response to the emergence of child abuse as an issue, the Committee called the Taoiseach, Government Ministers and senior department officials to give evidence.

48

In his evidence at the Emergence hearings, Mr Tom Boland, who was then Head of Legal Affairs at the Department of Education and Science, provided a chronological account of the manner in which the issue of child abuse was dealt with in his Department from 1998 to 2002. He stated that institutional abuse first came to the attention of the Department of Education and Science as an issue that they would have to deal with, as a result of the increase in the number of legal cases being taken against the Department. There was also an increase in the number of Freedom of Information requests coming into the Department from former residents seeking access to their records. More generally, the Department was also aware of the fact that institutional abuse had become a major public issue, following the broadcast of television programmes such as ‘Dear Daughter’22 and ‘States of Fear’.23

49

Mr Boland said that the then Minister for Education and Science, Mr Micheál Martin, brought the issue of institutional child abuse to Cabinet for the first time on 31st March 1998, and the issue of litigation by former residents of reformatories and industrial schools. There was a general discussion at that meeting as to how the State might best respond to the emerging question of institutional child abuse. There was some discussion of the possibility of dealing with the issue through a Commission process, but at that stage the focus was on establishing a scheme that would provide counselling for the victims of abuse. The matter was not significantly progressed during 1998, but it was raised informally at a number of Cabinet meetings throughout that year.


Footnotes
  1. Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Initial Report on Terms of Reference, 7th September 1999.
  2. Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Report on Terms of Reference, 14th October 1999.
  3. Amendments were also made by the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002: See Section 32.
  4. Section 1 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 3 of the 2005 Act.
  5. Section 15(1) of the Principal Act, as amended by section 10 of the 2005 Act.
  6. Section 16 of the Principal Act as amended by section 11 of the 2005 Act.
  7. Section 4(6) as substituted by section 4 of the 2005 Act.
  8. Section 12(1) of the Principal Act, as amended by section 7 of the 2005 Act.
  9. Section 12(1)(d)(iii), as amended by section 7(c) of the 2005 Act.
  10. Section 14, as amended by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  11. Section 14(1)(a) of the Principal Act.
  12. Section 14(1)(b)–(d) of the Principal Act.
  13. Section 14(1)(e) of the Principal Act.
  14. Section 14(8) of the Principal Act, as inserted by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  15. Section 14(9) of the Principal Act, as inserted by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  16. Section 14(11) of the Principal Act, as inserted by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  17. Section 14(10) of the Principal Act, as amended by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  18. Section 14(14) of the Principal Act, as inserted by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  19. Section 14 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
  20. Section 13 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 8 of the 2005 Act.
  21. Section 1(1) of the Principal Act.
  22. ‘Dear Daughter’ was a dramatised programme broadcast in 1996 by RTE which featured Goldenbridge Industrial School.
  23. There were three programmes broadcast by RTE in 1999 in the ‘States of Fear’ series: ‘Industrial Schools and Reformatories from the 1940s–1980s’, ‘The Legacy of Industrial Schools’, and ‘Sick and Disabled Children in Institutions’.
  24. Under the terms of the indemnity agreement reached with the Religious Congregations on 5th June 2002, the Congregations agreed to make a contribution of €128 million towards the redress scheme. This was broken down as follows: cash contribution €41.14 million; provision of counselling services €10 million and property transfers €76.86 million.
  25. An organisation funded by the Congregations that provides counselling for persons who have been abused by religious Orders and Congregations.
  26. This is dealt with in full in the chapter on St Joseph’s Industrial School, Greenmount.
  27. This is a pseudonym.
  28. Cork VEC – Cork Vocational Education Committees.
  29. FÁS – Training and employment authority.
  30. See Third Interim Report, chapter 4.