Background: As the Laffoy Commission became increasingly adversarial, the estimated time and cost of the process began to rise dramatically, writes Liam Reid
When the Government announced the establishment of a statutory child abuse inquiry in May 1999, it was envisaged it would be wrapped up within three years.
However, 4½ years later the future of the Laffoy Commission is in doubt, having completed just a fraction of its work, with recriminations set to fly between the State, religious orders and survivor groups about who and what was to blame for its failure.
From the outset, the commission was beset with problems and controversy. Announced in the wake of the 1999 RTÉ documentary on industrial and reformatory schools, States Of Fear, the inquiry was to establish the level of sexual and physical abuse in Irish institutions during most of the 20th century.
It would once and for all establish the levels of responsibility on both the State and religious institutions in relation to the abuse. The State and religious orders pledged full co-operation.
By the time the inquiry was established on a statutory footing in April 2000, there was already considerable disagreement over the direction of the commission.
The commission was established under two committees: a confidential committee which would hear former residents who wanted to tell their stories, and an investigation committee which would hear and investigate specific allegations of abuse.
The first major issue concerned legal representation for former residents who made serious allegations. The orders and State were expected to have their own legal teams.
In July 2000, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy granted those appearing before the commission the right to one barrister and one solicitor. By this stage the commission's relationship with the Department of Education was becoming strained, with Ms Justice Laffoy expressing disappointment over a delay in a decision from the Government on a compensation tribunal, an issue she said was holding up work. Slowly, the process got under way, and over the next 18 months the commission received allegations from nearly 3,000 former residents.
By November 2001, another issue was emerging - the level of co-operation from religious orders - and the inquiry was becoming extremely adversarial.Some orders were insisting there should be no limit on the level of representation allowed before the investigation committee. Many orders also began to mount strenuous defences against any allegations made against their living and deceased members. Some mounted legal challenges to the procedures adopted by the inquiry.
The estimated time and cost of the process began to rise.
Meanwhile, relations between the commission and the Department of Education were becoming strained. The commission had sought thousands of documents from the Department relating to industrial schools, but there were considerable delays in receiving them, leading to frustration among commission staff.
By the middle of last year, the Government was becoming concerned about the slow progress. With nearly 2,000 allegations before the investigation committee, it had heard less than 50 by the summer of last year.
The Department was given estimates of costs rising to 200 million, and of the commission taking 10 years to do its work.
Ms Justice Laffoy was more than aware of the problems, and last November announced a major reorganisation of the inquiry. She also accused religious orders of failing to co-operate fully.
"The experience has been that, in the main and with a few exceptions, the . . . religious orders and religious accused of abuse have adopted an adversarial, defensive and legalistic approach in the process," she said in a statement.
To speed up the inquiry, the commission sought extra funding from the Department.
The Minister for Education granted this funding on an interim basis, but also announced the Government's own fundamental review of the inquiry, effectively scuppering Ms Justice Laffoy's own attempts to reform it.
On Monday Mr Dempsey announced a further extension of the review, which was evidence of the Government's belief that the commission was not working.