A way out of the impasse into which the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse had fallen appears to have been charted at last. The proposals from the Attorney General, and from the new chairman of the Commission, Mr Justice Sean Ryan, which have been endorsed by the Minister for Education, will, if implemented speedily and in full, allow the Commission to complete its work of establishing the extent of, and responsibility for, abuse in residential institutions.
Essentially the proposals are aimed at reducing the number of cases appearing before the Investigation Committee of the Commission. The original legislation setting up the Commission obliged it to hear each and every allegation of abuse. This obligation will be removed. The chairman will then attempt to reduce the number of cases to be heard in two ways: by writing to all the 1,712 complainants still outstanding asking them if they want to proceed, and by selecting from the remainder those cases likeliest to throw most light on the abuse that occurred.
His letter is likely to reduce the number of complainants substantially, especially as it will be made clear that compensation is not contingent on making a complaint to either committee of the Commission. The selection of the most informative cases is likely to be more controversial. The victims' groups had strenuously objected to an earlier proposal that cases be "sampled" - and some of the groups have described this as "sampling by another name".
It is not. The sampling proposal that emerged last year - and was rejected by the Minister for Education - would have been of a random and arbitrary nature. The selection procedure now proposed is based on the need to get the fullest possible picture of the abuse that occurred, and to avoid lengthy and very expensive investigations of allegations that cannot be sustained because of lapse of time, lack of corroborative evidence, or for other reasons.
Some victims' groups have demanded the right to "confront their abuser". This is very understandable from a human point of view. But it may not always be possible. Some of the alleged abusers may be dead, or too infirm to appear before such a tribunal. It is also certain that the legal representatives of the individuals and institutions involved will vigorously cross-examine their accusers; and it can hardly be in the interests of those with vague recollections, or with little corroborative evidence, to undergo such an ordeal.
More fundamentally, it is in the interests of the victims as a whole that these crimes be detailed as soon as possible, and the heritage of pain laid to rest.