The Residential Institutions Redress Bill is an attempt by the Government to provide compensation to those harmed in industrial schools and reformatories. I believe it is a flawed attempt.
Some time ago I made a foray into the debate about industrial schools. Naively, I thought I was making two obvious points. Firstly, that those who were damaged should receive overdue justice and those responsible for that harm should be made accountable for their actions. Secondly, that fairness meant hearing all sides of the story, the good and the bad. Justice for people harmed by the grossly inadequate system would not be served by demonising generations of religious.
Although I received great support from the public, I was stunned by the storm which ensued. I was told that I was in denial of the reality of institutional child abuse and that religious orders deserved condemnation and punishment, not sympathy.
Some victims were supportive, but many were angry and hurt, and I apologised to them for any further pain which I had caused them. I understand how it must seem to someone who suffered at the hands of religious to hear a columnist defend them and to point out that many of them did their very best in a system which was overcrowded and underfunded and which society as a whole was glad to pretend did not exist.
I recognise that it is impossible for many of those who suffered to hear this. Their wounds are still too raw, the recognition of the harm done them too recently and painfully acquired. I do not expect objectivity from those who were harmed.
But I do expect it from those elected to represent us. At a minimum, I expect that all the citizens of the State will be treated equally, and that all will be entitled to their good name until due process shows that they deserve to be deprived of it.
The Residential Institutions Redress Bill signally fails to uphold this basic right of citizens to their good name, and as such may prove to be unconstitutional.
Compensation is a vital part of recognition and healing for victims. The deprivation caused by being disconnected from family life and being institutionalised deserves compensation in itself. Taxpayers' money should be disbursed with an emphasis on the welfare of those former residents of institutions, through access to education, counselling, financial and practical help.
Religious orders are more than willing, indeed anxious, to contribute to a fair compensation scheme. However, they cannot be expected to do this at the cost of potentially indicting innocent people. In order to receive compensation, a person simply has to provide proof that they were in a particular institution and that they have symptoms consistent with abuse, defined in a broad way.
This low level of validation has been put in place so as not to traumatise victims further. But it is completely unacceptable that Brother X or Sister Y may be named by claimants without even being aware that they are being accused.
The legislation says that no fault will be ascribed, and that the process will be entirely confidential. This is simply impossible in a country the size of Ireland. If someone receives a sizeable award, people will naturally assume that what they claimed was accurate.
For some victims, even to imply the possibility of false claims is to deny the reality of child abuse and constitutes another victimisation. I understand their feelings, but the debate cannot be closed in this way. Some people will make false claims. If there were checks and balances, this would be less likely to occur. This can only serve to protect those with genuine claims.
At the very least, it should have to be established that the person accused was working in the institution at the same time as the person making the accusation. Some claims of abuse already on the record do not meet even this minimum standard. Those who are accused or their representatives should be given an opportunity to put their side of the story in a non-adversarial way.
Hearing the other side of the story is a basic principle of justice which is understood by every five-year -old, but it is absent from this Bill.
Nuns, brothers and priests are in an impossible position. They cannot make a plea for balance without being accused of trying to evade their responsibilities. Powerful advocates for the poor and disadvantaged in our society, they are not so adept at lobbying for justice for themselves.
Two-thirds of religious are over 60. Having gladly handed over all they earned to fund the projects of their order - in the process saving the State millions - they are now being repaid by demands that they accept what amounts to blanket liability and that they foot a large part of the bill.
Where are they to find these funds? There is a myth that religious are sitting on valuable land which they could dispose of in the morning. Instead, they are governed by the charity law commissioners as to the disposal of assets. Most of it must be used in accordance with the primary focus of the congregation, for example, health or education.
Some commentators seem to want the situation now pertaining in Canada. The four major Churches there have been virtually bankrupted by child abuse claims, and even church buildings are under threat of sale.
Strangely, such commentators have not reported that in Nova Scotia, a similar scheme to this Bill has been the subject of a major public inquiry into the misapplication of public funds. This is due to report in some weeks. The disquiet over the number and nature of claims came from the fact that in one school after the compensation was advertised the number of former staff accused rose from one person to virtually anybody who ever worked there. Former residents of this school were paid $38 million.
Ignoring natural justice means the case of those harmed in residential institutions will be set back years. And if it is, it will be the fault of the State, which can add mismanagement of the redress scheme to the grave responsibility it holds for overseeing the damaging institutionalisation of children in the first place.
bobrien@irish-times.ie