1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE INQUIRY 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 Being heard before: 11 12 SIR ANTHONY HART (Chairman) 13 MR DAVID LANE 14 MS GERALDINE DOHERTY 15 16 Held at: 17 Banbridge Court House 18 Banbridge 19 20 on Monday, 13th January 2014 21 commencing at 2.00 pm 22 (Day 1) 23 24 MS CHRISTINE SMITH, QC and MR JOSEPH AIKEN appeared as 25 Counsel to the Inquiry. 1 1 Monday, 13th January 2014 2 (2.00 pm) 3 Opening Remarks by THE CHAIRMAN 4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the 5 benefit of those who have not been at any of our 6 previous public sessions perhaps I should introduce 7 myself and my colleagues once more. 8 I am Sir Anthony Hart, and I retired as a High Court 9 Judge in Northern Ireland in January 2012. On 10 31st May 2012 I was appointed by the First Minister and 11 the Deputy First Minister to lead this Inquiry. 12 David Lane and Geraldine Doherty, who are my 13 colleagues in this part of the Inquiry, are with me 14 today and both have considerable experience in the field 15 of social work and child care. 16 David Lane commenced his career with eight years in 17 residential child care, working mainly in the assessment 18 of young offenders, and he ended his career with eight 19 years as Director of Social Services in the city of 20 Wakefield. Since then he has been an independent 21 consultant, an expert witness in cases in which former 22 children in care have sought damages for negligence. He 23 has played a major role in a number of professional 24 organisations. 25 Geraldine Doherty qualified as a social worker in 2 1 Belfast and her first job was in residential child care 2 in London. She has worked in England and Scotland in 3 social work, social care practice, education and 4 training. In 1996 she was appointed as the Head of the 5 Central Council for Education and Training in Social 6 Work in Scotland. In 2000 she was seconded from that 7 post to the Scottish Executive to advise on the 8 establishment of national arrangements for the 9 inspection and regulation of care services and the 10 registration and regulation of social workers and social 11 care workers. In 2002 she was appointed as the first 12 Registrar of the Scottish Social Services Council. 13 Today is the fourth public session of the Inquiry 14 into historical abuse in residential institutions in 15 Northern Ireland and it is also the first public hearing 16 of the Inquiry. We have already put a considerable 17 amount of information about our processes on our website 18 over the past fifteen months or so and in the previous 19 public sessions that were held in February and September 20 of last year, when we explained what we were doing and 21 how we intended to go about our work. What we said then 22 can be found on our website. 23 Today we start the next stage in the work of the 24 Inquiry, and that will take the form of public hearings. 25 Before we start to hear evidence from witnesses we want 3 1 to take this occasion to describe the nature of the 2 material the Inquiry intends to consider and how we go 3 about this. Some of this we have said before, but we 4 realise that many members of the public, particularly 5 those who may be going to give evidence to the Inquiry 6 in the coming months, may find it helpful to know what 7 we are going to do and why, and what are the matters 8 that the Inquiry will consider. 9 Later this afternoon Christine Smith QC, who is the 10 Senior Counsel to the Inquiry, will start to outline in 11 greater detail the reasons behind the Inquiry and what 12 we have done to date, and then she will proceed to 13 describe the context and historical background to the 14 various issues that the Inquiry will have to consider 15 during the public hearings. 16 However, before she does so there are a number of 17 matters that I want to say. You will hear the terms of 18 reference set out in full later today. To put it in 19 simple terms, they require us to investigate whether 20 there was institutional abuse in residential 21 institutions which had responsibility for the care, 22 health and welfare of children under 18 between 1922 and 23 1995, and to decide if there were systemic failings by 24 those institutions or the state in their duties towards 25 those children. 4 1 Abuse that may have been suffered by children in 2 other institutions such as schools is specifically 3 excluded from our Inquiry by the terms of reference. As 4 will become clear as Christine Smith outlines the 5 matters that will come before the Inquiry, during the 6 public hearings the Inquiry will hear from people who 7 say they were abused as children in residential 8 institutions as well as from other people whose evidence 9 is relevant to the Inquiry's work. 10 Although the closing date for applications has now 11 passed, a total of 434 individuals made formal 12 applications to us, and I want to express my thanks to 13 everyone who has done so. Not only will their evidence 14 be vital to the Inquiry, but it is our hope that every 15 applicant who gives evidence to the public hearings or 16 only speaks to the private and confidential part of the 17 Inquiry will have the satisfaction of knowing that their 18 experiences are at last being listened to and 19 investigated. 20 I say "at last being listened to" because one of the 21 things that we have heard again and again is that when 22 complaints about abuse were made to people in authority, 23 all too often their response was to ignore or not to 24 believe what they were being told. 25 Vital as the evidence to be given by those who say 5 1 they were abused is to the work of the Inquiry, the 2 Inquiry is also about how those institutions were run 3 and what those institutions, the state and society as 4 a whole did or did not do to see that those children 5 were not abused. The Inquiry provides a unique 6 opportunity for everyone involved in any way with the 7 care of children in institutions to reflect upon what 8 may have happened to those children and to consider 9 whether there are lessons that can be learned that may 10 prevent the mistakes of the past being repeated in the 11 future. 12 We realise that this may be a challenging process 13 for everyone involved, but it is our hope that 14 everybody, whether from government or from the 15 institutions, who is requested to assist the Inquiry 16 will cooperate with the Inquiry in a frank, open and 17 whole-hearted way so that this unique opportunity will 18 not be wasted. 19 Not everyone who has applied to us wants to take 20 part in this part of the Inquiry process. Of the 434 21 who made formal applications to the Inquiry 46 only 22 wanted to speak to the private and confidential part of 23 the process called the Acknowledgment Forum and 362 have 24 so far said they wish to speak to the public part of the 25 Inquiry. Because a small number of applicants have 6 1 still to confirm whether they speak to the public 2 Inquiry part or to the confidential part or to both, 3 these figures may change slightly, but when we have 4 final figures, we will publish them on our website. 5 We hope to offer to everyone who applied to the 6 public Inquiry part of the process the opportunity to 7 give evidence in person, but that may not be possible in 8 every case for a variety of reasons. Sadly a small 9 number have died since they were seen. Some may not be 10 well enough to do so. Some may not be able to do so for 11 other reasons, and so some witnesses may give their 12 evidence in the form of statements that are read out 13 without them being present. 14 The other part of the Inquiry process is the private 15 and confidential Acknowledgment Forum. So far 380 16 applicants have said they wish to speak to the 17 Acknowledgment Forum and as of last Friday it has seen 18 263 of them. In the coming months the Acknowledgment 19 Forum will continue to see anyone who has not yet been 20 seen, including anyone whose application might be too 21 late to be considered in the Inquiry's public hearings. 22 However, in due course I will announce the final date 23 after which the Acknowledgment Forum will not be able to 24 see anyone. 25 While the great majority of those who have contacted 7 1 us live in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United 2 Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, we have received 3 some applications from other countries. We have made 4 special arrangements to contact those who live outside 5 Northern Ireland, and members of the Acknowledgment 6 Forum have travelled throughout Great Britain and the 7 Republic to see applicants who are not able to travel to 8 Northern Ireland. 9 We have also received applications from 61 people 10 who now live in Australia. It may surprise many of you 11 that we received so many applications from Australia. 12 The reason for this is that in the years after the 13 Second World War a significant number of children who 14 had been in institutions in Northern Ireland were sent 15 to Australia. They were known as "Child Migrants". We 16 are investigating how they were treated in institutions 17 before they left Northern Ireland and why and how they 18 were sent to Australia. 19 Last autumn we sent a team to Australia which spent 20 some weeks interviewing applicants there. It was not 21 possible to see every applicant in Australia during that 22 visit, and I want to take this opportunity to reassure 23 those applicants in Australia we have not yet seen that 24 later this year we will be sending another team out to 25 Australia to see the remaining applicants. 8 1 Since the Inquiry came into existence its legal team 2 has been engaged in interviewing applicants and 3 preparing witness statements. They and other colleagues 4 have been gathering and examining many thousands of 5 documents from many different sources. All of this is 6 by its nature something which takes a great deal of time 7 and effort. The process is continuing and it will 8 continue for a considerable time. Even as the public 9 hearings continue into one institution work will 10 continue to prepare evidence relating to that 11 institution and to other institutions that we will come 12 to later. 13 I also want to take this opportunity to emphasise 14 a number of things about our processes. 15 First of all, this is an Inquiry, not a trial. The 16 Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly under which we work 17 expressly prevents us from making any finding of civil 18 or criminal liability. This means that our findings 19 will not have the legal effect of convicting any 20 individual of a crime, nor will it have the legal effect 21 of ordering any individual or institution to pay 22 compensation. 23 It has been clear to us from a very early stage that 24 many of the allegations which have been made to us could 25 amount to criminal offences, and in those cases we have 9 1 reported the matter to the police, as we are obliged to 2 do by law. It is for the police to carry out a criminal 3 investigation and then for the Public Prosecution 4 Service to decide whether there should be a prosecution. 5 If there is going to be a prosecution, then the 6 Inquiry is faced with a dilemma, because while we wish 7 to investigate as much as we can in public, to do so in 8 public might prejudice a fair trial in some cases. From 9 the beginning the Inquiry has taken the view that if 10 there are grounds for a criminal prosecution in 11 a particular case, it is in the public interest that 12 there should be a prosecution. 13 Therefore, in any situation where we believe that 14 a prosecution is imminent in order to avoid prejudicing 15 a fair trial the Inquiry will consider holding a closed 16 session, where we will examine in private the 17 allegations relating to an individual against whom 18 a prosecution is imminent. This will enable us to 19 continue to investigate the allegations in a way that 20 would avoid prejudicing a fair trial for that 21 individual. If we do not investigate such allegations 22 in a closed session, then we could be prevented from 23 investigating them at all or at least investigating them 24 in the thorough way that we intend to do in our public 25 sessions. For that reason I have made a restriction 10 1 order dealing with closed sessions. 2 There is another matter that I should mention at 3 this stage. In general the Inquiry has decided not to 4 disclose the identities of many of those who cannot 5 defend themselves against allegations, perhaps because 6 they are dead, or are unfit to give evidence, or cannot 7 be traced. Others may be people whose names appear in 8 documents that will be produced in evidence but may have 9 nothing to do with the matters that we are 10 investigating. It would be unfair to a great many of 11 those people that their names should be given in public 12 or be revealed in any documents that are produced to the 13 Inquiry. For those reasons all individuals will 14 normally be referred to by a designation and their names 15 will be blacked out in documents that will be produced 16 in the public sessions. Christine Smith will explain in 17 more detail what that means in due course. 18 But there is another very important aspect to this 19 that I want to explain now to avoid any misunderstanding 20 or any confusion about what is intended. In the public 21 hearings of the Inquiry witnesses will often have to 22 describe matters that they find deeply upsetting. 23 Indeed, in some cases they have never spoken to their 24 closest family about these matters. Because they may 25 find it even more difficult to describe these matters in 11 1 public if their names become generally known, our view 2 is that we should make it possible for any applicant or 3 any other witnesses to whom this applies to give 4 evidence in a way that avoids as much stress for them as 5 possible. Everyone will therefore be given 6 a designation by which they will be referred, and the 7 effect of the restriction order is that their name 8 and/or identity cannot be disclosed by anyone unless 9 they give their consent. 10 I want to say as emphatically as I can that the 11 Inquiry does not want to prevent any witness speaking to 12 the media or to any member of the public about their own 13 experiences if that witness wants to do so. That is 14 something that each witness must decide for themselves. 15 If a witness does want their name and identity to be 16 published, then he or she can give their consent to that 17 to any member of the public or to the media. All we ask 18 is that to avoid arguments later about whether someone 19 agreed or not they should give their agreement in 20 writing. If they do not want their name to be given 21 publicly, then I expect everyone will respect the wishes 22 of the individual concerned and obey both the letter and 23 the spirit of the restriction order. However, I should 24 emphasise that a witness who does want their own name to 25 be disclosed cannot disclose the name or identity of 12 1 another person covered by a designation without the 2 written consent of that other person. 3 As you will hear, the Inquiry is investigating 4 several institutions, and it may be, as our work 5 continues, that we will decide to investigate others. 6 All our investigations will be carried out as vigorously 7 and thoroughly as possible and without fear or favour. 8 As I have said on several occasions, this Inquiry is 9 unique in Northern Ireland, because we have to deliver 10 our report by 18th January 2016 unless we are given more 11 time. I hope that the Inquiry will not have to ask for 12 more time, but if it is necessary, then I will do so. 13 I now propose to ask Christine Smith QC to give more 14 details of the scope and work of the Inquiry. 15 Opening Remarks by COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY 16 MS SMITH: Thank you, Chairman. 17 Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of the Panel, 18 ladies and gentlemen. For the purposes of those who do 19 not yet know, I am Christine Smith, QC, Senior Counsel 20 to the Inquiry into the Historical Institutional Abuse 21 1922 to 1995, and I appear alongside Joseph Aiken, my 22 junior counsel. Together we will be dealing with the 23 presentation of evidence at the Inquiry's public 24 hearings over the coming months. 25 Before any evidence is called at the public hearings 13 1 it is part of my role as Senior Counsel to the Inquiry 2 to present an opening to the Inquiry. This is 3 essentially a means for me to explain in some detail the 4 subject matter of what the Inquiry has been 5 investigating and how the Inquiry intends to carry out 6 its work at the public hearings. 7 I should like to start by saying that since the 8 commencement of the investigative work some twelve 9 months ago, the Inquiry and the whole legal team has 10 been conscious of the importance of this Inquiry to 11 those people who campaign to have their voices heard and 12 to tell their stories. Many have waited years for this 13 day to come, the start of the public hearings, when they 14 can come and give their accounts of what happened to 15 them when they were children in residential homes in 16 Northern Ireland and about the effects it had on the 17 course of their lives. 18 Unfortunately some of those individuals who might 19 have taken part in the Inquiry are no longer with us and 20 some who have spoken to the Inquiry about their 21 experiences in preparation for the public hearings have 22 not lived to see this day. For many individuals it will 23 be the first time they state in public what happened to 24 them while children resident in an institution. For 25 others it is the culmination of many years of effort to 14 1 have their voices heard. For many giving evidence over 2 the coming months will be a very difficult experience. 3 This Inquiry, both through the work of the 4 Acknowledgment Forum and these public hearings, is 5 giving a voice to those who feel the system let them 6 down. 7 As one applicant put it, "I came to the Inquiry 8 because I wanted someone official from government to 9 hear my story. I may be a little person, but I still 10 have a voice, and I want to be able to hold my head up, 11 as I know I have done nothing wrong". 12 Some of what you will hear will be distressing and 13 indeed harrowing to listen to, even for those of us 14 conditioned to these matters through our professional 15 experience. It will no doubt be all the more 16 distressing for the person who comes forward to tell 17 their story. 18 While the task of this Inquiry is to inquire into 19 any failings in the system which operated in the field 20 of residential child care over a lengthy period, it 21 should nevertheless be remembered that at the core of 22 its work is a very human story, a story of how a society 23 treated the most vulnerable of its citizens, its 24 children. 25 Such stories are sadly not unique to Northern 15 1 Ireland, as similar inquiries going on across the globe 2 in recent years have revealed. However, the importance 3 of inquiries of this type to society's future cannot be 4 underestimated. 5 Words used by the late Nelson Mandela in another 6 context might best describe the heart of the issue being 7 investigated. He said, "There can be no keener 8 revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it 9 treats its children". 10 By examining how vulnerable children living in 11 children's homes in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 12 1995 were treated this Inquiry will essentially examine 13 the soul of Northern Irish society over that period. 14 I want to say something now about the context of the 15 Inquiry. Inquiries into child abuse are not new. 16 Between 1945 and 2000 there have been at least 81 17 inquiries in the United Kingdom alone. Some were 18 private inquiries relating to the deaths of children at 19 the hands of their parents or carers in the community. 20 According to Corby and others in their text entitled 21 "Public Inquiries into Residential Abuse of Children", 22 which was published in 2001, only four of the fifty 23 children-related inquiries held between 1945 and 1989 24 were concerned with the abuse of children in residential 25 care. Of course, those four inquiries would have dealt 16 1 with large numbers of children. 2 One of these related to Northern Ireland, the Hughes 3 Inquiry, which reported in 1986, now more than 25 years 4 ago. That inquiry was very different to this one. It 5 was initially set up to investigate allegations about 6 homosexual abuse of boys in a Belfast Working Boys' 7 Hostel known as Kincora between 1960 and 1980. In the 8 end it examined similar allegations in eight other 9 residential homes over varying time frames. 10 In more recent years the subject of child abuse has 11 received increasing media attention on a global scale as 12 a result of numerous scandals. Aside from the several 13 tribunals and inquiries into the subject there have been 14 many prosecutions of alleged offenders. 15 The focus of attention has been predominantly on 16 what I suspect most people believe child abuse to be, 17 namely the sexual abuse of children or the physical 18 abuse of children. Certainly many of these inquiries 19 which have reported to date have dealt with those types 20 of abuse. 21 A notable exception is, of course, the Commission to 22 Inquire into Child Abuse or the Ryan Commission that was 23 set up in the Republic of Ireland. It reported in 2009. 24 The Commission had been mandated to examine physical 25 abuse, sexual abuse but also emotional abuse and 17 1 neglect. This Inquiry is the first in Northern Ireland 2 to examine publicly the wider abuse children in 3 residential care in Northern Ireland. 4 I would like to say something about the limitations 5 that exist for this Inquiry. Some people have 6 questioned why this Inquiry is limited to looking only 7 at what occurred to children in residential care while 8 many other situations where abuse may have occurred are 9 excluded, such as foster care, boarding schools and 10 clerical abuse. 11 The reasons for this have already been aired 12 extensively outside this chamber, including in a recent 13 judicial review, and I do not intend to repeat them here 14 in detail. 15 I would, however, wish to state that the Inquiry is 16 aware that there are other victims of abuse whose 17 experiences may well merit examination on another 18 occasion in a different forum. The fact that this 19 Inquiry is not in a position to examine their stories 20 should not be seen as suggesting there is anything less 21 important about their experiences or anything less 22 abhorrent about the abuse they may have suffered. 23 However, due to the particular circumstances and 24 vulnerabilities of those placed in residential 25 institutions and the problems identified in relation to 18 1 such placements it was decided by those setting up this 2 Inquiry to restrict its scope in the manner set out in 3 the terms of reference. As the Inquiry does not have 4 power to examine anything that is outside its terms of 5 reference, this Inquiry must focus on the matters that 6 it has been tasked to investigate. 7 Could you please put up page HIA-039 As can be 8 seen from our terms of reference, they state that the 9 Inquiry is to examine whether there were systemic 10 failings by institutions or the state in their duties 11 towards those children in their care between 1922 and 12 1995. 13 As you, Chairman, have already made clear, the 14 purpose of the Inquiry is not necessarily to investigate 15 in forensic detail each and every allegation of abuse 16 made to it by individuals in the way one would in 17 a criminal trial or a civil action. Rather its purpose 18 is to examine the nature and extent of any abuse within 19 institutions over those years in Northern Ireland and to 20 determine whether that abuse was caused or facilitated 21 by failings on the part of the state and/or those who 22 ran the relevant institution, and whether those failings 23 were systemic in nature. 24 The first aspect of examining this issue is to 25 determine what were the duties of the state and/or the 19 1 institution towards a child in its care. As I shall 2 describe later, these duties varied in accordance with 3 whichever time period one is dealing, and it is 4 important that the Inquiry assesses the evidence 5 presented in light of this. It is clear that what 6 society viewed appropriate in one era may no longer be 7 acceptable by today's standards. 8 There are many reasons for changes in social 9 attitudes. Some are due to changes in educational 10 attainment. Others take in economic factors or advances 11 in medical knowledge and our understanding of the 12 effects of traumatic experiences on an individual's 13 psychological development. 14 One example where this is seen clearly is in 15 society's attitude to corporal punishment. At one time 16 it was perfectly acceptable to strike a child in order 17 to discipline him. Indeed, the manner and type of such 18 punishment was prescribed by legislation. 19 If we could have page HIA-295, please. If we look 20 at this document -- if that could just be made larger -- 21 thank you -- what we are looking at here, ladies and 22 gentlemen, is Regulation 12 of the Children and Young 23 Persons (Welfare Authorities) Homes Regulations 24 (Northern Ireland) 1952, and as we see there, the manner 25 and type of corporal punishment was prescribed. Today 20 1 many people no longer view corporal punishment as 2 an acceptable means of chastisement and it is no longer 3 legislated for. 4 It is important that when examining what occurred in 5 the past -- and it is with past events that this Inquiry 6 deals -- that we do not judge behaviour by today's 7 standards. Accepted practices in caring for children 8 were developed and changed over the years. However, at 9 any given time there were nevertheless certain basic 10 duties and standards which an institution and/or the 11 state owed to the children in their care. 12 I wish to now say something about the definition of 13 child abuse. There has never been a standard definition 14 of what is meant by "abuse" and it is often a topic for 15 academic debate. This Inquiry, like others before it, 16 has adopted its own definition in order to focus its 17 investigations. It has been the approach throughout the 18 work of the Inquiry to interpret abuse as widely as 19 possible to encompass not only the sexual or physical 20 abuse of children, but also emotional abuse and neglect. 21 It is arguable that emotional abuse is an ingredient of 22 all forms of child maltreatment. However, one can 23 readily envisage behaviour which might be described as 24 emotional abuse per se, for example, the denigration or 25 humiliation of a child or his family which occurred 21 1 independent of other forms of abuse. 2 In June 2013 the Inquiry published a document 3 entitled "Definition of Abuse and Systemic Failings" on 4 its website in order to allow some understanding of its 5 approach. The definitions are for guidance and 6 assistance and are not intended to be prescriptive. 7 Could we see HIA-043, please? This document states 8 that the Inquiry would apply broad general definitions 9 to both terms and that abuse was behaviour which either: 10 "(a) involved improper sexual or physical behaviour 11 by an adult or another child towards a child, or (b) in 12 the case of emotional abuse was improper behaviour by 13 an adult or another child which undermined a child's 14 self-esteem and emotional well-being, such as bullying, 15 belittling or humiliating a child, or [behaviour which] 16 (c) resulted in neglect of the child or (d) took the 17 form of adopting or accepting policies and practices 18 such as numbering children, or ignoring or undermining 19 sibling relationships, which ignored the interests of 20 the children." 21 Over the coming months you will hear much evidence 22 describing instances of abuse, but it is appropriate at 23 this point to say something about the effects of that 24 abuse on the lives of those who suffered from it. It is 25 unlikely to come as a surprise to the Panel to hear that 22 1 where children suffer abuse, the consequences for the 2 individuals are often devastating, ruining young lives 3 and leaving a legacy which for many destroys their 4 adulthood as well. Many of those who have spoken to the 5 Inquiry describe having experienced mental health 6 problems, including drug and alcohol abuse and 7 self-harm. Many have had psychiatric treatment or 8 counselling. Some have committed and been convicted of 9 criminal offences, including in some instances crimes of 10 violence or sexual offences. 11 In addition, the lives of those who have become 12 involved with those who describe abuse have also been 13 affected. The Inquiry will hear frequent testimony that 14 in adulthood those who experienced abuse as an child 15 suffered from an inability to show affection and to 16 fulfill the emotional needs of their partners and 17 children, and that as a result many relationships 18 failed. Sadly some were unable to cope with their 19 problems, and we are aware of suicides among the former 20 residents of institutions. Whether the problems which 21 will be described to you over the coming months result 22 directly or indirectly from the treatment experienced in 23 care will be a matter for you to judge on seeing and 24 hearing the witnesses and in assessing all the evidence. 25 Equally, we have heard from a number of individuals 23 1 who describe abuse but who have demonstrated resilience 2 in adulthood and have led full and productive lives. 3 They too have come to the Inquiry to have their story 4 heard. 5 It is also appropriate to point out that not all 6 children who were residents in institutions have come 7 forward to the Inquiry to complain about their time 8 there. The Inquiry can safely take it that this is 9 because not every child who spent time in a residential 10 institution in Northern Ireland was abused. However, 11 this is an Inquiry about abuse and as a result its focus 12 is in that area. 13 Even in the evidence of those who have come forward 14 to complain of abuse the Inquiry will hear accounts of 15 some positive aspects of their time in residential care. 16 Many individuals have complained about the poor standard 17 of education afforded to them. Many felt that, had they 18 been given better opportunities educationally or at 19 least encouraged and supported to make the most of 20 whatever education they are given, then their lives 21 might have turned out very differently. 22 By way of example I am going to give you some 23 quotations from individuals who will give evidence to 24 the Inquiry, and they describe the effects that the 25 abuse had on their lives better than I ever could. 24 1 One said: 2 "My brother and I do not have any contact now. 3 Unfortunately he is in a bad condition. One of the 4 fall-outs from Termonbacca: it had a monumental lifelong 5 effect on the children, their quality of life and also 6 their ability to build relationships." 7 Another said: 8 "Those who have suffered abuse have been deprived of 9 a normal childhood. I haven't been normal since and 10 over the years it has always been in the background. It 11 washes over you now and again and it affects your 12 family, your priorities and you are holding on for dear 13 life sometimes, and it shouldn't be like that. It 14 should have been normal, because those years between 11 15 and 15 were part of my normal growing up, and I've lost 16 it. I always knew I lost it from the day and hour 17 I left care. My friends have normal memories of those 18 years, but I have lost those years." 19 So how then might the Inquiry determine whether 20 there has been systemic failing by either the 21 institution or the state in the care of children? The 22 Inquiry has distinguished systemic failings by 23 an institution and systemic failings by the state in the 24 same document that I referred to earlier in which it 25 defines abuse. Again the definition is to assist and it 25 1 is not intended to be limiting or prescriptive. 2 If we look at paragraph 5 of the document that is on 3 the screens, the Inquiry has defined "systemic failing" 4 as follows: 5 "A 'systemic failing' by an institution consisted of 6 either (a) a failure to ensure that the institution 7 provided proper care; or (b) a failure to ensure that 8 the children would be free from abuse; or (c) a failure 9 to take all proper steps to prevent, detect and disclose 10 abuse, or (d) take appropriate steps to ensure the 11 investigation and prosecution of criminal offences 12 involving abuse." 13 The next paragraph goes on to describe a systemic 14 failing by the state, which: 15 "... consisted of a failure to ensure either (a) 16 that the institution provided proper care; or (b) that 17 the children in that institution would be free from 18 abuse; or (c) a failure to take all proper steps to 19 prevent, detect and disclose abuse in that institution; 20 or (d) take appropriate steps to investigate and 21 prosecute criminal offences involving abuse." 22 From what I have outlined so far it is clear that 23 while an institution, whether state-run or voluntary, 24 will have had duties towards a child in its care, the 25 state additionally will have had an oversight and 26 1 governance role. The document goes on to provide 2 further examples of what the Inquiry believes could 3 amount to systemic failings, and if we look at page 4 HIA-044, which is on the screens, it states: 5 "Systemic failings could also have taken place in 6 one or more of the following ways: 7 (a) where some or all of those who had contact with 8 children in residential establishments, including 9 volunteers and visitors, adopted abusive child care 10 practices in common; 11 (b) where staff in managerial positions within 12 residential establishments initiated, encouraged or 13 condoned abusive child care practices; 14 (c) where people in positions of responsibilities 15 for the institutions running residential services 16 initiated, encouraged or condoned abusive child care 17 practices; 18 (d) where those responsible for the inspection, 19 oversight, policy-making or funding of the institutions 20 providing residential services initiated, encouraged or 21 condoned abusive practices, or failed to take 22 appropriate steps to identify, prevent or remedy abuse." 23 Of course whether an individual instance of abuse 24 amounts to a systemic failing will depend on the 25 particular circumstances. It may do so. Equally the 27 1 more frequent a complaint of abuse, the more likely the 2 Inquiry may be able to ascertain that there was 3 a systemic failure. 4 The evidence which we will be presenting to the 5 Inquiry comprises not only the first-hand accounts of 6 those who came or will come to speak to the Inquiry 7 legal team. We will also ask you to consider evidence 8 gathered from other sources: the institutions 9 themselves, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, 10 government departments and material obtained by the 11 Inquiry's research team from the Public Records Office 12 for Northern Ireland and from other locations. 13 What I have said and what I am going to say in this 14 opening is of necessity of a broad and general nature. 15 This is because the Inquiry's terms of reference 16 mandated to conclude its work within two years and six 17 months from the passage into law of the Inquiry into 18 Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Northern Ireland) 19 2013 and to report within a further six months 20 thereafter. That means as of today the Inquiry's public 21 hearings must conclude by June 2015 and the Inquiry 22 provide its report by January 2016. The legal team's 23 investigatory work continues as I speak and we will of 24 necessity work on a rolling basis to try to meet the 25 time frame set. Because of this it will not be 28 1 appropriate for me to do anything other than give 2 a broad, general outline in these remarks. 3 Chairman, I am about to go on to describe the 4 history and work of the Inquiry, but it may be 5 an appropriate time to take a short break. 6 CHAIRMAN: Yes. We will rise for five or ten minutes, 7 ladies and gentlemen, and that will allow the press and 8 the media to remove their cameras and so on. Then we 9 will resume in due course. Thank you. 10 (Short break) 11 CHAIRMAN: Yes, Ms Smith. 12 MS SMITH: Chairman, before any evidence is presented 13 I intend to set out the background to the formation of 14 the Inquiry and outline the work that it has undertaken 15 to date. 16 Following a campaign by survivors of abuse in 17 children's homes which was supported by, amongst others, 18 Amnesty International, a cross-departmental task force 19 was established by the Office of First Minister and 20 Deputy First Minister in December 2010 to consider the 21 needs of victims of historical institutional abuse. The 22 task force spoke to and/or received submissions from 23 a number of individual parties, including victims' 24 groups. A formal consultation exercise was carried out 25 in March 2011 on how best to meet the needs of victims 29 1 and survivors. This included consultation events in 2 Belfast and in Derry. A number of bodies responded to 3 the consultation process, including victims and 4 survivors of historical institutional abuse, those 5 involved in inquiries into historical institutional 6 abuse in other jurisdictions, organisations that have 7 been established to provide support services to victims 8 or survivors of historical institutional abuse, 9 representatives of organisations who may have had 10 responsibility for the management of institutions in the 11 past, representatives of the legal profession, 12 academics, human rights lobbyists and political 13 representatives. 14 On 29th September 2011 the Northern Ireland 15 Executive announced there would be an investigation and 16 Inquiry into historical institutional abuse. On 17 31st May 2012 the Office of the First Minister and 18 Deputy First Minister announced the Inquiry was to be 19 chaired by you, Chairman, and gave the names of those 20 who were appointed to the Acknowledgment Forum Panel 21 together with some background details about them. The 22 Statutory Inquiry Panel Members were appointed at 23 a later date. 24 On the same day, 31st May 2012, the Office of First 25 Minister and Deputy First Minister also announced the 30 1 terms of reference of the Inquiry, which at that point 2 was to cover the years 1945 to 1995. The thinking 3 beyond the original time span was that the start year 4 effectively marked the introduction of the Welfare State 5 and the end year saw the introduction of the Children 6 (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which came into force on 7 1st January 1996, transforming the child care landscape. 8 So these dates appear to ensure that the vast majority 9 of historical complaints might be addressed. 10 Following receipt of submissions on the draft bill, 11 however, the time span was subsequently extended and 12 an amendment made to the terms of reference on 1st 13 October 2012 to encompass the years 1922 to 1995 14 inclusive. The terms of reference issued on 18th 15 October 2012 remain the Inquiry's present terms of 16 reference. This means that the Inquiry has looked at 17 and will consider complaints about child care in 18 residential institutions from the inception of the state 19 of Northern Ireland following the partition of Ireland 20 until the beginning of 1996. 21 The Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse bill 22 was drafted and laid before the Northern Ireland 23 Assembly. Detailed Committee scrutiny took place. 24 Submissions on the bill were received from an array of 25 bodies, individuals and their legal representatives. 31 1 These included Amnesty International UK, Barnardo's, 2 Children's Law Centre, Contact, Victim Support and 3 Nexus, the De La Salle Order, the Northern Ireland 4 Commissioner for Children and Young People, Northern 5 Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Poor Sisters of 6 Nazareth, the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of St. 7 Louis, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, 8 South-Eastern Health & Social Care Trust, Survivors and 9 Victims of Institutional Abuse (known as SAVIA), the 10 Voice of Young People in Care, Ciaran McAteer & Company, 11 solicitors and Kevin Winters & Company, solicitors. 12 The Inquiry into Institutional Abuse Act (Northern 13 Ireland) 2013 received Royal Assent on 18th January 2013 14 and came into operation on Saturday, 19th January 2013. 15 If we could just call up page HIA-003, please, the 16 Act is set out on that page and the following pages. 17 The Act provides the Inquiry with the powers and duties 18 it must exercise and fulfill throughout its duration, 19 including during these public hearings and ultimately in 20 providing the Inquiry's report. After the Act was made 21 law draft rules essential for the smooth operation of 22 the Inquiry's procedures eventually went out to 23 consultation at the end of March 2013. The period of 24 consultation ended on 24th May 2013 and the rules were 25 laid before the Assembly, coming into effect on 32 1 25th July 2013. We see the rules at page HIA-024. 2 As has previously been made clear at all our public 3 sessions by you, Chairman, the Inquiry has essentially 4 two parts, the private, confidential Acknowledgment 5 Forum and the public Statutory Inquiry. On 1st 6 October 2012 the Inquiry published an advertisement 7 inviting people to contact it. The Acknowledgment Forum 8 Panel Members -- Beverley Clarke, Norah Gibbons, Dave 9 Marshall and Tom Shaw -- started to meet individuals 10 just three weeks later on 22nd October. To date, as you 11 have indicated, they have seen over 260 individuals and 12 this process continues. 13 When the Acknowledgment Forum has completed its 14 hearings, it will prepare a report, which will inform 15 the work of the Inquiry. The Acknowledgment Forum has 16 allowed applicants to speak to it in complete 17 confidence. Nothing that has been said to the 18 Acknowledgment Forum has been disclosed publicly. Its 19 report will completely anonymise any evidence to which 20 it makes reference. At the end of the Inquiry in 21 accordance with the Act all material held by the 22 Acknowledgment Forum will be destroyed, thus permanently 23 ensuring the confidentiality of its work. 24 The Forum has provided and continues to provide 25 a safe place for individuals to relate their 33 1 experiences. Can I take this opportunity to encourage 2 anyone who feels that it would help to speak to the 3 Forum to come forward while the option is still 4 available? Further details about how to get in contact 5 can be obtained through the Inquiry's website, which is 6 www.hiainquiry.org. 7 It has been the case that the vast majority of 8 individuals who spoke to the Acknowledgment Forum have 9 also wished to see the Inquiry legal team and 10 participate in the public part of the Inquiry. 11 Interviews with the legal team have been taking place 12 since early 2013 and will continue for a considerable 13 period to come. Even prior to the Act becoming law, 14 however, the Statutory Inquiry team had commenced work. 15 A number of institutions identified through preliminary 16 research work and the work of the Acknowledgment Forum 17 were written to asking them to cooperate voluntarily and 18 provide the Inquiry with a range of information in 19 advance of legislation being enacted. This exercise met 20 with limited success. Some bodies were more cooperative 21 than others, both in the manner of their approach to the 22 work of the Inquiry and in responding to our requests. 23 This will be obvious when we come to look at the 24 responses of the individual institutions as they are 25 dealt with in turn. 34 1 Since January 2013 the Inquiry has held a number of 2 public sessions to explain its work and to seek to 3 ensure that awareness of its existence was as widespread 4 as possible. The first session was at a hotel in 5 Belfast on 21st February 2013, followed a week later on 6 27th February at a hotel in Derry. At that time you, 7 Chairman, announced the number and types of institutions 8 under investigation. At the same time the Chairman, 9 Geraldine Doherty and Norah Gibbons engaged in a number 10 of press interviews, which was picked up not just within 11 Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great 12 Britain but in a number of other countries where it is 13 believed people originally from Northern Ireland are 14 living. There was also a province-wide poster campaign 15 that ran during February and March 2013. 16 On 4th September 2013 at a further public session in 17 Belfast the names of those institutions which were to be 18 investigated were listed. In addition, Chairman, you 19 announced that in order to complete its work within its 20 time frame the Inquiry would be unable to accept 21 applications from individuals after 29th November 2013. 22 As you have already indicated, to date over 360 23 individuals have come forward to the Statutory Inquiry. 24 The Inquiry legal team has met with and prepared witness 25 statements in respect of some 80 individuals. 35 1 It will be immediately evident that there is 2 an immense amount of evidence-gathering work still ahead 3 for the legal team. This will need to be carried out at 4 the same time as the Inquiry's public hearings. 5 On the information available at present the 6 Inquiry's investigations will concentrate on the 7 following homes: 8 Three local authority homes: 9 Lissue Children's Unit, Lisburn. 10 Kincora Boys' Home, Belfast. 11 Bawnmore Children's Home in Newtownabbey. 12 Three Juvenile Justice Institutions: 13 St. Patrick's Training School, Belfast. 14 Lisnevin Training School, County Down, and 15 Rathgael Training School, Bangor. 16 It is also looking at two Secular Voluntary Homes: 17 Barnardo's Sharonmore Project, Newtownabbey and 18 Barnardo's Macedon, Newtownabbey. 19 Five Roman Catholic Voluntary Homes will be 20 investigated: 21 St. Joseph's Home, Termonbacca, Londonderry. 22 Nazareth House Children's Home, Londonderry. 23 Nazareth House Children's Home, Belfast. 24 Nazareth Lodge Children's Home, Belfast, 25 and finally the De La Salle Boys' Home at Rubane 36 1 House, Kircubbin. 2 With the exception of the Lissue Children's Unit all 3 of the residences were either Children's Homes or 4 Juvenile Justice Institutions. 5 As indicated earlier, it has been suggested that the 6 Inquiry ought to be investigating a number of other 7 institutions. Those that fall outside the terms of 8 reference, such as boarding schools and abuse in foster 9 care, simply cannot be investigated by this Inquiry. 10 Some other institutions fall within the terms of 11 reference, but have not been complained about by those 12 who have come to speak to us, and so far the Inquiry has 13 not found any other material evidence disclosing abuse 14 likely to ground findings of systemic failings in 15 respect of those other institutions. In some cases it 16 was felt that the allegations were so few or were so 17 minor in nature that they could not be said to amount to 18 evidence of a systemic failing on the part of the 19 institution or the state. 20 Accordingly, given the finite time and resources at 21 the Inquiry's disposal, and recognising the need for 22 proportionality, the Inquiry has determined that it 23 ought to concentrate on those institutions against which 24 a substantial number of complaints have been received, 25 or where serious allegations have been made, or where 37 1 its own investigations disclosed a real cause for 2 concern. As investigations continue, it may be that 3 other institutions will be added to the above list or 4 some may be removed from it. 5 Given the variety of the homes in question and the 6 lengthy time frame under investigation, the Inquiry 7 intends as far as possible to deal with the evidence in 8 blocks or modules. Each module will largely relate to 9 separate institutions. The complete running order has 10 not been finalised, but we will deal firstly with the 11 evidence relating to those homes run by the congregation 12 of the Poor Sisters of Nazareth in Derry, that is St. 13 Joseph's Home, Termonbacca and Nazareth House Children's 14 Home at Bishop Street in the city. On 27th January 15 I will open that module to the Inquiry in some greater 16 detail and the first witnesses will be called to give 17 evidence from Tuesday, 28th January. 18 At the conclusion of that module of evidence in due 19 course we will proceed to deal with the next module, 20 which will be Rubane House in Kircubbin run by the De La 21 Salle Order. 22 It is currently accepted that module 3 will deal 23 with the operation of the Child Migrant scheme and 24 module 4 with the Sisters of Nazareth homes in Belfast, 25 that is Nazareth House Children's Home and Nazareth 38 1 Lodge Children's Home, which were located on the Ormeau 2 Road and Ravenhill Road. The Inquiry will also hear 3 evidence about alleged activity in some of those homes 4 by Father Brendan Smyth. 5 In the longer term the Inquiry will deal with other 6 voluntary homes, including Barnardo's, local authority 7 homes, including Kincora and the Lissue Children's Unit, 8 and juvenile justice institutions, including St. 9 Patrick's. 10 As you have outlined this morning, Chairman, 11 a substantial number of people now living in Australia 12 have come forward to the Inquiry. The Inquiry in the 13 course of its own research discovered that a number of 14 children were sent from these shores to Australia under 15 a Child Migrant scheme operated by the United Kingdom 16 government in conjunction with governments, religious 17 and other organisations throughout what is now the 18 British Commonwealth. 19 Considerable numbers of people applied to the 20 Inquiry from Australia, the vast majority of whom were 21 sent there under the Child Migrant scheme, which was one 22 of a number of such schemes which sent children to 23 Australia during the 1940s and 1950s. 24 In order to ensure that their accounts were heard 25 and investigated a team comprising two members of the 39 1 Acknowledgment Forum, a witness support officer and two 2 solicitors travelled to Perth and then on to Brisbane in 3 September and October of 2013. That team spoke to 4 approximately half of those people. There are still 5 a number of applicants from Australia to be interviewed 6 and a further trip will be arranged later this year. As 7 will be apparent from the dates when the child migrants 8 were sent to Australia, many are now quite elderly, and 9 therefore it is imperative that they be interviewed as 10 quickly as possible. Sadly the Inquiry is aware that 11 two of those individuals interviewed last year have 12 since passed away. 13 The Inquiry will in a separate module examine the 14 issue of those children who were sent to Australia under 15 the scheme. The majority of these children were sent by 16 the Sisters of Nazareth, and it seems appropriate, 17 therefore, to deal with the evidence relating to the 18 scheme as closely as possible to the evidence relating 19 to the institutions run by that congregation. As you 20 have indicated, Chairman, the Inquiry will look at the 21 experience of those children while they were residents 22 in Northern Ireland, how and why they were chosen to be 23 part of the scheme and whether appropriate consents were 24 obtained before they were sent. 25 It is clear from the accounts received to date and 40 1 from other material which the Inquiry has received that 2 the children sent to Australia suffered abuse in that 3 country. However, it is not within the remit of this 4 Inquiry to look at what happened to them in Australia. 5 I would like to say a little more about the 6 Inquiry's interview process. Individuals coming forward 7 to the Inquiry have been seen by the Acknowledgment 8 Forum and interviewed by the legal team either at its 9 office in central Belfast or at a location in Derry. 10 The Inquiry has also heard from other people who now 11 live outside Northern Ireland. Most were able to come 12 to Belfast, but where this was not possible, other 13 arrangements to see them were made. For example, the 14 Acknowledgment Forum members have on occasion travelled 15 to England. Arrangements were made to see people on 16 trips home to visit family or on some cases, where 17 appropriate, interviews were carried out by telephone. 18 As I have already made clear, the need to complete 19 the Inquiry's work in accordance with the time frame set 20 down by the terms of reference has meant that, unlike 21 other inquiries, it has not been possible to conclude 22 evidence-gathering prior to commencing the public 23 hearings. Therefore, meetings with the Acknowledgment 24 Forum and interviews with the legal team are continuing. 25 I wish to say something now about the procedures 41 1 adopted by the Inquiry in order to carry out its work in 2 as efficient a way as possible. A number of protocols 3 dealing with the procedures of the Inquiry were drafted 4 at an early stage and can be found on the Inquiry 5 website. These protocols reflect the manner in which 6 the inquiry carries out its work, which is in a way that 7 is both consistent with the Act and the rules. 8 In devising its procedures, the team has been 9 acutely aware of the sensitivities involved both for 10 individuals giving evidence of abuse and for those 11 against whom allegations of abuse have been made. The 12 team looked at how other inquiries have handled similar 13 material and realised that some aspects of their 14 procedures were unsuited to this Inquiry. It was felt, 15 for example, that the use of pseudonyms, a practice 16 adopted by the Ryan Commission, had the potential to 17 cause confusion for witnesses. 18 We were impressed by the goals set for itself by the 19 Stratton Inquiry in Canada in 1994, which had been set 20 up to inquire into incidences and allegations of sexual 21 and physical abuse at five named institutions in Nova 22 Scotia between 1956 and the mid-70s, that is, to seek to 23 prevent further harm being done to victims of abuse by 24 the Inquiry process itself. 25 The Inquiry's procedures have been devised with that 42 1 aim in mind. While recognising that, given the nature 2 of the subject matter and the competing and conflicting 3 interests which have to be examined, this outcome will 4 not always be possible. 5 Our governing Act makes it clear in section 7 that 6 you, Chairman, must take reasonable steps to ensure that 7 the Inquiry proceedings are held in public and that 8 a record of evidence is available to the public. We, 9 therefore, had to devise a procedure which will ensure 10 public access while at the same time provide 11 an environment which so far as we are able to seeks to 12 do no further harm. 13 Bearing that obligation in mind, we have devised 14 a system which we hope will provide a reasonable level 15 of anonymity to individuals during the public hearings. 16 Essentially an individual cannot be identified beyond 17 this chamber unless they wish their identity to be known 18 or the Panel decides that it is appropriate to name 19 them. To that end, with his or her permission, I intend 20 to call an individual witness by his or her first name 21 only. 22 All details that might reveal his or her identity 23 will be redacted from any material on document display 24 screens. What this means is when a witness statement or 25 other piece of documentary material is placed on the 43 1 screens here, certain names and details will be blacked 2 out and names of those whose identity requires to be 3 protected covered with a designation. The Inquiry Panel 4 and relevant legal representatives have been provided 5 with the designation list so that those who need to can 6 identify who is speaking or who are being spoken of. 7 The designations are relatively straightforward. 8 For example, HIA27 refers to someone who has come 9 forward to speak to the Inquiry. SND2 refers to someone 10 who, while not someone who has come forward to the 11 Inquiry, has been identified from other material as 12 having been resident in one of the two homes run by the 13 Sisters of Nazareth in Derry. 14 Could you put up, please, page HIA-072 This is 15 an extract from the procedure and it shows that those 16 whose identities are presently covered by the redaction 17 and anonymity procedure fall into five categories: 18 "(a) any applicants to the Inquiry who do not wish 19 their identity to be disclosed." 20 The Inquiry has, in fact, actually extended to all 21 individuals who come to speak to it at least until such 22 time as an individual chooses to waive that anonymity 23 this protection. 24 "(b) any other individuals identified to the Inquiry 25 as having been abused or as having been a witness to 44 1 abuse. 2 (c) any individual accused of abuse except for those 3 who have criminal convictions for abuse", and that will 4 be determined by the Inquiry: 5 "(d) any individual who the Inquiry considers may be 6 the subject of criticism by it and whose name the 7 Inquiry considers should be redacted. 8 (e) individuals not falling into any of the above 9 categories whose identity the Inquiry considers ought 10 not to be disclosed." 11 In addition, material which is otherwise irrelevant 12 to the work of the Inquiry will also be blacked out from 13 the documents when shown on the screens. 14 Anyone who reports names or does anything which 15 could lead to a person who has been granted anonymity 16 having his or her identity revealed without first 17 obtaining his or her written consent will be in breach 18 of Restriction Order Number 1 of 2013, which was made on 19 21st November 2013. We can see that Restriction Order 20 at pages HIA-078 to HIA-080. If that could just be 21 called up briefly. Thank you. 22 Chairman, you have explained one of the reasons for 23 the Restriction Order is to protect those individuals 24 who have come forward and who do not want their names to 25 be generally known. In addition, it also affords 45 1 protection to those who have been accused of abuse, 2 including those not in a position to respond to those 3 allegations, either because they are now dead or are in 4 poor health and unable to give evidence. It does not 5 seek to protect those who have been convicted of abuse 6 or who the Inquiry after hearing the evidence considers 7 ought to be named. 8 In order to try to lessen the burden that coming 9 forward to speak to the Inquiry entails the running 10 order of the public hearings is being devised in 11 an attempt to try to avoid the necessity of recalling 12 witnesses. It is planned we will call those witnesses 13 in the module dealing with the institution in which they 14 resided. If that witness was resident at more than one 15 institution, he or she will be able to speak about the 16 other institution and representatives of that 17 institution may attend to hear what is said about it. 18 This will hopefully avoid any necessity to recall 19 witnesses, some of whom are extremely vulnerable. It 20 will not be possible, however, to ensure that every 21 witness will give evidence only once, although that is 22 our hope. 23 I am conscious that we may need to hear from 24 witnesses from institutions or government departments on 25 more than one occasion. For example, we may need 46 1 a witness to respond to specific allegations and then 2 return later to deal with other matters as the evidence 3 before the Inquiry unfolds. 4 As the Inquiry legal team are not and cannot at this 5 stage be across all the potential evidence that will be 6 received by the Inquiry, the reality is that a more 7 fluid and less ordered approach than we might otherwise 8 prefer will be necessary. The Inquiry has made clear 9 from the outset that no-one except myself or Mr Aiken 10 will ask questions of witnesses. This is 11 an inquisitorial process, so no witnesses will be 12 cross-examined, and the representatives of institutions, 13 individuals or other bodies who wish to have questions 14 asked of the witness will have to submit them in advance 15 to the Inquiry legal team. The Inquiry legal team will 16 then decide whether and in what manner the suggested 17 questions will be asked. 18 In order to allow sufficient time for questions to 19 be submitted to us, we will provide a list of the 20 witnesses who will be called to give evidence at least 21 one week beforehand. Core participants will know, of 22 course, who is likely to be giving evidence long before 23 that time, given they will be in possession of the 24 witness statements relevant to them. 25 It is generally not our intention to ask the 47 1 witnesses to rehearse what they have stated in their 2 witness statements. We consider that it might reduce 3 the stress for witnesses if they do not have to publicly 4 rehearse their unhappy experiences in every detail. We 5 also do not consider that it would be an efficient or 6 helpful use of Inquiry time. In most cases I or 7 Mr Aiken will ask the witness to confirm that he or she 8 wishes to adopt the contents of the witness statement as 9 his or her evidence. I will then summarise the content 10 of the statement and then ask some targeted questions 11 relating to specific points raised either in the 12 statement itself or other evidence. 13 During the coming months the Inquiry will hear and 14 consider evidence concerning matters ranging from the 15 most heinous sexual abuse to the constant belittling of 16 children. The Inquiry will hear a range of complaints 17 from individuals. The nature of them varies according 18 to both the time complained about and the type of 19 institution itself. Certain common complaints have 20 emerged about which evidence will be presented. These 21 include sexual abuse by staff, other adults or older 22 children; physical assaults by staff, including assaults 23 with implements; bullying by older children; denigration 24 of a child's family, the separation of siblings; placing 25 children in fear, for example, locking them in cupboards 48 1 and threatening them; public humiliation of children who 2 wet the bed; excessive and inappropriate physical 3 labour; removal of personal belongings and gifts; denial 4 of affection; inadequate food; inadequate education; 5 inadequate staffing and lack of supervision; lack of 6 medical attention; and absence of preparation for 7 leaving the institution. 8 The majority of complaints received by the Inquiry 9 to date relate to Catholic-run homes and unsurprisingly, 10 therefore, the majority of applicants are from the 11 Catholic community. While that is so, it is something 12 the Inquiry will want to consider. While the Inquiry 13 has received complaints covering most of the period 14 within its terms of reference, the time span complained 15 about most is the period from the end of the Second 16 World War until the end of the '70s. It will be 17 necessary for the Inquiry to consider whether during 18 this period greater numbers of children were placed in 19 residential care and, if so, why this was, when the 20 statutory bias was in favour of fostering from 1950 21 onwards. It will also be necessary to look at how 22 children came to be resident in institutions, by whom 23 they were placed, under what powers, if any, and why. 24 At this point I wish to speak about the volume of 25 material which the Inquiry has been dealing with as part 49 1 of its investigation. As indicated earlier, even before 2 the Act became law the Inquiry had begun obtaining 3 information from a variety of sources to assist with its 4 work. The Inquiry's research team has spent 5 a considerable amount of time gathering material from 6 the Public Records Office for Northern Ireland. This 7 material includes the original papers from the Committee 8 of Inquiry into Children's Homes and Hostels, also known 9 as the Hughes Inquiry. By way of example that can be 10 seen at pages HIA-656 to HIA-1000. Perhaps just scroll 11 through some of those pages briefly. Sorry. That 12 should be HIA-656 and pages following. Thank you. 13 The Hughes Inquiry has become erroneously known over 14 time as the Kincora Inquiry. As I indicated earlier, 15 the Hughes Inquiry actually looked at allegations from 16 a number of children's homes and not just Kincora, as 17 can be seen from the documents on the screen. 18 The research team has also considered vast 19 quantities of archive documents from the former 20 Ministries of Home Affairs and Health & Social Services 21 together with material from their successor departments. 22 In addition, an enormous volume of material has been 23 received from institutions and government departments 24 either voluntarily in response to a request from the 25 Inquiry or on foot of a notice issued under section 9 of 50 1 the Act requiring them to do so. 2 Some material is properly indexed and ordered. 3 Other material was provided in a piecemeal and 4 disorganised fashion. It had been planned that the 5 material would be provided to the Inquiry in electronic 6 format. However, this was not always done and in some 7 cases was just not possible. The nature and type of the 8 material itself presented difficulties for the Inquiry 9 team. Much of the earlier material was handwritten, 10 reported in large, bulky ledgers. A lot of that 11 material was presented to us in a disordered way. Some 12 records have apparently been lost, destroyed or not 13 properly maintained in that there are gaps in the 14 material obtained. 15 When it was not possible to obtain information from 16 one source, the Inquiry sought to obtain it elsewhere. 17 For example, when an institution failed to provide 18 proper information, it was sometimes possible to obtain 19 it from social work records or from the RUC or PSNI 20 investigation reports. 21 Other materials to which the Inquiry has had regard 22 include materials brought to us by individuals who have 23 come forward, material gained from press and media 24 publications as well as textbooks, articles or 25 autobiographical accounts on the subject matter of the 51 1 Inquiry. 2 The Inquiry indicated to those from whom it sought 3 material the type of documentation it would consider 4 relevant to its work. To date the amount of documentary 5 material received by the Inquiry amounts to some 97,000 6 pages. This gives some indication of the enormity of 7 the Inquiry's task. All materials had to be and will 8 have to be looked at initially in order to determine its 9 relevance to the work of the Inquiry. Given the nature 10 of this material, it has proved to be a painstaking 11 exercise. 12 Once material has been assessed as relevant by 13 a member of the legal team it then requires to be 14 redacted in accordance with the Inquiry redaction 15 policy. This is to ensure that someone's personal 16 details are not put into the public domain when they 17 ought not to be. This has proved to be an enormous task 18 and is ongoing. It is nevertheless an essential part of 19 the Inquiry's efforts in seeking to do no further harm. 20 Another major aspect of the evidence-gathering 21 process has been to obtain witness statements. In 22 addition to those witness statements taken from 23 individuals who have come forward to the Inquiry witness 24 statements have been requested and received from 25 institutions and government departments. Some address 52 1 general issues as to child care while others deal with 2 specific issues raised by the Inquiry. The Inquiry will 3 hear from many of these witnesses during public 4 hearings. 5 I should add that we are aware that there are 6 expected to be criminal prosecutions which involve 7 people who have been named to the Inquiry as alleged 8 abusers. Chairman, you have made it clear that the 9 Inquiry will seek to avoid jeopardising any criminal 10 prosecution through the manner in which it carries out 11 its work. Nonetheless it would be wrong for the Inquiry 12 to exclude from consideration those matters where 13 criminal proceedings may ensue. Accordingly, certain 14 evidence will be heard in closed sessions while criminal 15 proceedings continue. How that material is ultimately 16 dealt with by the Inquiry will depend on where any 17 criminal proceedings have reached at the time when the 18 Inquiry reports. 19 I need to say something about the form in which the 20 evidence gathered by the Inquiry will be presented. 21 This will be in the form of an electronic bundle for 22 each module. These bundles will be provided in their 23 entirety to the relevant core participants and relevant 24 extracts will be provided to any other persons the 25 Inquiry considers ought to receive them. 53 1 When a page from an electronic evidence bundle is 2 called up on to the document display screen, it will 3 appear in redacted form only. It is this redacted 4 document that will ultimately be published on the 5 Inquiry's website along with the transcript of the 6 hearing in which that piece of evidence was referred to. 7 This will assist members of the public using the website 8 in following what has occurred during the public 9 hearings on a daily basis. 10 Conscious of the time constraints imposed by the 11 terms of reference, and in order to ensure that the 12 first institutions being looked at have as much notice 13 as possible of the allegations that have been made, we 14 have provided witness statements to them in advance of 15 the preparation and disclosure of the formal evidence 16 bundle. To date this advance disclosure has only 17 occurred in respect of those institutions under 18 investigation in module 1, but advance disclosure will 19 also be given to other institutions under investigation 20 as the Inquiry comes to them in turn. By adopting this 21 procedure the institutions have been afforded further 22 time to take instructions on the issues raised. 23 In order to further expedite and focus its work the 24 Inquiry has sought and received and will seek and 25 receive what may be described as admissions statements 54 1 from institutions under investigation. The Inquiry 2 anticipates that these admissions will be of some 3 comfort to the individuals affected by them and 4 hopefully it will make it easier for them to recount 5 their experiences. It also allows the Inquiry to focus 6 more on the reasons why that abuse occurred and whether 7 what occurred could and should have been prevented. 8 Furthermore, it enables more Inquiry time to be spent on 9 those areas where what is alleged by witnesses is 10 disputed. 11 Other material will be presented to the Inquiry 12 beyond that relating to individuals who have come 13 forward. Included in this material are details of civil 14 claims against the institutions. Such documents 15 disclose claims made by some individuals who have not 16 made contact with the Inquiry. Individuals may have 17 many reasons for not contacting the Inquiry. Some may 18 now be, in fact, dead. 19 By placing this type of additional material before 20 you we are not necessarily asking you to accept the 21 truth of the allegations that were made by these 22 individuals, but rather to accept as a fact that 23 allegations were made by other people who have not for 24 whatever reason come forward to the Inquiry. Where 25 these allegations are consistent with what witnesses who 55 1 have come forward allege, then we say that may be of 2 assistance to the Inquiry in that they are indicative of 3 a greater body of individuals who describe similar 4 experiences and thus help the Inquiry to arrive at 5 a more accurate picture of the scale of the problem 6 presented. A fuller picture is also likely to inform 7 any recommendations the Panel might ultimately make. 8 At this point I wish to say something about persons 9 against whom allegations have been made. The Inquiry 10 has had to devise a method of informing those 11 individuals and to give them an opportunity to respond. 12 Obviously in the case of alleged abusers who are 13 members of staff or belong to an institution this has 14 not presented a major difficulty, as it has been 15 possible to contact them through the legal 16 representative of that institution. 17 For those individuals who do not fall into that 18 category, of which there are many, greater difficulties 19 and sensitivities apply. Clearly what is alleged can be 20 very serious, and learning about allegations can be 21 extremely distressing. The Inquiry has had to carry out 22 the task of communicating such information with extreme 23 care and delicacy. This cannot be achieved quickly, 24 however, and the process is and will be ongoing through 25 the various modules to come. 56 1 Individuals for whom we have had contact details 2 have been written to, asking them to contact the Inquiry 3 solicitor. He has then made arrangements to ensure that 4 they were fully apprised of the allegations against them 5 and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. 6 Such individuals are also covered by the Inquiry's 7 redaction and anonymity procedures to try to ensure as far 8 as possible that genuine mistakes do not occur whereby 9 someone's reputation might be destroyed without 10 justification. 11 As has been made clear publicly on a number of 12 occasions, the Inquiry appreciates that this process can 13 be difficult for all who end up involved with it. The 14 Inquiry also recognises that while individuals wish to 15 come and recount their experiences publicly, the act of 16 doing so will at the very least cause a degree of 17 apprehension. Indeed, I anticipate that all those 18 witnesses asked or required to come and give evidence 19 will be nervous about doing so. For the Inquiry to 20 achieve its aims, however, witnesses must nevertheless 21 give evidence, and I wish to assure all witnesses that 22 we will try to make the experience of doing so as 23 stress-free as we can. 24 That is all I want to say at this stage about the 25 Inquiry's method of working and its procedures, and 57 1 I should add that anyone affected by the work of the 2 Inquiry can read more about our procedures on the 3 Inquiry website or can contact the Inquiry directly for 4 information. 5 As I have already stated, this opening is 6 necessarily in broad and general terms and I do not 7 intend at this point to go into details about the 8 history of individual homes and the evidence we shall 9 present in respect of them. As the Inquiry deals with 10 each module in turn, a module-specific opening will be 11 given, which will deal with those matters. Core 12 participants affected by that module will have an 13 opportunity at that time to say something specific about 14 matters relating to that module. 15 That concludes my comments on the background to this 16 Inquiry, but at this point, if I may, Chairman, I would 17 like to pay tribute to the hard work of all the Inquiry 18 team members, not just the legal team and researchers, 19 but the administrative staff, who, like all of us, have 20 had to engage in tasks that could not have been 21 envisaged at the outset of the Inquiry. Getting to 22 the position where the Inquiry can commence to call 23 witnesses has involved tremendous effort on the part of 24 the entire team, and I am particularly grateful for the 25 help I have received in preparation for today. 58 1 In the following section I will look at what might 2 be described as the social background relevant to the 3 work of the Inquiry so that the Inquiry can get a fuller 4 understanding of the historical context in which the 5 allegations arise. 6 Chairman, I am intending to go on to that section if 7 you wish, or being conscious of the time, I don't 8 believe I will conclude that section today. 9 CHAIRMAN: Well, it is a little earlier than we would 10 normally be stopping, ladies and gentlemen, but I think 11 at this particular stage of the process it is preferable 12 that you hear each part of the opening in its entirety 13 rather than having it divided up. 14 So we will stop now and we will resume tomorrow 15 morning at as soon after 10.30 as you are able. So 16 thank you for your attendance here today. That 17 concludes today's proceedings, and we will resume then 18 tomorrow here at 10.30. Thank you very much. 19 (3.40 pm) 20 (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning) 21 --ooOoo-- 22 23 24 25 59 1 I N D E X 2 Opening Remarks by THE CHAIRMAN ......................2 3 Opening Remarks by COUNSEL TO THE ...................13 4 INQUIRY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60