It is almost 18 months since the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, apologised on behalf of the State to the victims of abuse in State-sponsored institutions and promised to try to put matters right.
Later in the Dail, he promised the setting up of a commission to inquire into child abuse, the establishment of a nationwide counselling service and amendment of the laws relating to civil actions on childhood sexual abuse. The speech also included the referral to the Law Reform Commission of the limitation on action on other forms of abuse and the advancement of legislation setting up a register of sex offenders.
There was an initial burst of activity: the Government set up a Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse to be chaired by a highly respected High Court judge, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. It introduced the Sex Offenders Bill, establishing a sex offenders' register. It also brought in a new Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act which allowed victims to take civil actions outside the time limits imposed by existing law.
But other measures took longer and even some of the actions initiated seemed to stall. It has taken more than a year to get the Statewide counselling service up and running - meaning a further lengthy period for people to nurture the disturbing memories reawakened by the television programmes.
When the Statute of Limitations Bill was introduced, it referred to both physical and non-sexual abuse. However, at committee stage, it was amended by the Government to exclude non-sexual abuse, on the basis that the issues involved were not clear cut, and the Law Reform Commission was asked to investigate the law in this area. It issued a consultation paper on the issue yesterday. The Statute of Limitations Act, which was signed into law in June, allows for an extension of the time available to bring a civil action if the person's capacity to do so was impaired by the psychological effect of sexual abuse. Many survivors have been disappointed by this Act, arguing the sexual abuse was frequently intertwined with physical abuse.
They have also been disappointed that almost a year and a half after the announcement of the setting up of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and a year after Ms Justice Laffoy left her normal judicial duties to chair it, it has still not properly started its work. The commission was set up on a statutory basis on April 26th. But survivors' groups soon began to question its independence from the Department of Education and their right to legal representation in a situation where they expected the accused - the religious orders and State agencies - to have the best legal advice money could buy.
As a result, doubts were raised about the participation of some survivors in the work of the commission, though survivors' groups stressed their confidence in Ms Justice Laffoy. The commission has two committees, a confidential committee which is taking testimonies from survivors, and where they cannot be cross-examined on their experiences, and an investigating committee, which is inquiring both into instances of abuse and the responsibility of individuals and institutions for that abuse. It has been asked to prepare a report for the Government. The commission's investigating committee has not started its work, and cannot do so until the question of legal representation is sorted out, and the work of the confidential committee has only just begun.
Ms Justice Laffoy stressed the work of the commission depended on the volume of evidence it would collect. This, in turn, depended on the willingness of people who had suffered childhood abuse to testify.
However, the problems with legal representation and the very constitution of the commission emerged as obstacles to a number of survivors coming forward. The legal representation issue was raised with the commission at its public sittings in June and July. The commission ruled on July 20th that those coming before the investigation committee should have one solicitor and one counsel of their choosing. However, when Ms Justice Laffoy wrote to this effect to the Department, the proposals she received back did not differ substantially from an earlier draft she had rejected in March. She said this week she was still waiting for concrete proposals on the matter from the Department of Education and Science.
At that sitting of the commission on Tuesday, a solicitor for a group of survivors, Mr James McGuill, who was also speaking for a number of colleagues, raised two further issues.
One was the concern of survivors at the significant role played in the work of the commission by the Department of Education and Science, which he said amounted to a conflict of interest, as this was the body responsible for the supervision of many of the institutions in question. In cases where it is being sued for damages it has denied liability.
He also raised the fact that survivors of child abuse testifying would, as matters stood, have to give evidence on multiple occasions in different forums. These would include civil court hearings of any claims for damages arising from the abuse.
Mr McGuill has suggested these problems could be met by the commission making an interim report calling for an appropriate scheme of compensation to survivors, and the Government accepting this.
According to Ms Justice Laffoy, the commission could not make an interim report without hearing evidence. However, she said the Government could make such a commitment as a matter of principle, and wrote accordingly to the Minister for Education and Science on July 26th.
The commission received a "holding response" to this letter on August 14th, pointing out that it would be difficult to get a Government decision during the holiday period. It received a further letter on September 22nd, saying, "The Government have not as yet made a decision on establishing a compensation body."
This would, according to the letter, "raise complex issues" and the Department was drawing up a report on the whole issue, which was being circulated to the secretaries of all departments whose ministers made up the Cabinet Committee on Child Abuse.
It was clear this week that Ms Justice Laffoy was less than happy with this response and expressed the disappointment of the commission that the State was not showing "a more obvious willingness" to "speedily address" the issues holding up the work of the commission.
When it was set up, the commission expected its work would take two to three years. Those involved in it must now be wondering whether it will be in a position to report at all before the reasons for its existence fade from public memory.