Failure to assign blame is unjust

REFERRING the Lindsay Report to the Director of Public Prosecutions is a laudable initiative. But despite the fact that 79 people have died, it is questionable if this bland document will result in prosecutions against those responsible for one of greatest public health scandals in the history of the State.

Given the deep suffering of the 260 people infected with haemophilia through contaminated blood products, resulting in tragic fatalities from HIV and hepatitis C, the report was seen as inconclusive and extremely disappointing.

Of itself, it is unlikely to provide sufficient grounds for the DPP to initiate prosecutions. In stark contrast with the Flood report, which pulled no punches, it is fair to say the Lindsay Tribunal points the finger at nobody.

It is hardly surprising that the relatively toothless nature of the document has incurred widespread criticism, especially by the Irish Haemophilia Society, which regards it as deeply flawed.

Unlike Mr Justice Feargus Flood, who unhesitatingly referred his report on the corruption of former Minister Ray Burke to the DPP, Judge Alison Lindsay decided against taking this course of action because she believed it would be inappropriate. Another bitter cause of complaint was the decision not to pursue the US pharmaceutical companies which made the deadly products. Hopefully, this course of action will receive the backing of Health Minister Micheál Martin when he meets members of the Irish Haemophilia Society next month.

The report’s failure to apportion blame is all the more regrettable because it was concerned with the lives of people. Compared with the gravity of the issues addressed by the Lindsay tribunal, such matters as bribery and corruption in politics or the proceedings of the Beef Tribunal pale into insignificance.

In the final analysis, the fundamental shortcoming of the Lindsay report was that instead of coming up with firm recommendations, it produced a relatively anodyne set of findings.

If Mr Justice Flood has put down a marker for future tribunal inquiries, the same is true of the no-nonsense approach adopted by Justice Minister Michael McDowell in the current debate on whether the law of the Church the law of the State should take precedence in the scandal of clerical sex abuse.

Where another minister might be tempted to kick for touch, he has called a spade a spade. The minister’s trenchant rejection of the claimed supremacy of Canon Law over civil law will generally be welcomed. Basically, he compares the Church to the GAA or any other organisation run according to its own rules and regulations.

Understandably, people have been distressed by the thrust of the Canon Law edict, which is outlined in a standard work on the subject bearing the imprimatur of Cardinal Desmond Connell, warning bishops not to threaten a paedophile priest with dismissal as this would be counter-productive.

Reeling from a succession of scandals, the Irish Church is undergoing profound change after enjoying the trappings of power for centuries, virtually ruling a State within a State.

With the scandal of sex abuse in the Diocese of Dublin continuing to blaze, the policy of the Church is perceived as being more concerned with paedophile priests than with their victims.

But when such grave criminal matters as the rape of children by priests are at issue, it can be stated with a degree of certainty that the legal scenario outlined by Mr McDowell will win widespread public support.