Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Jun 2002

Vol. 553 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Institutional Abuse.

I had hoped the Minister for Education and Science or the Minister for Finance would come in to respond but, perhaps, there are reasons they cannot be here. The matter relates to the role both played in the point at issue.

On 5 June, three weeks ago, the then Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Finance agreed a deed of indemnity which entails the State or, more accurately, the taxpayer essentially picking up the tab for all institutional clerical abuse. This deal had its origins in the Residential Institutions Redress Act, the purpose of which was to provide some kind of mechanism whereby the victims of child abuse in various residential institutions could be financially compensated for the damage, hurt and severe injury done to them.

Those institutions were largely funded by the State and managed by various religious congregations. The negotiations on the contribution which the relevant congregations would make were protracted and stretched out over most of last year. The questions that arose were how much responsibility the religious orders carried for the high level of child abuse that took place within the institutions for which they had management responsibility and what level of contribution should be made to the proposed compensation fund so that the payment would be closely commensurate with the level of responsibility which both partners – the religious orders and the State – should carry. We know from information available on those negotiations that a strong view was taken by the Department of Finance that the responsibility should be shared on a 50:50 basis. The State had legal responsibility for those children in the institutions, yet it was certain members of certain congregations that inflicted the abuse, committed the crime and did so much damage.

It was unfortunate that no court was asked to adjudicate and determine the level of responsibility which the State and the congregations should carry. However, the upshot of the negotiations was that the Government agreed to fund approximately 75% of the expected cost of the compensation awards which will be paid by the Institutions Redress Board and the congregations, in theory, would carry the other 25%. We were told that would amount to €128 million. There was great fanfare and much publicity attached to the fact that these congregations were going to contribute that amount. There is still much vagueness about how that €128 million is made up. There is still no definitive information on what land will be taken into consideration. We know that much of the land has already been transferred to various agencies and has nothing to do with the institutional child abuse issue. There are various vague promises that other land will be transferred and we need further information on that matter.

Much of that sum of €128 million was allocated to various nebulous headings such as counselling, record retrieval, etc. The whole thing was unsatisfactory. We were told that where a victim accepted an award from the Institutions Redress Board they waived their right to pursue a civil action and, therefore, the perpetrators would be indemnified.

Apart from the paltry level of contribution made by the congregations, it was a fair enough approach to abuse that took place in the past where no substantial evidence remains to this day, as it relates to awful things that happened 40 or 50 years ago. That was generally accepted as a fair approach. However, we know from the deal agreed between Government Ministers and the congregations on 5 June that the scope of this indemnity is far wider than originally proposed. The State on behalf of the taxpayer has undertaken to indemnify all those in religious orders who perpetrated abuse in residential institutions up to 5 June. I do not believe the taxpayer is aware of that. In regard to cases which may not have been initiated yet, but where abuse took place at any stage up to 5 June – not 40 or 50 years ago – the State is prepared to step in and take over full responsibility for that clerical abuse on behalf of the taxpayer. We are looking at a scenario where the State or the taxpayer is facing a bill which is likely to be in the region of €1 billion. On what basis was the decision reached? Can the Minister give an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer?

Will the Minister explain how this approach can help deal with the long running issue of child abuse in residential institutions given that it is essentially a cheap insurance policy for those perpetrators of abuse. It negates modern day thinking in terms of perpetrators taking responsibility for their actions. It is complete immunity for a very low price. Will the Minister explain how he can possibly justify that on behalf of the taxpayer?

I wish to make a number of comments before responding. I apologise to the House for detaining it and also to Deputy Shortall. The Minister for Education and Science cannot be present but he asked me to give the Deputy his response. I have long regarded this method of Adjournment Debates as unsatisfactory. I proposed to the Opposition a means by which we should change it to allow for a proper debate and interaction between relevant Ministers and relevant spokespersons. So far, between all of us, we have not had the wisdom to advance those reforms to a point where we could make changes to these procedures in the House. I note the Fine Gael Whip is sitting opposite. Perhaps he will take up that issue with my successor with a view to moving it on. Until then I am stuck with the current arrangement, which means I have to read this statement.

In October 2000 the Government agreed to establish a scheme through which victims of childhood abuse in institutional care could receive compensation for their injuries. The Government's decision to establish the scheme was taken without regard to whether the congregations who owned and managed the institutions concerned would participate. The decision was taken in the interests of people who, as vulnerable children, were committed for the most part by State bodies into institutional care and who suffered abuse and lifelong injury, notwithstanding the duty of the State to regulate the institutions.

The compensation scheme was part of the Government's overall response to the horror generated in Irish society by the revelations of the abusive regime in many of the care institutions in the past. Other measures included the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, dedicated counselling services and amendments to the Statute of Limitation. The decision to set up the scheme was also taken against the background of over 1,000 cases in which legal proceedings had commenced in the High Court against both the State and various congregations.

Shortly after the Government's decision, the religious congregations announced that they wished to make a meaningful contribution to the compensation scheme. The Government agreed that such a development would be welcome. Apart from the financial contribution involved, it was considered that bringing the issue of childhood abuse to a resolution could best be achieved if both the congregations and the State took part. There followed a lengthy period of negotiation involving representatives of the congregations and the State. As Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods reached agreement in principle with the congregations in January of this year. That agreement was subsequently the subject of detailed negotiations out of which came the agreement referred to by the Deputy. The congregations agreed to make a contribution of €128 million in the form of cash, counselling costs and real property to the compensation scheme.

The cash contribution is to be made in instalments within one year. In the case of the property transfers, those which had occurred since 11 May 1999 – the date of the Taoiseach's apology to victims of abuse – were to be taken into account.

In return for this contribution the Government agreed to grant an indemnity to the congregations. This indemnity applies only to those cases which are eligible to be dealt with under the compensation scheme set up under the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2000, which are not actually dealt with in the redress scheme and in respect of which litigation is commenced within six years of the date of the agreement. It is the object of the redress scheme that all, or certainly the vast majority of, cases will be dealt with in this forum rather than in the courts. It is expected, therefore, that the indemnity will in fact apply to relatively few cases.

It is misleading to say that the agreement with the congregations, per se, has implications for the taxpayer. The implications for the taxpayer arose from the fact children were incarcerated in institutions by public bodies for decades and suffered injury, often serious, as a result. The Government decided that the time had come for Irish society to acknowledge that injury and provide to the survivors the financial means whereby they could have some comfort in their lives. That decision was not contingent on the congregations' involvement. Their involvement, however, on the terms now agreed, provides the best basis for all concerned, survivors, congregations and Irish society, to move forward and bring closure to this difficult period in our past.

Top
Share