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?