Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Feb 2003

Vol. 560 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Residential Institutions Redress Scheme.

I wish to emphasise that the victims of abuse in State residential homes are fully entitled to compensation. That is not an issue in this debate, nor is there any question about delays in making settlements. There are two issues at stake here. One is the share out of liability between the State and the religious institutions. The other is the procedures used through 2002 in the negotiation and conclusion of this agreement. I want to know what role the Minister for Finance and his Department played in this process. What was the role of the then Attorney General who is now Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

One underlying principle we often hear from the Government is that the polluter must pay. In this instance the damage and abuse was caused by some members of religious institutions and their superiors who, like the Cardinal in the recent distressing Rundle case, allowed abusive situations to continue despite persistent warnings about what was going on.

I cannot accept that it could be right or proper to agree to a cap on the liability of those who carried out the abuse and those who permitted it to continue while at the same time to agree to the Exchequer meeting all costs above that cap. The Constitution places a particular onus on the Minister for Finance to protect the public interest when such unlimited demands are made. I cannot understand how the standard procedures such as a memorandum to Government or the usual restraining hand of the Department of Finance officials seemed to have been by passed in this instance.

This is a flawed agreement. It is flawed in its content and in the way it was negotiated. It opens an appalling vista for the Exchequer that allows those individuals and institutions, who are the guilty parties in this unhappy saga, to escape the proper liability for their actions.

I want the Minister to answer a number of basic questions. What role did the Department of Finance play in the negotiations and was the Department kept fully up to date at all stages on the financial implications in order that the usual financial regulation and control was in place? From the end result it does not seem that the Department had any influence at all, as I cannot believe the Department of Finance would have surrendered the State to such a level of liability.

Who made the assessment of the likely number of claimants? Did the Department of Finance check this? Was there a proper memorandum to Government setting out the terms of a draft agreement before it was formally signed? What was the date of the Cabinet meeting at which this matter was discussed and did all Ministers and the then Attorney General have the opportunity to look it over? Was the Department of Finance asked to make detailed observations?

What was role of the then Attorney General, Michael McDowell? Did he see the agreement and did he agree to its terms? As the law officer of the time, Deputy McDowell's responsibility was surely to oversee the level of Government liability and minimise the degree of risk to the Exchequer. Now his party, in a Sunday newspaper, is throwing up a figure of €2 billion as the true possible cost to the State. If this is what Deputy Harney and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, believe, they must surely explain to the House what role they had in the negotiation of the agreement which was sanctioned by them last June.

On what basis was it decided to abandon any notion of shared equal liability and guarantee a perpetual cap on the religious liability? Why was the cash element of the deal so limited?

Under section 16 of the agreement a review is possible to resolve a dispute between the parties to it. In view of the grave questions now arising in relation to this agreement, can the Minister say if he will avail of this mechanism to re-examine the deal?

My party will be raising a series of further questions regarding how the State is handling this matter. I would also ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to check reports that the records of the Department of Education and Science regarding individuals have been given to an independent third party, not the redress board. They are with that party for processing in situations where individuals seek information held on State files. If that is true, I would be gravely disturbed.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and hope I will be able to throw some light on the matter and give some direct answers.

The Department of Finance's involvement in the negotiations with the religious congregations was through participation in a group of officials chaired by the Department of Education and Science which also included officials from the Office of the Attorney General. The group held discussions with representatives of the religious congregations during the period February 2001 to October 2001.

The background was that on 11 May 1999 the Taoiseach made an apology to the victims of childhood abuse and went on to outline a number of measures, including the setting up of a commission on childhood abuse. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 became law in April 2000.

The commission published its first interim report in May 2001 in which, inter alia, it indicated that it did not intend to make public any determinations or findings until the inquiry has been completed. Hence, an accurate and complete picture of the nature and scope of child abuse in residential institutions will not be available until the commission publishes its full report.

In February 2001, the Government approved the proposals for a compensation scheme. As Deputies will be aware, the Residential Institutions Redress Act which brought that scheme into effect was passed by the Oireachtas in April 2002. Section 7 of the Act provides for the payment of awards. It is important to point out that the Government decided on the residential institutions redress scheme as a major part of its general approach to try to bring some healing and closure to the victims of child abuse.

As I already indicated, following consultation with their Ministers a group of officials from the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office met representatives of the religious congregations on a number of occasions during the period February 2001 to October 2001. The purpose on the official side was to explore whether the religious congregations would make a contribution towards the redress scheme and, if so, the amount of such contribution. In the course of these discussions the religious congregations raised the question of an indemnity as part of an agreement to contribute.

Subsequent to the discussions at official level terminating in October 2001, I understand that the then Minister for Education and Science had further contact with the religious congregations as a result of which he informed Government on 30 January 2002 that he had reached an agreement in principle on the amount of a contribution and on an indemnity for the congregations concerned against all present and future claims arising from past child abuse which are covered by the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2001, as it was then.

The Minister for Education and Science brought the matter to Government in the usual manner by way of a formal memorandum and the Government approved the agreement and the signing of the indemnity on 5 June 2002.

It was accepted that it was difficult to estimate the eventual cost of a redress scheme as it depended on the number of cases and the average award per case, both of which were uncertain. For purposes of estimation, a range of £200 million to £400 million was used – in terms of euro, that is a range of €250 million to €500 million. As Deputies will be aware, a matrix for awards was subsequently developed by an independent compensation advisory committee established by the Minister for Education and Science for the purpose of section 17 of the Act.

However, it is important to understand that the final actual cost will not be known until the redress board has completed its work which will be at least three years hence. This is because claims can still be made for three years from the operational date of the board, that is, 16 December 2002. It may be possible to make an informed estimate once a cross-section of cases have been dealt with by the board.

Until such time as a pattern of awards by the board becomes available, based on a representative number of cases, it will not be possible to assess whether the cost range of €250 million to €500 million is a reasonable estimate. The final outcome may, or may not, fall within this range but it is not possible at this stage to provide a more reliable estimate.

As regards some of the more exaggerated figures in the media for the cost of the redress scheme, it may be instructive to point out—

What about the Progressive Democrats' estimate of €2 billion?

—that the early estimates of the cost to the State of Army deafness claims ranged well above €1 billion pounds whereas the actual cost to date—

Deputy Parlon's own party is estimating €2 billion in the newspapers.

The Deputy is talking about media speculation. I have nothing to do with it. In that case, the vast bulk of the claims have been dealt with and the cost is in the region of €300 million, as opposed to the wild media speculation of €1 billion. While not suggesting that the two cases are directly comparable, the experience of the Army deafness claims nevertheless underlines the case for waiting for a reliable basis to emerge before jumping to conclusions about the final cost of the redress agreement.

Tell that to your party.

Top
Share