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.