Deputy Twomey was in possession and has four minutes remaining.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Statements (Resumed).
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The misery and fear of the victims of institutional abuse are a stain on the entire nation, not just on this Government but on all previous Governments since the 1940s and 1950s when the abuse really started. The entire nation has failed these people and redress for these victims must become a priority.
Many of the victims have died and those who are alive had to wait until 1999 to receive an official apology from the nation. The same people are still being denied compensation. All those involved were children when they were first institutionalised. Some were as young as eight years old when they were placed in brutal institutions where they were left uncared for and forgotten by the people.
From reading many of the reports it is clear that many of the institutions did their best for these children who had nowhere else to go because the then Governments were glad to wash their hands of their responsibilities regarding them. In some respects, this is mirrored today in the way we treat many others who are vulnerable and disadvantaged in society.
What makes me really angry is that many of the religious institutions responsible for the most brutal treatment of the children in their care are now resorting to hiding behind the legal profession. They are no better in many ways than the people they condemn for hiding behind the legal profession to cover up for crimes and deny victims their justice. This behaviour is blackening the name of the priests, nuns and other religious figures who did their best for the children and cared for them when nobody else did. I do not want my comments to be regarded as an ideological attack on the church or religious institutions, but they must face up to their responsibilities and stop hiding behind legal reasons for not standing up and making their case.
The issue is becoming bogged down in the question of costs and money. Sadly, this also seems to be the central issue for the Conference of Religious of Ireland. CORI must put pressure on the religious institutions that are stonewalling on the issue because of their concerns about how it will affect their material possessions. The spirit of forgiveness should be a much higher priority for these institutions who, in some respects, over the years demanded and got responsibility for these institutions and the vulnerable children who subsequently became victims. It was easy for many Governments in the past to wash their hands of this issue. We must face up to the significant responsibility involved and stop playing around with the lives of these victims.
In my constituency of Wexford, the victims of clerical sex abuse were all denied early justice because of a similar form of stonewalling, including a refusal to release records and hiding behind legal and professional reasons for not doing so. This is now being replicated across the country. It is weakening the faith of people in the church. It is also an injustice and an immoral wrong to the many good people who are still in the church and to those who do great voluntary work with children, be it in the GAA or other voluntary organisations, such as those who look after the elderly. They will all become tainted with suspicions about their motives for participating in such work. The sooner this issue is addressed and properly resolved, both by the religious organisations and the State, the better, before it leaves an indelible mark on the voluntary organisations and the good work done by many other professions and volunteers in society.
Tá áthas orm labhairt sa díospóireacht seo atá chomh tábhachtach san dos na daoine laga a bhí gortaithe na blianta ó shin agus a raibh an Stát páirteach ina ngortú. I wish to share my time with Deputy Peter Power.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I do not believe I will again be afforded the opportunity to speak on something of such intimate importance to the many victims of child abuse. I hope this debate will lead the Government and the Opposition to fulfil three main aspirations, with which the Opposition will empathise. These must be, first, that we ensure that the victims and survivors of abuse are compensated in so far as we can for the sordid atrocities they suffered, second, that the perpetrators are held to account and, third, that we learn from the mistakes of the past because we, as the politicians of today, are the inheritors of that tradition. It is all too easy, in the political and media hype surrounding the retirement of Ms Justice Laffoy, to miss these aspirations and what we are about.
Somebody said that democracy truly tested should be tested by its ability to deal with the weakest sections of its community. Can anybody in this House imagine a weaker section than those at the centre of this matter? Yet, the diversity of opinion as to how we should address the matter is typical of all political debate and democracies. We are glad we can be diverse.
Deputy Finian McGrath said money was not important while, over the past few days, Deputy Shortall and others have stressed the importance of money in the agreement between the Government and the religious orders. Money is only important in the expeditious administration of justice. It will come from the Department of Education and Science. The Deputies share with me a concern at the shortage of money to look after many people with disabilities. In view of this, the focus of the money must be to redress the wrongs done to the victims and not towards the payment of unnecessary and exorbitant legal fees. Therein lies the balance.
Many people have commented on the merits of the agreement. The Fine Gael Party leader, Deputy Kenny, rightly said we all share some responsibility. The State forcibly removed children, sometimes from distraught parents, and placed these innocents in institutions in the name of education where they were entitled to feel safe. Those administering education on behalf of the State abused them. Surely the State, financially, morally, historically and legally, must play a huge role in accepting its responsibility.
In Canada, where the proportionate liabilities of the state and the religious orders has been tested, the state's liability was put at approximately 70% while that of the religious orders was put at approximately 30%. The Government would have had to establish some scheme to address the injustice done to the victims even if the religious orders refused to partake in arrangements. If the Government was found in the courts to be only 1% liable it could have ended up paying 100% of the damages. That justifies the role which the Government played in arriving at what, in the circumstances, is the best deal possible.
I agree with Deputy Finian McGrath that this issue is more concerned with morality than money. Today each Member of this House is on trial, as are all politicians who inherit the history of what happened, the religious orders and Ireland's present and past generations. I was the beneficiary of an education by the Christian Bro thers. Never did so few people do so much damage to so many, including damage to the victims and the huge percentage of those who worked in religious orders to educate people like myself who might otherwise have been denied an education. It is important to bring that sense of balance into the debate when some might wish to pursue an agreement involving a 50:50 share in damages by the State and the religious orders. The vast majority of religious orders contributed handsomely to the development of this State, but they are also on trial.
However, nobody will be on trial to a greater extent than the Minister for Education and Science. I applaud his courage because it became obvious to him that the commission would not achieve, unless in eight to 11 years, any sense of fair play for the unfortunate victims. The Minister had the courage to review what was happening. I hope the people, the Government and the Opposition will have the courage to achieve an expeditious resolution of this issue. We cannot expect those who are aged and who were abused 50 or 60 years ago to be around for ever. While none of us can predict the future, one does not have to be a great mathematician to consider the implications of what has happened. When one considers that the commission has to date dealt with about 40 cases in two years and 1,700 people await a hearing of their cases, basic mathematics suggests that something needs to be done. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, must also examine the legal costs because they appear to be exorbitant. He has also met the survivors and, like other Members of the House, shares the concern that justice delayed is justice denied. Consequently, let us not delay it further than we are compelled to by the passage of time.
I am certain that future generations will judge us kindly if the Opposition and the Government enter into a contract together to serve the survivors. Let us decide together that the importance of this debate transcends political opportunism and money, even though we must be expeditious in administering justice. That is my plea speaking as an ordinary person who has come in contact with victims. Caithfimid rud a dhéanamh le chéile do na daoine bochta atá gortaithe go dona agus caithfimid bheith cúramach go bhfuilimid ag dul sa treo chéanna chun cabhrú leo in ionad cabhrú linn féin nó cabhrú linn in ainm na polaitíochta.
I thank Deputy Tony Dempsey for sharing his time with me. I am also glad of the opportunity to address the House on this important issue. Many other speakers will address different issues concerning the difficulties that have surrounded the business of the commission to date, the redress scheme, the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and the recent controversy surrounding the indemnity scheme and document highlighted by the Labour Party.
To understand these issues, it is important to examine the context in which the redress scheme was established. In this regard, the background statement of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been quoted many times in the debate and often misquoted or selectively quoted, states:
Approximately 29,500 people, born since 1930, were committed by the courts to industrial and reformatory schools. In addition, significant numbers, which cannot be accurately quantified by the Department . . . were committed by parents. Widespread concern was expressed in the [1980s and] 1990s about the extent and effect of child abuse at [these] institutions.
It has become clear that a substantial number and high proportion of these 29,500 children and young people were physically, sexually and psychologically abused and tortured in these institutions in a most shameful manner. These were dark places during a dark period in the State's history.
What was the response? It could have been threefold. We could have done nothing – I suspect that some in the House would have preferred if the State had done nothing and placed the onus on the religious institutions to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. I suspect some in the House wanted that to happen and to see the religious bankrupted, shamed and humiliated. Some would say they deserved that. Others suggest that each of the cases should have been dealt with individually. The Fine Gael Party would have experience of this in the blood transfusion controversy and cases being dealt with sometimes in the most shameful and appalling manner.
The final option would have been to take up the challenge of this dark period in our history, recognise the hurt and pain caused and take unilateral action without being forced to do so by a court or political controversy. That is what the previous Government did. It unilaterally apologised on its behalf and on behalf of the House and the people to the victims of abuse in these institutions. It also undertook to offer redress and compensate them. Everyone involved, from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Education and others, should be congratulated for this enlightened and courageous approach.
It is critical to restate these events because, by making this apology, the Government triggered immediately, automatically and irrevocably a legal liability on the State running into hundreds of millions of euros to compensate these people and provide redress and restitution. I emphasise this point to a large degree because anything that has taken place since that apology and admission of liability by the State is to some degree and arguably to a large degree academic. We can argue whether the apology was merited given the massive liability which accrued to the State immediately upon it being made. That is an honest argument, but whether it was going to be €1 billion, €2 billion or €3 billion, as soon as that apology was made, the State said it would pay 100% of the bill. This point has not been made during the debate and no matter what the involvement of the religious institutions, which I will discuss shortly, that liability was always going to crystallise in some shape or form in the future.
I am prepared to argue the merits or demerits of whether that was the appropriate course of action, but I appeal to Members, especially those in the Labour Party, not to suggest to us and the people that events since the admission of liability and the negotiations which took place subsequently have given rise to this major liability which the Government assumed from day one. They did not give rise to it, and while many accusations of misleading the House have been made in recent days, that suggestion is the ultimate misleading of the House and deception of the people.
Arising from this decision, the Government decided to establish the redress board unilaterally and assumed 100% liability. It set out a scheme of arrangement which eventually resulted in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 and the compensation commission or the Laffoy Commission as it has become known. That was welcome.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states that by October and November 2000 and before the issue of indemnity arose and negotiations took place with the Conference of Religious in Ireland:
In response to the Government decision the Conference of Religious of Ireland . . . indicated their willingness to become involved, in principle, with the Government in setting up and implementing the proposed scheme. In November 2000, the Minister and the religious congregations [entered] into formal discussions on the details of the congregations' participation in [this] scheme.
A fundamental point must be made that if the Conference of Religious of Ireland did not engage with the Government at this stage and said that the Government had made the admission and was liable, anything that would have happened after that would have been academic and immaterial. To suggest that once it became involved with the Conference of Religious of Ireland, the Government mismanaged negotiations, the Attorney General did not attend certain meetings or negotiations were not conducted properly misses the fundamental point that the Conference of Religious of Ireland had no liability up to that point.
As it turned out, they became involved subsequently and negotiations took place on quantum, liability, cost and so forth. Different factors would have been involved in and informed those discussions, such as the standing of the institutions in question and whether they could be sued. For example, if a certain institution was subsequently taken over by another which, in turn, was taken over by another institution, with whom does one engage and who does one sue and bring before the commission? The issue of delay would have been a major and critical part of these discussions and negotiations. The lack of evidence, which would have been patently obvious as soon as these cases came to court, if the Government had allowed them to, would have been a major obstacle.
The vicarious liability of the individuals in these institutions is another factor. These are all critically important points which the Labour Party, in particular Deputy Rabbitte, has ignored. It has singularly refused to acknowledge that they were important aspects of the negotiations and factors which would have swung the pendulum in favour of CORI, whose ultimate bargaining position was simple and straightforward in that it did not have to make a contribution. To suggest otherwise is, at best, to misunderstand or reinterpret events and, at worst, to mislead the House and deceive the people. The Labour Party stands accused of that.
That is an outrageous accusation.
It is a fact.
It is a misrepresentation of the Labour Party position.
It is a reflection of what the schizophrenic leader of the Deputy's party has been saying.
From the moment Ms Justice Laffoy resigned from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on 2 September the Government has been engaged in a mish-mash of bluster and concealment in an attempt to hide its mismanagement of the issue. The victims of child abuse deserve better. It is obvious the Government mishandled the commission from the start and has serious questions to answer. While some of those questions may be answered in full today, I am less than confident that this will occur given that the Government has consistently failed to respond to serious questions with satisfactory answers.
Even during the recent, supposedly emergency, session of the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science, for which I called following the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and which failed to meet until three weeks later, on Monday last, the Minister for Education and Science ducked and dodged on every key issue. He has been unable to explain the reason Ms Justice Laffoy was forced to write that since the establishment of the commission, it has never been properly enabled by the Government to fulfil satisfactorily the functions conferred on it by the Oireachtas. While one can argue that one disagrees with her position, it does not change the fact that her statement amounts to an adjudication passed on the Government by a person it chose to inquire into this issue, a respected High Court judge whose independence and integrity has never been called into question, who has no axe to grind and was merely seeking to do the job she was asked to do by the Government and the Oireachtas. This is a damning indictment of a Government which, on the one hand, established a commission to investigate the most dreadful cases of mass abuse ever to occur in the history of the State, while, on the other hand, failing to give the commission the support it needed to perform its functions.
Ms Justice Laffoy lists the ways in which the Government thwarted the work of her commission: the issue of compensation for the survivors of abuse was not addressed until 2002 despite being raised in July 2000; the issue of the payment of legal costs of persons involved in the process of the investigation committee, also raised in July 2000, was not addressed until 2002; a decision was taken to review the commission's mandate which effectively stalled its work; and the commission's requests for additional resources were handled in a slow and contradictory manner. All these issues were clearly matters for the Government to resolve.
Ms Justice Laffoy proposed to allow the investigation committee to work in four committees instead of one. While this approach would obviously have incurred greater expense, it would have resulted in a much more expeditious process for the victims of abuse and could possibly have brought the work of the commission to a conclusion by the summer of 2005. I am aware the Minister, beavering away with figures, rejects this contention, basing his calculations on the operation of the commission thus far. He appears to ignore the fact that this time calculation was made by the woman carrying out the investigations, who was the only person with intimate knowledge of the intricacies and workings of the commission and was, therefore, in a position to make the most accurate judgment call on the issue.
On 5 December 2002, Ms Justice Laffoy was informed by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, that the Government agreed in principle to the provision of additional resources. This statement fell far short of an acknowledgement that the resources requested by Ms Justice Laffoy would be made available. There is no point repeating the mantra that the Cabinet took a decision in principle to allocate resources. Principles do not fund commissions and the relevant resources were not made available nor was it intended to make them available. The matter was further qualified when the Minister stated that the commission should proceed with the process of filling new posts in a gradual fashion and, in case there should be any confusion, should only recruit additional staff on a short contract basis.
The reason given for not sanctioning the recruitment of staff on a more permanent basis was, according to the Government, the review of the remit of the commission announced in December 2002 and due to be completed in February 2003. The review ran considerably over time, as Ms Justice Laffoy had foreseen when she commented following the announcement of the review that "while the Government decision contemplates a completion of the remit review process by mid-February, its [the Commission's] experience to date does not give it great confidence that this time limit will be met." How right she was.
In a statement in which she pointed out there was a real risk the review would take longer than anticipated to conclude its work, and that amending legislation with all its consequent delays would be required if the review recommended that the remit of the commission be altered, Ms Justice Laffoy noted that the investigation committee felt it was now placed in an impossible position, which duly occurred. If the investigation committee were to press ahead with hearing cases and gathering information under the commission's remit as it stood and the remit was later changed, the commission would leave itself open to the charge that it wilfully wasted public money by continuing with an expensive investigation knowing full well that the review was taking place.
When Ms Justice Laffoy pointed this out to the Department of Education and Science the response was telling. The investigation committee, the Department stated, must continue to discharge its statutory duties and operate within its existing remit. Furthermore, suspending the work of the investigation committee was not, it stated, a legal option. Effectively, Ms Justice Laffoy was not to concern herself with wasting public money. In July, however, she was informed by the Minister that it was manifestly in the public interest that costs did not continue to be incurred in respect of matters that might not be ultimately investigated.
Which advice was Ms Justice Laffoy supposed to follow? Eventually, having received legal opinion on the matter, she did what she believed to be correct. The opinion of a senior counsel she consulted was clear. In his view there was a strong case to the effect that the committee would be acting ultra vires in making any further discovery or production orders under one statutory remit in the knowledge that the results thereof would be only likely to be used in a significantly different statutory regime. This, he continued, could well be argued to be an improper purpose. Interestingly, this advice was requested by and given to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse as a whole, rather than Ms Justice Laffoy. The new chairman of the commission will also have to take cognisance of this advice. Will he, too, feel impeded in his work until such time as new legislation is in place?
Perhaps the most damning allegation of all was that made by Ms Justice Laffoy when she stated that long periods of uncertainty had effectively negatived the guarantee of independence in the performance of the functions conferred on the commission by section 33 of the Act of 2000 and militated against the commission being able to perform its statutory functions as envisaged by the Oireachtas with reasonable expedition. I do not know whether a more serious allegation could be made against a Government. For a judge to say this of a Government is, once again, a damning indictment of its approach to the commission. The Minister failed to show this was not the case.
While the Minister repudiated Ms Justice Laffoy's assertion, the Taoiseach stated clearly that he accepted what she said. After a few hours together in Sligo, we were treated to a pointed rejection of her criticisms. The Taoiseach agreed with Ms Justice Laffoy and then proceeded to reject what she had said. Which is it? Perhaps he will provide an answer when he comes to the House in a few minutes. Does he agree with the Minister or Ms Justice Laffoy or is this another classic case of his consensus politics based on the approach that both sides of an argument can be right.
This begs another question. Ms Justice Laffoy is expected to publish an interim report in November. Eventually, once the review has been completed and published by the Minister, legislation to make Mr. Seán Ryan a High Court judge has been published and passed by the Houses, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Bill has been published and passed by the Houses, the reserved judgment into the Christian Brothers' case has been delivered, appealed to the Supreme Court, as the Minister assumes will be the case, and a judgment delivered, 1,700 victims have been contacted to obtain their opinions on the type of inquiry they want and have submitted their responses, only then will Mr. Ryan get to work and start investigating the whole matter in whichever way is eventually agreed, make his judgments and deliver his report. His report will partly include Ms Justice Laffoy's report which the Minister stated may be challenged by alleged abusers. After all this has occurred, will the Government treat the final report in the same fashion as it has treated Ms Justice Laffoy and her criticisms and blatantly reject anything that smacks of criticism of the Taoiseach, the Minister, the Department or the Government? There remains a clear conflict in the Minister's responses on the issue of the first and second reviews, not to speak of the judge's review and the new review being carried out by Mr. Ryan. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, initiated a review and went to Cabinet with the heads of a Bill, which we have yet to see, on 8 April. One week later, on 15 April, it was announced that a further review was necessary. The Minister said in one interview, after Ms Justice Laffoy published her criticisms but before he had concocted his official response, that the Cabinet wanted a more serious review. Then, however, he published his response and said he had told the Government that a further review was necessary. Which is it? There can only be one answer, either the Minister told the Cabinet or the Cabinet told him.
What changed in those seven days? The heads of a Bill were agreed so the Minister's assertion that the issue had not been concluded at Cabinet on 8 April does not stand up. Something changed and the House is entitled to know what it was. Was this item listed on the Cabinet agenda on 15 April and, if so, who requested that it be listed? Was it as a result of the case brought by the Christian Brothers? Unfortunately, thanks to the Government's cowardly amendment of the Freedom of Information Act, we will have to rely on the responses given today for the next ten years.
We cannot ignore the issues that preceded Ms Justice Laffoy's decision to resign, her repeated criticisms that there was no real engagement by the Department of Education and Science with the commission and "that she was worn out by expressions of contrition by the Department that are not matched by delivery". She said: "It beggars belief that we are where we are today, we are 18 months down the road and the Department is still not dealing directly with a request from the Commission". This is an independent member of the Judiciary, appointed by the Government and the Oireachtas to carry out a commission whose functions were enabled by the Oireachtas, who clearly feels that the Department of Education and Science was not co-operating. These criticisms cannot be brushed aside. They are serious allegations that go to the heart of this issue. Many of the victims, the people who should be paramount in our minds, are extremely unhappy with the Department's handling of the child abuse issue over the decades.
The Minister told the committee last Monday that the Department should be credited with the work it has done in this area. In response, I stated that the Department had been in dereliction of its duty for decades. The Minister replied that this remains to be seen. I wonder if the Minister and the Taoiseach discuss these issues. The Taoiseach told the House yesterday:
In many cases State agencies were aware that institutions were being run under abusive regimes. Some institutions covered by the redress scheme were run by the State. There was 100% liability in many cases.
The Taoiseach clearly feels that "in many cases" the issue of State liability is done and dusted. Perhaps he would clarify if "State agencies" covers the Department of Education and Science, given that it was the agency responsible. However, the Minister still claims that this remains to be seen. Can we get clarity on this point? Is the Taoiseach or the Minister correct? The Minister this morning attempted some damage limitation, following the Taoiseach's statement in the House, but it failed. I assume Ms Justice Laffoy's interim report in November will deal with this issue.
Ms Justice Laffoy is effectively claiming that the Department, under the direction of the Minister, did not co-operate with the commission set up by the Oireachtas. This is an appalling charge against the Minister and his Department. We are all ready to criticise people not co-operating with tribunals but now this criticism is being levelled at a Department of the State. Will the Minister for Education and Science guarantee that Mr. Sean Ryan will not meet the same obstacles from the Department? Has anything been done to ensure this will not happen again? I cannot believe, despite all that has happened, that the Government will still allow the Department of Education and Science to sponsor the new legislation and continue to be the Department which will fund the commission and second staff to the Commission while it is itself being investigated by the commission. Could anything be less appropriate?
The Minister mentioned compensation. It is important to point out that a large category of victims will not be compensated by the redress board. These victims were abused in day schools. I am thinking particularly of victims of Donal Dunne. They have only two courses of redress. One is to the Laffoy commission to tell their story and have it investigated and the other is to seek compensation through the courts. For this category of people compensation is not the only issue. With regard to the Minister's comments about lawyers, which seems to be the stock answer on this issue, why tackle the lawyers only in relation to this commission? If he wishes to take on the lawyers, and I have no problem with that, he should do so over the Mahon tribunal or the Moriarty tribunal. Why is it only the victims who must pay for this?
The recent publication of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reveals conclusively what most of us have suspected for some time, that the Government botched its much hyped deal with the religious organisations. It beggars belief that this Government withheld support from the Laffoy commission and dictated that additional staff be recruited on short-term contracts while, at the same time, it indemnified religious orders at a cost to the taxpayer that could reach €1 billion.
The Minister stated that the object of the review of the commission was "to address the issue of costs". Contrast this with the Government deal with the religious organisations that exposed the State to potentially enormous liability. Over the last two days we have witnessed what can only be called the second coming of the former Minister, Deputy Woods. After a 16 month silence, he is back with a bang, speaking in the House yesterday and appearing on "Prime Time", the Vincent Browne show and the news. I do not know whether he has finally spoken because he feels his successor and the Taoiseach have failed to defend him adequately or he has been sent out as a final duty to Fianna Fáil to take the heat off the Taoiseach and the current Minister. His contributions have offered little enlightenment. Perhaps we should be grateful that at least he has managed to make the former Attorney General and current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform finally speak on this issue.
According to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, in February 2001 the Department of Education and Science estimated the upper liability at €254 million. By April, this had increased to €381 million and by June to €508 million. Currently, the Department estimates the liability at €772 million, which is still almost €250 million less than the estimate of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This shows that the estimates for liability were increasing rapidly. Yet it is clear from the report that the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Finance agreed in April 2001, when liability was estimated at €381 million and rising rapidly, to accept a contribution of €127 million from the religious congregations. They knew that this figure bore no relation to the actual liability faced by the State but they agreed it. I do not accept Deputy Peter Power's suggestion that anybody in this House wants to see the religious orders bankrupt. That suggestion is not fair to Members. I have never said that the liability should be divided on a 50:50 basis. It should be divided on an equitable basis and whoever should pay should do so in proportion to their responsibility. That is what Members of the House want to happen.
The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that "As additional information comes to hand it would be reasonable to expect that the full range of potential costs . . . would be revised." This was not done. No revision of the lower estimate of the potential cost was made, despite evidence that the number of claimants was rising rapidly.
It is clear from the correspondence between Ms Justice Laffoy and the Government that the potential cost of the commission was of concern to the Government. This is despite the fact that the commission was established to bring justice to a large number of people who were the victims of horrendous abuse at institutions throughout the country. Nevertheless, the Government felt able to enter into a deal with these congregations, that may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro, without any qualms. There is also the matter of the legal advice obtained before signing this agreement. Who would enter into a pact worth €1 million without getting legal advice, not to mention a pact that might cost €1 billion? It is impossible to understand.
When the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, announced in January 2002 that an agreement in principle had been made with the religious organisations, the Office of the Attorney General sought information on the detailed negotiations, including the extent of the indemnity offered. This information was sought on 31 January and 1 February 2002. Six weeks later the Attorney General wrote again and stated that unless he was supplied with the requested information he could not give legal advice on the deal. One month later, and ten weeks after the Attorney General's original letter, the Minister finally responded. This was a bizarre situation. A Minister undertook negotiations that might cost the State up to €1 billion and the Attorney General had to ask repeatedly what was happening in those negotiations.
We know from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that the talks were held in virtual secrecy and were attended by the Minister and one official. The Office of the Attorney General was not represented at meetings with the congregations and had no contact with those negotiating on behalf of the State from October 2001 to April 2002, a critical period for the discussions and deal making. The Office of the Attorney General was represented up to October 2001 but when the talks ran into difficulty, legal advice appears to have been suspended. This is highly peculiar action by the Department of Education and Science. Like so much else in this debacle, the review of the commission and the deal with the religious congregations, it beggars belief that this deal, worth so much and indemnifying so many, could come to pass without full legal advice being sought at every step along the way.
When the information was finally sent to the Attorney General it was based upon what the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to as a "retrospective memorandum", drawn up after the negotiations as they had not been documented. Surely it is not standard departmental procedure to fail to minute important discussions and meetings, especially as their outcome would be a matter for later Cabinet approval. Yet when the Comptroller and Auditor General sought papers on the negotiations that took place between the Department of Education and the religious congregations, he discovered that no contemporaneous records of those negotiations were available. Did the Attorney General not question that issue at the time? Did the Tánaiste not question it in the Cabinet? The watchdog clearly lost its bite after the election in May of that year. It cannot be acceptable or standard procedure. Either something is seriously amiss in the way the Department undertakes all its sensitive negotiations or in the way it handled the meetings in question. Certainly, something was seriously amiss in the Government response.
We must move on and get past this sorry mess, but in doing so we must learn from the mistakes made. We must ensure that procedures are put in place to ensure that none of this can happen again. No steps have been taken to that end. The Minister says that he wants the victims to obtain closure. That is not a word I like much, but it serves its purpose here. Much of the responsibility for this, though not all, lies in his hands. Give us closure on the deal done between the Department and the religious orders and on the questions we have raised and will raise today. Give us closure on the Department's responsibility in the handling of this issue for the last 50 years. Let the Minister and the Taoiseach lead now by example.
I wish to express the Government's gratitude to Mr. Seán Ryan SC for agreeing to accept the position of chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. He is also conducting an independent review of the working of the commission. Mr. Ryan is currently a senior counsel of the very highest standing, and I am sure he will provide excellent leadership and guidance to the commission in its important work.
The issue of child abuse in institutions in our society is a scandal of appalling proportions. The more we learn about such sickening activities in certain places, the greater our anger at those who perpetrated abuse and the greater our disappointment at those who allowed it to happen. When those matters were brought to my attention in 1998 by the then Minister for Education and various groups came to me, I agreed that I would not follow the practice of some years and would instead do something about it.
Such abuse is not a recent development. The greatest proportion of abuse occurred many decades ago, before the reforms of the 1970s. However, for several reasons, the full extent of abuse in institutions has become apparent only in recent years. One of the reasons for the cloak of secrecy that surrounded the abuse was the failure of successive Governments to face up to the extent to which organs of the State have responsibility. There was a reluctance to admit that, as a State and as a society, we had failed many of the children of the nation by allowing them to be incarcerated in places where they were not cherished and were poorly treated.
I will detail at length the measures which Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Governments have taken over the past four years to make some amends for the failures of the past. While I do so, I ask the House to bear in mind that while there may have been things that we could have done more efficiently, the totality of our actions has amounted to a comprehensive programme to do right by the victims. Other political parties did nothing at all.
On 11 May 1999, I said:
On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.
I have stood by those words, and to the programme of action which accompanied them, for four years and I will continue to stand by them.
One major aspect of that action plan involved the establishment of several measures to provide counselling for victims to help them overcome the effects of abuse. I am happy to report that those measures are working very well. The main measure is the National Counselling Service, which is operated through the health boards and has an annual budget of about €7 million. For survivors resident in the UK, we provide counselling through the immigrant counselling and psychotherapy programme, at a cost of about €750,000 per annum.
We also recognise that some people will not avail of these State-provided services, either because they do not live in Ireland or Britain or because they are unhappy at the thought of dealing with State agencies. For those people, we pay for private counselling, a service which costs about €200,000 per year. Total Government expenditure on the various counselling activities since 1999 has been €17.5 million. I am proud to say that the Government has fulfilled its promises on the counselling of survivors of abuse.
One of the main elements of our action plan was the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. My intention at that time was for the commission to provide both a healing forum for victims to tell their stories and an investigative process which would allow a thorough examination of abuse in institutions. We all know that there was such abuse. The Laffoy commission was to establish the nature, cause and extent of the abuse and identify those responsible.
The commission was set up on an ad hoc basis immediately after my apology in May 1999, with Ms Justice Laffoy as its chairperson. During that year it made two reports to the Government, in which it proposed structures, powers and functions for a statutory commission. The Government accepted the proposals and gave effect to them in the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000. Thus, from the very outset, the Government accepted and co-operated with the commission. The same commission members, together with several new members, were re-appointed on a statutory basis one year after the apology in May 2000, shortly after the Act came into force.
Another area in which the Government acted at the request of the commission was in the establishment of the Residential Institutions Redress Board. On 20 July 2000, Ms Justice Laffoy informed the Department of Education and Science that several solicitors representing victims were advising their clients not to participate in the commission in the absence of a Government commitment on compensation. I point out to Deputy Enright that this was the reason we took it up, since they refused to co-operate with the commission and rejected four attempts to pay them because they sought more. That was the reason we had to take issue with them.
Ms Justice Laffoy expressed the concern that it would have serious repercussions for the work of the commission. She said the problem could be overcome by a decision from the Government to establish a compensation scheme. The Government engaged in a process of consultation arising out of that request and approved a compensation scheme in principle in early October 2000. That was followed by approval to draft legislation in February 2001 and the publication of a Bill in June 2001. The Bill was enacted in April 2002.
Ms Justice Laffoy believes that the length of time which was taken by the Government in establishing the redress scheme was too long. I accept her criticism that a reasonably long period elapsed between her letter and the passing of the Act. I would have preferred a shorter period, but the legislation established a complex scheme under which hundreds of millions of euro in compensation will be paid out. Such things cannot be done overnight.
I will now set out the reasons for entering into the so-called indemnity agreement which was announced in January 2002 and eventually signed in June 2002. That is the agreement between the religious congregations and the State, whereby the congregations contributed €127 million in cash and property towards the State's efforts to assist survivors of child abuse. In return, the State gave an indemnity to the orders against the cost of certain possible court cases.
It must be understood that, irrespective of any contribution from congregations, the Government was committed to giving compensation to victims of abuse. That was our promise, and we intended to keep it. The redress board was set up for that purpose. If we had not agreed to compensate victims of abuse through that mechanism, each and every court case of abuse, of which there were then about 2,500, would have been fought in the High Court. If we had chosen the court route, it would have been necessary, to get a contribution from the congregations, to bring a claim for financial contribution against the religious orders in every single case. That would have taken years and would not have improved the position of victims. Their compensation payments would have been delayed; their cases would have been left sitting in the court lists in their thousands; legal costs would have piled up. Issues of compensation would have become tangled up in complex legal debates about limitation periods and the responsibility of religious orders for abusers. That would have been a nightmare scenario for victims, the court system and, in my view, the State. To have sat back and let court cases take their ordinary course would have been an abandonment of the victims of abuse. It would have amounted to dishonouring the commitment I had given them on behalf of the last Government.
There is a commonly held belief, fostered by those who seek to confuse, that somehow the State was improvident in entering into the indemnity agreement. There are several facts which demonstrate that this argument is without foundation. Concluding the agreement with the religious orders was in the best interest of the State. First, it should be clear that the State had a significant degree of legal and moral liability for much of the abuse which occurred. The legal liability is an issue that could only be precisely determined by dragging every case to the courts, though we can draw on some international experience. In Canada, where similar issues arose, the state agreed that it was 70% liable for abuse which had occurred. As recently as last February, the 30 Anglican dioceses in Canada agreed a contribution to the Canadian equivalent of the redress board. The contribution of those 30 dioceses is capped at €25 million, and their payment will comprise only 30% of the total in each case.
On a moral level, we must acknowledge that we abandoned the children of another generation to those institutions and failed miserably to ensure that their interests were protected. It seems to me that everyone agrees with that proposition. However, the logical conclusion is that the State must bear a significant proportion of the responsibility towards victims. We faced up to that.
In entering into the indemnity agreement, the State was conscious of the fact that many victims could, for an array of technical legal reasons, lose cases brought against religious orders. That would be an appalling scenario. To arrange for the religious orders to make payments to the State, totalling €127 million, was a sensible way to get a contribution in a timely fashion without expensive and risky litigation.
I will now set out a number of legal problems that could have prevented victims from successfully suing religious orders. First, religious orders would have been entitled to rely upon the Statute of Limitations. At a minimum this would have been a major legal issue in each and every claim brought by victims of abuse. Indeed, where that defence was successfully made each victim of abuse, whose claim was statute barred, would have failed in his or her case. I recall all the efforts made in this House pleading with me to remove the Statute of Limitations. Had I left it the other way round that would not have been removed.
Second, there were significant legal doubts over the responsibility of the current membership of religious orders for the wrongful actions of a brother, sister or priest that occurred many decades prior to a claim being made. The offending priest or brother may even have been long dead before all of the current membership of a religious order joined that order. In those circumstances there were significant uncertainties as to whether the current members of the religious order would have a legal responsibility for that abuse. Third, in addition, there was also a problem as to whether a member of a religious order was an employee of that religious order. Again, legal uncertainty and doubt existed.
In Canada it had been held that religious orders were so responsible but in other countries, around the common law world, members of religious orders are not employees. Therefore, one basis for attributing liability to the current membership of a religious order would be absent.
If the religious orders succeeded on any one of the above grounds the victims of abuse would have failed in their claims. The only case remaining would be as against the State but we would have spent a fortune in terms of legal costs in getting to that point, which I reckon would have been about five years' time.
These are not the only problems that existed. A major question would have arisen with regard to the assets of religious orders. Assets held by religious orders, on foot of charitable trusts, would have to be used for those trusts. Those assets cannot simply be seized. The idea that there were vast tracts of land that could be obtained by victims or the State is simply a nonsense. The courts could have gone through a process of hearing thousands of cases and encountered significant problems in enforcing judgments against religious orders and identifying what assets were available to pay these judgments.
Furthermore, under the Civil Liability Acts, where a victim obtains a judgment for a monetary sum, the total amount of that judgment would have to have been paid by the State. This is because it is a fundamental principle of our code that where several people are responsible for committing a wrong, the victim can recover the whole of the loss against any of the wrongdoers. If one is even 1% responsible, in law, one can be forced to pay all the damages. One must then sue the person responsible for 99% of the wrong in order to collect a contribution from them. In the circumstances of child abuse, the State would have ended up paying all of the awards. Even if all of these legal uncertainties and complications could have been solved, with a wave of the magician's wand, a bigger issue arose.
Was it the wish of the State that all of the religious orders would essentially be made bankrupt? Was it the intention of the State that the organised life of religious orders would come to an end? No matter which way one proceeded the choice was not a simple one. I believe the Government made its decision in the best interest of the victims and that it was the right decision.
I have no apology to make to those members of the rainbow coalition who abdicated their responsibility towards victims. They chose to ignore their pleas and now seek to assume the role of champions of these victims. It is nothing more than rank hypocrisy. Members of the rainbow coalition – who are still in this House – should apologise to victims for their failure to help them when they sought that help or to even bother to meet them.
On the topic of the cost of the redress scheme, we should bring a little reality to the debate. We cannot know exactly how many will come before the redress board or exactly how much it will cost, but we can make a fair estimate. About 2,500 people had litigation pending against the State when the board was set up. While it is likely that a number of additional claims over and above that figure will come before the redress board, the Government does not believe the total number will greatly exceed our original estimate of 2,000 to 4,000 cases.
By the end of last week, about 2,000 people had applied for compensation from the redress board. While the time period for submitting a claim has not yet expired, I do not think there are a multitude of applicants out there who have not yet applied. The sooner people apply, the sooner they can collect their right and proper compensation.
The average amount of the awards is substantially less than we had budgeted for. Of the 160 cases in which payments have been made, the average award is about €80,000. It is reasonable to assume the majority of applications in the most serious cases will be made early on. That was certainly our experience of the Army deafness cases. Thus the average awards will probably fall over the next few years. In my opinion the cost of the scheme is likely to be within original estimates.
I wish to return to the particular issues relating to the Laffoy commission. As I said earlier, two distinct functions were envisaged by the commission which I proposed in May 1999. It would provide both a healing forum and an investigative process. Ms Justice Laffoy, in the report of the commission on its own proposed structures, suggested that these two functions be exercised by two separate committees of the commission. This proposal was adopted by the Government.
The confidential committee was established to provide an environment where victims could recount their experiences without the trauma of legal procedures and cross-examination. That committee went on to receive applications from about 1,200 victims. About half of these have already been heard and the work of the confidential committee is proceeding satisfactorily. I thank the committee for its work.
The investigation committee was established to investigate and report on abuse in a more formal way. It was empowered to make public findings of abuse and to allocate responsibility for it. Therefore, despite the fact that the hearings are in private, the findings of the investigation committee have the capacity to impact very severely on the reputations of the members of religious orders who are accused of abuse, as well as those in positions of authority over institutions where abuse occurred. This in turn means those people are entitled to the full range of rights under the law, particularly the right to legal representation. For every allegation investigated by the investigation committee, there may well be large legal teams not just for the victim and the alleged abuser, but for managers of institutions, religious congregations and the State. Thus the number of legal representations could be massive. The cost of such a system is enormous and there is a significant risk that the State will pay for much of this legal representation. We need to address the issue of legal costs.
I was surprised at the number who chose to go before the investigation committee of the Laffoy commission, as opposed to its confidential committee. At 1,730, the number of complainants before the commission is enormous. That, by October 2002, the investigation committee had heard only 40 of these cases made it clear to us that some significant reform was needed. Even if far greater resources were allocated to the commission, the slow pace of each case would have meant that the process dragged on for years, which would be of no benefit to anyone but the lawyers.
My concerns about this are compounded by the following. As currently structured there could be over 10,000 separate legal appearances before the investigation committee, between lawyers for victims, alleged abusers, religious orders, institution managers and Departments. This degree of legal feeding frenzy was never our intention at the inception of the commission.
By November 2002, the commission estimated that, with the resources then available to it, its work would not be completed for another eight to 11 years. This work could cost up to €200 million in legal fees alone. For that reason, on 3 December 2002, the Government decided to examine the procedures of the commission. There was no plan to change the core mandate of the investigation committee – it would still investigate and then report on the causes, nature, extent and circumstances of abuse in institutions and those responsible for it. What would change was how it went about carrying out that investigation.
The commission was very helpfully involved with that review. The review group met the commission as a whole twice and with counsel for the commission on further occasions. The commission submitted two documents for the review group's consideration. Most, though not all, of the commission's proposals were accepted.
The Attorney General submitted a completed review document on 26 February 2003. It was approved by the Government and drafting of the legislation was initiated. Subsequently, two factors combined to prevent the Government from completing the review process and led to the process entering a second phase in April 2003. One factor was the concern of the Minister for Education and Science as to whether some of the substantive proposals in the review would best achieve the objectives of the investigation committee.
The other reason for the review process not being completed was the possibility that far more significant changes to the remit of the investigation committee might be required. I mentioned this on the Order of Business this morning. This possibility was created when the Irish Christian Brothers launched a judicial challenge to the entire investigation committee's method of operation. An essential claim made by the brothers is that the long period of time which has elapsed since the abuse took place, combined with the fact that some of those accused of abuse have died, make it inherently unfair for abuse to be investigated.
This case began as the review document was being finalised in mid-February 2003. Its implications for the commission could be quite significant. We will know its precise consequences – and thus what other statutory reforms are required – only after the decision of the court is made. If the Christian Brothers are even partially successful then further assessment of the work of the investigation committee will be required.
It seemed logical to wait for the result of this case before concluding the second phase of the review. It was clear in April 2003 that the case would receive an expedited hearing by the High Court and a trial date of 13 May 2003 was obtained. The hearings concluded on 22 May. The Government then believed that a judgment would be handed down before the summer recess, though that has not transpired to be the case. It is still the Government's position that it would be preferable to have that decision before concluding the review and thereby the legislation.
The possible impact of this case on the commission was highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court in the Meenan case at the end of July, which related to the vaccine trials element of the commission's work. The court made references to the issues surrounding lapse of time and the treatment of elderly witnesses which may have repercussions in the Christian Brothers' case.
The commission was informed about this second phase of the review which was still ongoing when Ms Justice Laffoy resigned. What additional recommendations might have arisen from that review, had it been concluded, can only be speculated upon in light of the decision of the Government to ask the proposed new chairperson of the commission to conduct his own independent review of the process.
The resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy on 2 September came as a complete surprise to the Government. It is true that she had previously expressed her dissatisfaction with the reaction of the Department to various requests she had made and unhappiness at different times prior to the commencement of the review. However, the Government believed that all major points of contention, such as the discovery of documents and the issue of legal costs, had been resolved. We were not made aware that issues raised in connection with the review were of such a nature as to result in Ms Justice Laffoy's decision to resign.
We were particularly sorry that Ms Justice Laffoy never expressed to the Minister the view that she would have to resign because of the second phase of the review, its prolongation and its consequences for the commission. As is now known, she had met the Minister several times during the second phase.
There is no value to victims or to our wider community in dwelling on the unfortunate circumstances of Ms Justice Laffoy's imminent departure. The challenge now is to move the process forward. It was thus with great pleasure that the Government announced Mr. Seán Ryan as the proposed new chairperson of the commission. He is also conducting a new review that is independent of the Department of Education and Science. This is the review that will be considered by the Government in due course. I look forward to a report from him and I can assure the House that his recommendations will be considered and acted on very promptly indeed.
On behalf of the Government, I thank Ms Justice Laffoy for her dedication and hard work. She is an outstanding judge of the High Court whose departure from the commission is regretted by all. I also wish Mr. Ryan every success in his own work. I assure the victims of abuse that this Government will continue to do its best to help them achieve the greatest degree of peace of mind possible in all circumstances. As the only Taoiseach ever to face up to the issue of child abuse, this is an assurance that I can honestly give.
The most important issue as far as Fine Gael is concerned is the question of those people who have been abused. The trauma they were put through by that abuse, when they were young and in the care of the State and those religious orders which were supposed to be looking after them, is awful and exceptional. That this commission, which was appointed by the Oireachtas to inquire into the matter, has been stopped in its tracks after two years is unacceptable and reprehensible.
I attended a packed meeting organised by SOCA in Liberty Hall last Sunday. There I listened to a succession of speakers who had suffered abuse at the hands of the State and the religious orders and I asked myself where is their voice, who is listening to them and what are we doing about resolving the issue. What is the Government doing about it and why has the Laffoy commission stopped? Why was there no problem in limiting the indemnity to €127 million while the costs to which the State would then be exposed could go up to €1,000 million? Where is the truth and reality in this situation?
We all owe an apology to those who have suffered on account of this situation having dragged on for so long. The Taoiseach attacked the Opposition for not doing certain things. Nobody should make such an attack, and certainly not the Taoiseach. When we examine the interim reports of the Laffoy commission we can test what they actually said against what the Taoiseach said here today. I quote specifically from the Taoiseach's speech concerning the indemnity agreement:
What must be understood is that irrespective of any contribution from congregations, this Government was committed to giving compensation to victims of abuse. That was our promise and we intend to keep it.
Let us examine the Taoiseach's words in the light of the first interim report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse of May 2001, where Ms Justice Laffoy and her commission comment on the reason for the delays in the section entitled Obstacles to Progress of the Commission's Work:
While not the only factor which has impeded the work of the Investigation Committee, delay in responding to the Commission's requests that a viable scheme for payment of legal expenses be made has been the most significant obstacle. In the Commission's view, the delay was unnecessary and potentially damaging to the credibility and independence of the Commission. At last, almost a year after the establishment of the Commission, the obstacle has been partially removed to the extent that a scheme providing for the costs of legal representation has been provided and that a further scheme will be provided for the second phase.
In regard to the effect of the delay the commission states: "The delay in making a scheme for the payment of legal expenses . . . has impacted adversely on the progress of the work of the Investigation Committee." Who was responsible for this delay? It was the Government. The report goes on to say that 32% of the complainants "were not prepared to submit statements . . . because of the absence of such a scheme". In light of what the Taoiseach says, the report shows up the hollowness and emptiness at the heart of the Government's mishandling of this situation. It states:
Throughout the period from September, 2000 to April, 2001 the Commission's primary concern has been the potential adverse effect on persons affected by the work of the Investigation Committee of the delay in bringing individual allegations . . . to hearing. . . . the impact of delay on its ability to fulfill its statutory functions and the increase in the duration of its work with consequential increases in the cost of the Commission to the State. The Commission's concerns were repeatedly conveyed to the Department.
The Taoiseach says the Government was committed to giving compensation. The Laffoy commission report says of the compensation scheme as follows:
The views of the Commission were not sought on the issue of a compensation scheme in the period between . . . July, 2000 and the announcement of the Government decision on 3 October, 2000. The Government decision did not envisage the Commission's having a role in advising on the modalities of a compensation scheme, as had been suggested in the Commission's letter of 26 July, 2000.
The report goes on:
It is the Commission's understanding that the Government decisions have effectively rendered redundant any recommendations in relation to the modalities of a compensation scheme, which the Commission might have made in an interim report at the end of the first phase of the work of the Investigation Committee, at any rate, in relation to residential institutions. The Commission regrets the lost opportunity.
The report continues further:
The ultimate success of its work will depend on the volume of evidence which it collects, which, in turn, will depend on the willingness of persons who have suffered childhood abuse in institutions, including non-residential institutions and foster care, to come forward and testify as to the abuse.
For the first year of the commission's operation it was not able to deal effectively with the issue of compensation. The Taoiseach's words are absolutely hollow and empty.
Let me deal again with the issue of costs. The reason the Minister said he decided to intervene in the workings of the Laffoy commission was that the work, if it was to go on the way it was being done, would cost €200 million. The cost of the indemnity would be over €1,000 million. How can the issue of costs of €200 million be significant in the commitment that the Government was aware it would have to spend to sort out the whole situation? This Government must be condemned for its mishandling of this situation. Financial considerations should not be the prime motivation in what is happening with the Laffoy commission. However, significantly, some aspects of the money is all the Minister for Education and Science thought about.
Anyone can visit the website of the Laffoy commission as I did. The commission was staffed by more than 30 professional people, including Ms Justice Laffoy and expert advisers. Its reports are consistent and it is clear, if one reads the reports and recognises their attempt to get to grips with this issue and bring it to fruition as quickly and as finally as possible, that those people were making every effort in the most sincere and practical way to assist the people who suffered abuse. For the Government to stop this commission in its tracks does not stand up to any argument. The costs of the Mahon tribunal, formerly the Flood tribunal, are now well in excess of €200 million and it is estimated that it may continue for 15 years. By comparison, the Laffoy Commission's second interim report stated that it expected to bring finality to this situation by 2005 at the earliest.
Last December, everyone agreed a review was needed and Ms Justice Laffoy agreed to continue with her work. However, the review never came to fruition. At that point, the Minister for Education and Science intervened by stating that he would change the basis of the commission. I do not understand why the Government, which set up a review last December, is now tasking someone else to do that work in eight weeks. How can the eminent senior counsel, who has been appointed to head the new commission, complete his task in eight weeks when a Government review could not be completed in nine months?
Many serious questions remain unanswered by the Government. As I said at the outset, the most serious and hurtful part of this is that those who suffered most at the hands of these institutions have been waiting longest. Listening to the stories last Sunday, one could not but be struck by the terrible impact the abuse has had on people's lives. We listened to people whose friends, a number of whom tragically committed suicide, were in institutions with them. We listened to discussions about families that have broken up and heard stories from victims' peers about the awful way they were treated night after night. Many are still haunted by their memories. A gentleman in his late 60s could still remember children screaming as they were abused in the institutions.
These people have suffered long enough, particularly from the Government's tardiness in successfully providing the Laffoy Commission with the resources it needed and wanted. They are deeply unhappy and upset. I agree with Deputy Enright that we must move the process on. However, the Government must accept culpability for the way in which it has mishandled the situation. We must listen to the victims' voices, which are strong and clear. One lady asked me to mention the fact that she was abused and later placed in a psychiatric hospital. She has suffered severe trauma and her entire life has been shattered as a result of her experiences. She has been receiving counselling for some 13 years and still bears the marks of the tragedy on a daily and hourly basis.
The message to the Government is clear – it must ensure that resources that are requested are provided and that the justice which has been denied, because it has taken so long to reach this stage, will be expeditiously resolved. This issue is bigger than any Government, Taoiseach or party.
Hear, hear.
This is the biggest shame and scandal that has ever been exposed. It is worse than any political or planning corruption or the abuses inflicted by politicians on the State. The abuse of very young children in the care of the State and the religious orders is reprehensible and evil. It is an evil which will forever mark the souls of the people concerned and is absolutely unforgivable. We should come together and resolve this issue once and for all. The Government must accept the blame and criticism it rightly deserves.
The Taoiseach gave the last paragraph of his speech over to Ms Justice Laffoy, whereas he should have devoted the entire script to her because the professional work she and the commission carried out was committed in every possible way to deal with this issue effectively in as just a manner as possible.
The point has been made by some Government Deputies that the resources of the religious orders are finite. Of course that is the case and there is also a legal issue in that context. However, there is also a moral responsibility on the religious orders to come forward at this stage. Within the leadership of the religious orders there are committed and supportive people who reject what has happened. I appeal to them to come forward, hand in hand with the State, to resolve this issue.
One of the criticisms levelled is that many religious orders sought to exercise their constitutional rights to the courts. It is now time for the religious orders to put aside the legalities and totally and absolutely accept the blame that lies on their shoulders and purge themselves of this awful, evil past for which a minority of their numbers are responsible. They should move with the State to deal with this issue as quickly as possible.
The point was made on Sunday that many of the people who suffered this abuse are quite elderly and may die before they receive financial compensation. Financial compensation is not driving these people; they are driven by the trauma they have experienced and its effects on their lives, hearts and minds. It is fantastic that people who have suffered such abuse have come to play a full part in our society and community. We must put all of this aside as quickly as possible and resolve the issue in the manner sought by the representatives of those who have been abused. That is the kernel of the issue – forget the legalities and address this matter now.
I wish to share time with Deputy Conor Lenihan.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to address comments which have been made about the Residential Institutions Redress Board by Labour Party Members, particularly Deputy Rabbitte, in the House. He highlighted the fact that the deed of indemnity agreed between the Government and certain religious orders was finally signed on 5 June 2002. I am on the record of the House as promising that we would do everything we could to bring that legislation into being before the change of Government and we did so. However, the full package was agreed in principle by the Government on 30 January 2002. That included the indemnity, the cash and property transfers and the total figure of €128 million. The final agreement was to be prepared, including the indemnity and the list of properties, for the approval of the Government and the signatures of the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science, and was ready for 5 June.
The second point made was that the agreement was drafted by solicitors for the religious orders and not in the Office of the Attorney General. This, of course, is not true, a fact of which Deputy Rabbitte is aware. The Attorney General was actively involved at every relevant stage of the preparation of the indemnity. The Government decided on the policy and the Office of the Attorney General dealt with the indemnity.
The Minister for Education and Science replied to a parliamentary question on the issue from Deputy Costello on 27 February 2003. There is a reply by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to Deputy Richard Bruton on 25 February. On 27 February there is a reply to Deputy O'Sullivan from the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey. Each reply sets out the facts, as requested, in relation to these matters. On 25 February, Deputy Burton received a reply from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. I quote from the second page of the reply as follows:
An official from my Department [the Department of Finance] attended a meeting with representatives of the Department of Education and Science and religious congregations in mid-March 2002 to advance matters. This was followed by meetings between officials from the Department of Education and Science and the Office of the Attorney General and representatives of the religious congregations on the detailed provisions of the indemnity scheme. Officials from my Department were not in attendance at those meetings. However, my Department was kept informed of developments generally and met officials from the Department of Education and Science and the Office of the Attorney General in mid-May with a view to concluding matters at official level so that the agreement could be formally submitted to Government.
These meetings took place.
The next question raised was that the agreement was neither debated in nor approved by this House. As far back as 22 November 2000 I issued, as Minister for Education and Science, a press release which stated as follows, "Religious congregations agree in principle to participate in child abuse compensation scheme". This was followed by numerous statements in and outside the Dáil on progress achieved. On 30 January 2002 the Government agreed the package of €128 million, including indemnity, cash and land transfers, the final details to be prepared for approval by Government and signature of the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science. This agreement was made public.
On 12 February 2002, the Joint Committee on Education and Science discussed in public session the contribution of the 18 religious orders represented by CORI. The attendance included me, as Minister for Education and Science, the officials and 15 committee members, including the Labour Party spokesperson, Deputy Shortall, the Fine Gael spokespersons, former Deputy Creed and Deputy Kenny. Members of the House asked for a special session and were given it on 12 February 2002.
They did not get a copy of the agreement.
The Deputy will get a copy in the Library. The joint committee stated as follows:
The religious congregations have stated that they will also continue their co-operation with State and voluntary bodies in relation to property transfers for services to people in need. The Government, for its part, will indemnify the congregations directly concerned against claims arising from past child abuse, which are covered by the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. The precise form and full extent of that indemnity will be a matter for further detailed discussions between the group of officials and representatives of the congregations.
On 20 February 2002 the Report and Final Stages were taken in the Dáil. The Government set out the package and provisions for the indemnity, including the estimate of up to €5 million. The Report and Final Stages were discussed, the question was put and agreed to by all parties, including the Labour Party. Deputies Creed and Shortall thanked the officials and the Minister for the work done on this complex Bill. Both regretted that day pupils were not included, which was outside the brief of this particular legislation. On 8 March 2002, the CORI compensation package was outlined, discussed and approved in the Seanad. It is available for anyone who wishes to see it. The Residential Institutions Redress Bill was enacted by the Oireachtas in April.
The next question was that the Minister for Education and Science was unaccompanied at critical negotiation meetings by Government law officers. On 2 July 2003 a senior finance official appearing before the Committee on Finance and the Public Service explained the full package, the Department of Finance's involvement at every appropriate stage and that of the Attorney General's office.
They were left out of negotiations for long periods.
Deputy Burton was in attendance.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order. The Deputy will have her opportunity to contribute.
(Interruptions).
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Deputy Woods, without interruption.
In relation to the final agreement by the Minister for Education and Science, they said that we would have accepted a cap of €128 million for the indemnity had it been on offer the previous October. At the meeting of 16 October 2001, which was the final meeting of the officials group, there was a feeling at the meeting and at official level that no further progress could be made and that the issue would have to go to min isterial level before it was likely that any further progress could be made. It was then my duty as Minister to make one final effort to get the agreement back on track. With the Accounting Officer and Secretary General of my Department, I met the principal negotiators and succeeded in achieving the target which we know very well.
If this had not been achieved the Government was proceeding without the involvement and any contribution from the religious orders. The legislation was being finalised in the Dáil and Seanad and Members needed to know if the talks had borne fruit. Otherwise the State would pay all the awards. The State accepted its moral and social responsibility for past abuse and its damaging effects on the victims.
These are the facts. They demonstrate clearly that at all times the House was kept informed of developments with the religious orders concerned. Deputies and Senators who wanted to know about the particulars of the scheme being established did know and discussed the package openly both in committee and in the main Chambers. Indeed, it should be noted that those among the Labour Party benches who are currently most critical of the scheme were among those involved. Why then is the Opposition seeking to score petty points over such a sensitive issue, one in which they have constantly reminded the Government that the victims should be our paramount concern? It appears the attacks are made in an attempt to embed the notion in the public consciousness that the Government is reckless with taxpayers' money. There is a deep contradiction in this criticism in that it is impossible to assert on the one hand that the victim should come first and on the other call on the Government to avoid expenditure on redressing the injury suffered by those victims.
Finally and more importantly, when the Taoiseach made his apology in 1999 to those who suffered in institutions in the past, he acknowledged the moral responsibility that lay at the State's door for the horrendous acts perpetrated in these institutions. It logically followed from this apology that the State would have to make recompense, which it is rightly doing at present. Thus, all this current conflict over the issue can only be seen as an attempt to score points for political gain.
I am thankful for this opportunity to speak on what is effectively one of the great nightmares that has haunted modern Ireland. The improvements achieved in recent years are haunted by the horrible memory of what occurred in these institutions. This happened under the direct authorisation of the then Government, and successive Governments. It is important to note that virtually everyone in Ireland is implicated in what happened in these homes. That is the bald truth of the issue we are debating. The Irish people, for whatever reason, were unable to provide the proper social welfare supports that the State now lavishly gives to its citizens. At a particular period in its history it entrusted vulnerable and disadvantaged people to the care of religious institutions where in some instances they were systematically abused.
I have rarely been moved to tears during my political work. This has happened on a handful of occasions when I heard the single-minded, honest stories of victims of abuse. Most of them are not seeking compensation for the wrongs done to them. The main reason I was moved to tears was many of them showed huge levels of Christian forgiveness for the perpetrators of the abuse. It is sad that is the case but the quality of these people is such that they are prepared to move on and forgive the abusers.
Others want to tell their stories and want compensation. That is why the Taoiseach acknowledged the State's guilt for the first time in our history a number of years ago. Members of the rainbow Government had every opportunity to acknowledge the State's guilt in this matter but they chose not to respond in the same manner as the Taoiseach to the abuse victims.
That is total and absolute rubbish.
Opposition parties had an opportunity when they were in Government to address the issue. They did nothing and sat on their hands. They heard the stories and forgot them. I am sick of lectures from the Labour Party about sensitivity in regard to this matter. The party was in the rainbow Government that addressed a sensitive issue surrounding the late Brigid McCole. Little sensitivity was shown by that Government. It engaged in a harsh, unreasoning, relentless legal pursuit of a dying woman. Labour Party members fully participated in the Government that made that decision and they are lecturing the Taoiseach, the Fianna Fáil Party and the coalition Government on caring and sensitivity in regard to abuse victims.
The Deputy has learned nothing.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
That is utterly hypocritical. The Government has shown sensitivity and concern on this issue for the first time in our history in an upfront manner. It has accepted the State's responsibility for the abuses that occurred and apologised forthrightly. It did not make a mealy mouthed apology or adopt a mealy mouthed legal approach in pursuit of the victims to minimise the payments. That is what happened to Brigid McCole. That should be contrasted with the approach of the Taoiseach and the Government. They put up their hands, acknowledged the State's wrongdoing and immediately moved to establish a system of compensation that was non-adversarial and that allowed people to receive compensation in a non-threatening, non-aggressive and non-confrontational manner.
The Government has adopted a lacklustre approach in terms of the speed it is dealing with the issue because it does not want the system of compensation to become yet another excuse for our many lawyers to enrich themselves again. I agree with Deputy O'Dowd's comment regarding this issue. It is more important than the political and financial abuses that have been exposed by the Flood, Moriarty and McCracken tribunals, which have involved people inside and outside the House who threw money around to achieve particular results, because it involves the abuse of innocents who were abandoned by the State. It is time people acknowledged the hypocrisy of the Irish people in allowing this to happen and looking the other way. It is as bad as what happened to the Jewish community in Germany under Hitler's rule. People looked the other way in Ireland and refused to accept what the State was doing. They preferred to get on with their lives and ignored the victims of abuse because they were in institutions and could be forgotten.
The Government has committed itself forcefully to addressing the issue. Whether it is effective is a moot point, as the Opposition claims. However, I object to the theory expounded by Deputy Rabbitte. It is not new for the Deputy to expound big conspiracy theories. I am driven to the conclusion that Deputy Joe Higgins is at the same stage Deputy Rabbitte was ten years ago. Deputy Joe Higgins also expounds big conspiracy theories but he has ended up in jail. Deputy Rabbitte has decided to move on from his big conspiracy theory but every now and then he feels he must launder it through the House. Many years ago I sat in the Press Gallery when he made totally unfounded allegations about a senior prelate, which he claimed would rock the foundations of the State. They did not because they were not true. He listened to gossip and rumour around the House, abused Dáil privilege and transmuted it into a monstrous allegation against somebody who was innocent of the allegations.
He made a similar cosy claim yesterday regarding the indemnity deal concluded between the previous Government and the Church authorities. The Deputy would like us to believe the Government did a cosy deal by helping the Church to minimise its exposure in this matter. The State is facing the biggest—
Who is the Comptroller and Auditor General?
I will deal with the Comptroller and Auditor General later. The State has accepted full liability.
On a point of order, the Deputy is suggesting an independent officer, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is telling lies to the House and is engaged in a massive conspiracy.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is not a point of order.
I am not suggesting anything about the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am making assertions about the Labour Party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, who is an expert in insinuation and conspiracy theory nonsense which he constantly relates to the House, without regard to the truth.
The State was faced with stark choices in terms of the indemnity deal. A system of trusts is used by the Church to safeguard the money donated to it and it could have avoided responsibility, financial or otherwise, in regard to this matter. It could have gone to the courts, dragged the victims through a legal process, made their lives hell and ensured they received no compensation ultimately. Instead, a system has been established through which redress will be made in terms of compensation with prejudice and the legal proof normally required in court. That is appropriate.
The problem with the indemnity deal is the State accepted full liability. The State realised a contribution of €128 million by the religious orders and an acceptance of responsibility. They were under no obligation to make the payment and, if the religious orders were commercial organisations, they would not have made the payment in a month of Sundays. They have made the payment following a deal negotiated with great difficulty.
The absence of the Attorney General was not unusual.
The Deputy should tell us more. It is all in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
The Attorney General did not agree with the deal.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Order, please.
It is best to leave lawyers and accountants out of commercial and other negotiations until the end when they can tie up the issues that arise. It is appropriate that lawyers should not be involved in cases of abuse so that they do not complicate issues that could be resolved through direct negotiation.
The Government has done the right thing. It is embarrassing that Ms Justice Laffoy resigned but she did the victims of abuse no favours by doing so. If I were her, I would have stuck in there and fought the case. I am disappointed she chose to resign. I would not mind if she resigned from a tribunal at Dublin Castle but, because of the seriousness of what is involved in the commission, she was wrong to do so.
I wish to share time with Deputy Burton. I would like to get the debate back on track as I want to establish the direction in which the investigation into child abuse is going. I hope the Minister will respond in this regard later because we owe it to the victims of abuse to lead the debate towards what will happen next.
It is more than four years since the Taoiseach's apology was made on behalf of the people. The events which led to the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and the debacle of the indemnity deal with the religious institutions and the redress board reflects an abject failure on the part of the Government to follow up on that apology with any meaningful action for the vast majority of victims of abuse. That is where our focus needs to be today. We need to find some way in which they can have a meaningful experience and some restitution within a reasonable timeframe. That is what has broken down and gone off the rails as a result of the way in which Ms Justice Laffoy was treated by the Government and as a result of the debacle with regard to the residential institutions and the indemnity deal.
I hope I will have the opportunity to focus on that issue and on exactly what the Minister intends to do from now on. I must first take the time to address some of the accusations made by the Government side against my party and, in particular, Deputy Peter Power's suggestion that the Labour Party is suggesting that money should not be spent to make restitution. That is not what we are saying. The Labour Party fully supports the payment of due compensation to anybody who has suffered abuse in the past in institutions at the hands of the State or religious institutions. I want that on the record. What we are objecting to is the way in which the deal was negotiated which put undue onus on the State with regard to the relative balance of responsibility between the State and religious institutions. That point has also been raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In effect, it appears that only one eighth of the cost will fall on the religious institutions. That is way below the percentages quoted for Canada, for example, and way below the percentages originally intended when the Government went into negotiations.
In its discussions with the religious institutions it never updated the costs that would arise with regard to the redress board. Nor did it table in the question of costs in cases that went to court, given that what was agreed in the indemnity was not only costs in relation to the redress board but also subsequent costs with regard to court cases that might be taken within the remit of the redress board. The indemnity is therefore open-ended to the extent that the State will be responsible for costs in cases where people choose to go to the courts.
Those are the issues in respect of which the Labour Party has been trying to get answers over quite a period of time since Deputies Rabbitte and Shortall first raised these issues. It is disingenuous and dishonest to suggest that the motivation of the Labour Party is other than it is. It is also disingenuous and dishonest to suggest, as the former Minister, Deputy Woods, has just done, that the spokespersons for the Opposition were aware of the detail of the indemnity at the time he suggested they were. They were not aware of those details until Deputies Shortall and Creed specifically looked for them after the whole process was completed when the Government had, in effect, agreed on a contribution of €128 million. The Opposition was not aware, when those issues were discussed at the committee, of the precise details of the indemnity agreement, particularly the fact that it indemnified the religious institutions against any cases that might be taken subsequent to the redress board. It is not true to say that Opposition spokespersons were aware of the details of the deal at that time. It is important to put that on the record.
The Taoiseach said there was no value to victims or to the wider community in dwelling on the unfortunate circumstances of Ms Justice Laffoy's imminent departure. Unfortunately, we have to dwell on the reasons Ms Justice Laffoy tendered her resignation as chairperson of the commission. If we do not we will not learn any lessons from it and we will not find out what the commission can do under the chairmanship of Mr. Seán Ryan SC when he takes over the mantle of Ms Justice Laffoy. Clearly Ms Justice Laffoy resigned because she was not getting the support and the resources she needed. If Mr. Ryan does not get the resources and support he needs, neither will he be able to carry out the remit, which was the original remit of the commission.
Ms Justice Laffoy made it quite clear in her letter of resignation from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse that her action was the result of Government inaction in response to her repeated requests for co-operation, resources and a more effective structural model of operation to carry out her remit in a timely fashion. Despite more than three hours of questioning at the education committee, there has been no satisfactory answer from Government as to why her specific proposals to speed up the investigation commission's work were ignored, why the Minister's first review was not published and acted upon and why Ms Justice Laffoy was driven to resign by a further long-fingering of the review.
It is interesting that one of the things the Minister admitted was that there were delays with regard to discovery of documents. He specifically referred to Goldenbridge and other institutions. Ms Justice Laffoy's contention that there were delays was admitted by the Minister for Education and Science. He did not tell us, however, why he was not publishing the first review. He did not tell us why there was a delay in implementing the proposals Ms Justice Laffoy made. It is important to quote what Ms Justice Laffoy said in her letter of resignation:
This prolongation of the duration of the Government review is merely the latest in a series of events which have, since the inception of the statutory Commission over three years ago, impeded the completion by the Commission of its statutory mandate as set out in the Act of 2000 in a timely fashion. A range of factors over which the Commission has had no control have together produced a real and pervasive sense of powerlessness. In retrospect, it appears to me that since its establishment, the Commission has never been properly enabled by the Government to fulfil satisfactorily the functions conferred on it by the Oireachtas.
What I want to ask – this is in the interests of the people to whom many have referred and on whose interests we should be focused – is what exactly does the Minister propose to do differently to speed up the working of the commission? Is he going to do what Ms Justice Laffoy suggested and provide the personnel to set up four parallel divisions so that cases can be dealt with simultaneously? This is a practical proposal by Ms Justice Laffoy that could and should have been implemented when she first suggested it, and it is quite a long time now since she suggested this. If it had been done at the time, and if the resources had been given, the work would have been speeded up considerably.
Another question that must be asked is whether the Minister will take action to reduce the adversarial approach of the religious congregations. He again said that this was one of the major reasons the work of the commission could not be speeded up. Surely some legal advice was given to the Government when that Bill was being drafted. The legal advisers must have examined the question of the legal right of people to defend their name. There must surely have been some advice and some pre-emptive knowledge that this was likely to happen. Will the Government publish the advice that was given initially with regard to the setting up of the commission?
It may be appropriate to note what was said about the commission when the Minister for Education and Science announced it on the same day as the Taoiseach made his apology more than four years ago. He said that the commission will be specifically mandated to carry out a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into allegations and establish responsibility at the level of the individual abuser, the institution and management and regulatory authorities, and that the committee will have available to it the resources and all the legal powers and protection it needs to do this. Obviously it was known exactly what was intended in setting up the commission, and these problems could have been pre-empted and the resources given to the commission to deal with these issues. It seems extremely naive to think that this will happen now because of a simple appeal to the church's sense of moral duty.
If we are expecting the religious congregations to adopt a less adversarial approach, how can we expect it to happen simply by asking when it has not happened all along? It could have been done much more effectively in the context of the discussions about the disastrous indemnity deal. The extent of claims and the adversarial approach which is being adopted by the congregations had become apparent before the infamous deal was signed. Not only was the final deal hopelessly lopsided against the State in terms of the percentage of the projected eventual cost it was taking on, it also represented a missed opportunity to achieve the non-adversarial atmosphere that was promised to victims in both the commission and the redress board. We need to ask the Minister to outline his exact proposals to reduce the adversarial nature of the commission.
The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, told the joint committee that he is considering writing to more than 1,700 individuals who have indicated their intention to go before the investigation committee, to ask them whether they still want to do so. I accept that some of the survivors' groups have suggested that this be done. Given that over four years have passed since the Taoiseach's apology and the announcement of the establishment of the commission, however, I cannot help concluding that the Government is hoping that people are frustrated by the fact that further time is to be lost as a result of Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, which resulted from the Government's failure to respond to her concerns. It may be that the Government hopes that some people will give up on the process and that the work of the commission will be speeded up as a result. It is a gross failure and a further abuse of those who suffered such harm in the past.
It will be extraordinarily difficult for most victims of abuse to face their traumatic past again. The length of time this process is taking is extending that pain even further. It is probably true that many people will decide that they cannot take the pain and will forego their right to attend the investigation committee. If that is the case, the process will be hastened but the original purpose of the commission will have been failed. The State will have failed to deliver on its promises to survivors of abuse.
Before I share the rest of my time with my colleague, Deputy Burton, I wish to state that the Minister needs to give answers regarding sampling. He said that he was parking the notion of sampling, but he did not say that he intends to abandon it. The Minister needs to clarify this matter.
When I returned to the Dáil last year, I was struck by a difference between it and the previous Dáil of which I had been a Member. The number of millionaires in the House, particularly on the Fianna Fáil benches, had increased noticeably. As somebody who was not brought up in particularly advantageous circumstances, I am acutely aware that many of the stories of what happened in residential institutions must seem absolutely unbelievable to many Members of the House who are hearing them now. I do not blame such people for having a sense of disbelief when they hear that such things happened, that they happened over such a long period of time and that they happened in so many different institutions.
I would like to discuss a matter of historical record. Deputy Conor Lenihan and other Fianna Fáil Members engaged in some buffoonery earlier when discussing this serious subject. The biggest historical change in this area was introduced two former Labour Party leaders, Brendan Corish and Frank Cluskey, both of whom are now dead. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will remember that the coalition Government of the 1970s introduced a benefit payment for those who were known as "unmarried mothers". This measure brought an end to the practice whereby young women had to hand over their children to "the cruelty man" or people from various agencies that sought to take children from their parents. The benefit scheme, along with publication of the Kennedy report, marked the beginning of the end.
We should also stress the importance of the decision of the former Fine Gael Minister, John Boland, to prohibit corporal punishment in our schools. Such measures contributed to a sea change in Irish society, including the end of some of the horrific practices which have been mentioned. It should also be pointed out that many people in Fianna Fáil, including Charlie Haughey, took many initiatives which empowered poor people from an income point of view.
The abuse we are discussing was about poverty, above all else. The main crime committed by the children who were incarcerated and the parents from whom they were taken was the crime of being poor.
The second factor which should be cited relates to the most surprising element of today's debate. I have welcomed the Taoiseach's laudable apology to victims on many occasions, as I feel it was genuine. That apology has been accompanied today, however, by an attempt to shift retrospectively any responsibility from the religious orders. It seems that an attempt is being made to create a culture of impunity regarding many thousands of crimes that were perpetrated against Irish children. Several Fianna Fáil Members have mentioned the appalling vista, to quote the former master of the rolls in the UK, that some religious orders might be bankrupted. Those who lived in residential institutions, including the victims of abuse, are looking to this Parliament not just for money. Not all of the lawyers who are representing victims and those who lived in institutions are ambulance chasers who are looking for money. Many of them are doing a very good job for those they represent.
We have encountered the Government's second significant motive again and again today. I do not know whether the attempts to protect the Catholic Church and certain religious congregations in particular can be attributed to an excessive religious zeal on the part of certain Members on the Government side, present and past. My honest view is that if it is the case, such people have a misplaced desire to protect religious congregations.
I would like to make a few more points in the time that is available to me. The Minister made many references to his belief that the redress scheme is working well. I do not think that is necessarily the case, however, based on what I heard at a meeting I attended at Liberty Hall on Sunday. I do not accept the assertion that the redress scheme is working well for everybody. As it is cloaked in secrecy, we have not yet received a report about its operation.
Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned that when civil servants from the Department of Finance attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service earlier in the summer, they made it absolutely clear that the former Minister, Deputy Woods, went AWOL for several months while he attempted to do a deal on his own. The final deal was structured at that stage.
I would like the Government parties to consider the fact that it now seems that when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, was Attorney General, he was kept out of the picture and away from the deal. If this was not the case, he must have been entirely negligent by not pursuing properly, in his capacity as Attorney General, the State's correct interest, as set out by the Taoiseach in his apology, in trying to find some sort of restitution and justice for those who lived in the institutions. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the independent Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I reject the implicit criticism of that office on the part of Deputy Conor Lenihan, in particular, during his buffoon speech about this issue. The Deputy's contribution was a deeply regrettable one.
Hear, hear.
Many of those who lived in residential institutions that were run by religious orders had put that part of their lives to one side, for better or for worse. The fact that the Government issued an apology and established a scheme made many people come forward. Such people may have decided to speak to their families, friends or children about their experiences. The tragic aspect of what has happened is that many such people, having brought an extremely difficult period in their lives back to the surface, have been left high and dry with a deeper sense of frustration and injustice. I have spoken to many people who have gone to the various committees.
Today's debate exposed an excessive and misplaced religious zeal on the part of some Members to protect the religious orders so that they do not have to face up to their responsibilities. In that context, I welcome Archbishop Martin's comments at his inauguration. The archbishop did the church in Ireland a considerable service by saying that the legal road was not the right road to follow. I applaud him for his comments.
I would like the Taoiseach to reconsider the damage done to the people who came forward in good faith to look for some sense of justice out of this process, many of whom have been left worse off. They made a series of requests. For instance, SOCA has been sidelined by the structures the Department of Education and Science has created. They asked, for instance, for the question of interim payments to be considered. In the context of all the damage done to very brave people who suffered at the hands of religious institutions, the Government ought to think again
Members of the House, especially new Members, may not be aware that the Administration of which Deputy Burton was a member was approached by the survivor groups and asked to deal with this issue when it was in office. Not alone did that Government decline to help but it declined to meet the persons who were looking for justice. The display of moral indignation we have had to listen to on this issue is entirely at odds with the Opposition parties' record in office.
The constant insinuation, which we heard this afternoon and which plays to a particular part of the electoral market, that the current Administration is involved in a transaction with religious authorities or groups behind the scenes, is without foundation. The Government will act in the public interest in this matter and in the interest of the victims of the terrible wrongdoing that went on in these institutions over many decades. The Taoiseach was the first senior office holder in the country to come forward and unequivocally acknowledge that wrongdoing a number of years ago when – and I say this, in fairness, to the members of the rainbow Administration – the matter was brought to light by our public broadcasting service.
Deputy Rabbitte raised a serious issue this morning. He said that the difficulties of the investigation committee of the Laffoy commission would drive more abuse victims to the High Court. That is not correct.
How does the Minister of State know?
It has been said so often during this debate that it must be corrected. There is no connection between the commission and the redress board.
Deputy Rabbitte did not say that.
It is not possible to institute proceedings in the High Court for the purposes of having an investigation. Proceedings are instituted in the High Court for the purposes of claiming damages, seeking declarations of legal right or restraining persons from carrying out particular actions. One cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to have an investigation. One can invoke it to claim damages and when one does so the High Court adjudicates on that. The Government put the redress board in position to ensure that the survivors of these terrible abuses would have a far more expeditious remedy available to them which would not expose them to the publicity, confrontation and expense of the High Court. Throughout this controversy the provision of the redress board has not been an issue. There is no connection between Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation and the redress board. For Deputy Rabbitte to muddy the waters by suggesting that the difficulties of the investigation committee would drive abuse victims to the High Court is incorrect. I am not saying he is misleading the House but he is incorrect and he is saying the wrong thing to those who have to cope with terrible difficulties as a result of the treatment they received in these institutions.
Survivors of child abuse can go directly to the Residential Institutions Redress Board. They do not need to go to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse before taking such a course. They can appeal awards from the redress board to the courts or invoke directly the jurisdiction of the courts. In fact, a substantial number have gone to the redress board.
The previous Government addressed these issues and put the needs of victims at the centre of its response. I accept that it is difficult to get every detail right. The Taoiseach faced up to our collective failures in the past, apologised for those failures and set about redressing the wrong. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the redress board were set up and a counselling service was provided through the health boards. We did not walk away or ignore this issue. We must help the victims of this abuse in every possible way through counselling and through the provision of the existing compensation scheme but not through barrister fattening exercises. The Government is trying to do its duty by the public interest and ensure that the taxpayer is protected, not at the expense of the victims but of those who seek to tell stories on their behalf. The Government is entitled to do that and that is how the Government has approached this issue.
There has been understandable controversy stemming from the arrangement the Government made with the religious orders. The Government decided to institute a redress scheme regardless of the involvement of the religious orders and congregations. It is important that this point is taken into account when one looks at the indemnity arrangement. The Government decided to pay up in any event because these schools were subject to State inspection.
In a Canadian authority, which has already been referred to in this debate and which deals with a similar circumstance obtaining in Canada, the state accepted a 75% liability and not a 50% liability. The Department of Finance, whose documentation has been referred to in the course of the debate, would have liked the State to have obtained a 50% indemnity from the religious congregations. I would also have liked that. However, it would have been very difficult for the State to have obtained that indemnity because the State was dealing with a legal party over which it had no control. It was dealing, not with a single legal party but with a number. These institutions were not managed by one religious order. It is easy for some Deputies to use expressions such as "the church". When one translates it into its legal manifestations and personalities, the church is a very wide range of personalities. Trustees of different dioceses and religious orders, some of whom did not manage these schools, have contributed to this fund. When one considers the legal personalities involved in the indemnity arrangement and the precise liability position the State was heading into, it is not surprising that the State decided, for its own sake, to take what money could be got out of these religious bodies.
I agree with Deputy Burton that the recent statement by the Archbishop of Dublin that religious institutions should not stand on their legal rights is an admirable sentiment but that sentiment must be translated into practicality in any negotiation in which the State is involved. In the context of these negotiations the predominant sentiment of the legal advisers of the various congregations in the Conference of Religious of Ireland was to look for the best deal for their clients.
The Minister did not even have legal advice.
This matter was not decided by the Minister. It went before the Government on many occasions.
It was decided by the then Minister. It was agreed in principle. The Minister of State did not hear what Deputy Woods said half an hour ago. He went on a solo run.
Deputy Burton should read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
Nothing was agreed until everything was agreed by the Government. The State put the redress board in position and agreed to pay 100%. The State was then left to negotiate with a multiplicity of religious congregations and organisations, some of which might not have had the assets to meet the judgments, were they executed against them. I am not pleading a fear of bankrupting a religious order as an objection. I am making the point that some of the religious orders would not have had the assets to satisfy the judgments or to satisfy a judgment which the State would have obtained against an order by way of indemnity in proceedings which could have been exceptionally protracted and costly. Given the finding in the Canadian case, were the State to have insisted that the survivors should proceed against it and the religious authorities in open court with considerable legal representation, there is absolutely no guarantee that the State would not have ended up paying the costs of the church's lawyers as well as the damages of the victims.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is the Minister of State sharing his time?
I propose to share my time with Deputy Mulcahy.
The Opposition, those who have served in Government and those who have been exposed to the hazard of a law case are well aware of the factors I have outlined. I know the Minister had these factors uppermost in his mind when ensuring that the maximum be done to help the victims of the terrible abuse that took place.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This issue began with the very important and sincere apology made by the Taoiseach on Tuesday, 11 May 1999. He apologised to the victims of child abuse and indicated that the law would be changed to allow for the extension of the statutory limitations for compensation cases in this area. In April 2000, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act became law. In July 2000, Ms Justice Laffoy informed the Department of Education and Science that a number of solicitors representing clients alleging abuse were advising those clients not to participate in the commission in the absence of a Government commitment on compensation. In October 2000, the Minister for Education and Science announced that the Government had agreed in principle to establish a special compensation scheme and that compensation would be paid on an ex gratia basis. In February 2001, the Minister for Education and Science announced that the Government had agreed to his proposal for a compensation scheme, and in May 2001 the Laffoy commission published its first interim report. In June 2001, the Minister for Education and Science presented the Residential Institutions Redress Bill to the Dáil. In August 2001, the Minister for Education and Science appointed a committee pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2001.
I wanted to list these dates because if one examines the period commencing in May 1999, one will note that there has been much activity in respect of this matter on the part of the Government, the Laffoy Commission and the Residential Institutions Redress Board under Judge Sean O'Leary.
Our primary concerns must be that victims receive counselling and compensation where appropriate, that they tell their story to the investigative committee and that, when the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse report is published, the public is made aware of what took place. It is entitled to know and wants to know what took place.
I honestly believe that the Labour Party has whipped this issue into an almighty row on the basis of very little.
The Deputy is not blaming it on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
I cannot understand the arguments or attempted logic of the Labour Party regarding the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. It has made much of the agreement on indemnity between the Government and CORI, yet it fails to mention in any of its contributions that before any agreement was made with CORI on its contribution to the scheme, the Government had already decided that a redress scheme would be established regardless of the contribution by any other party.
There must be a severe shortage of lawyers in the Labour Party because it-it sees to fail to realise that, under the civil liability Acts, if any liability falls on the State, even if it amounts to only 1%, the victims are entitled to recover the full 100% of their damages against the State. Against this background, it makes for sound economic sense and management to set up a statutory compensation scheme, thereby obviating the need for thousands of separate legal actions before the High Court with the resulting expense to the State and further trauma and difficulties for the victims. Perhaps the Labour Party should take this into account before it stirs this matter up further.
The Labour Party is making a song and dance about financial competence and fiscal responsibility. Does it find it acceptable – I do not believe the public does – that, as the commission of inquiry was constituted, it would have taken eight years, if not 11, before a final report was available?
That is not what Ms Justice Laffoy said.
Is this what the Labour Party means when it speaks of competence or efficiency? I do not believe this is what the public wants. It wants a sound and efficient investigation into the matter that will not take eight or 11 years, but two to three years at most.
Is the Labour Party aware that with such delays the State would be liable to pay legal costs perhaps in the region of €200 million? Moreover, is it aware that the victims' support groups have warmly welcomed the appointment of the new interim chairman, Mr. Sean Ryan, SC?
He has not met any of them.
Will the Labour Party not accept that an efficient, user-friendly, non-adversarial compensation scheme, allied with a non-adversarial commission of inquiry, is the way forward and represents the scheme that all the victim support groups want? It is high time that the Labour Party stopped playing politics with this most sen sitive of issues and allowed the new chairman of the commission of inquiry get on with his important work.
The Deputy has his facts wrong.
I am not surprised by the offensive attitude of the last speaker. She seemed to imply that Fianna Fáil and the Government were somehow trying to let the religious institutions off the hook and cover up for them. The only people who need to cover up their lack of activity are those who were members of the rainbow Government from 1994 to 1997 and who did diddly-squat about this issue. I am informed that Deputy John Bruton promised, through his private secretary, to offer a full counselling and therapeutic service through the health boards, but nothing happened. I am also informed that the then Minister with responsibility for children was also approached by victims and victims' groups but that nothing was done as a result. I do not see why the Government should be criticised for putting in place a scheme of compensation and investigation that the vast majority of victims and victims' groups warmly supports.
Furthermore, I want to get rid of some of the crocodile tears of the Opposition. On Thursday, 6 February 2003, three representatives from the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Boland, Mr. Kennedy and Ms Grogan, came before the Joint Committee on Education and Science and discussed all the details of the redress scheme and the various levels of compensation etc. Was there one word of criticism of that compensation scheme from any of the Opposition members attending the meeting? Did Deputy O'Sullivan criticise the scheme? No.
With respect, I believe—
Allow Deputy Mulcahy to continue.
Did Deputy Stanton criticise the scheme? No. Did Senator Ulick Burke criticise the scheme? No. Did Deputy Enright criticise the scheme? No.
May I ask Deputy Mulcahy a question?
Sorry, Deputy. Allow Deputy Mulcahy to speak. We are running out of time.
I certainly will not take the Deputy's question.
The Deputy is mixing up the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Laffoy Commission. They are two separate bodies.
The fact of the matter is—
They are two separate bodies and he is deliberately mixing them together.
Deputy Enright is out of order. We are running out of time.
There is a clear difference between the Government led by Deputy Bertie Ahern and the previous rainbow Government. The latter sat on its hands with regard to this issue whereas we have taken the bull by the horns. It is not an easy issue to deal with. This is a complex issue, which must deal with judicial evidence covering the past 20, 30 40 and even 50 years. It is an issue in which any civilised person would seek to ensure that the victims are not put through the High Court, which would only increase their stress.
Deputy Burton alleged that many victims are unhappy with the redress scheme and the investigation committee. I have not heard from these people, nor have I read about it in the newspapers.
The Deputy has not met any of them.
Deputy Burton appears to have additional knowledge on this aspect. The Government has put in place a responsible scheme of investigation and compensation. Given the complexity of what is involved, it is not surprising that problems have arisen. I do not accuse the Fine Gael Party to the extent that I believe the Labour Party should stop playing politics with what is a most serious issue concerning many of the victims of sexual abuse.
The resignation of the chairman of the commission is hardly a minor matter.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Crowe, Connolly and Harkin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate Mr. Seán Ryan, SC, for accepting the appointment of new chairman of the commission. I wish him well and every success in his work. I agree with the Taoiseach that his leadership and commitment to the commission will be vital. It is ironic that the Taoiseach should refer to the need for leadership in the context of this debate. He claimed credit for launching the initiative, which must be acknowledged. However, he must also provide the stewardship and leadership to see it to its conclusion.
The former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, entered an agreement with the religious orders which exposed the taxpayers to unlimited liability. There was an absence of stewardship and leadership at that time. The Attorney General either chose not to be part of the arrangement or was kept from being party to it. That matter has still to be explained, as has the lack of any written minutes on the specifics of the meetings held. For the Taoiseach to accept that amounts to a default in his responsibility.
Following the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, the Taoiseach should have recognised the crisis of confidence and taken on board her criticism that she did not get full co-operation from the Department of Education and Science. However, he left the matter in the hands of the Minister, thereby perpetrating the conflict of interest which has been at the heart of the difficulties experienced by Ms Justice Laffoy. The problems continue unresolved.
I ask the Taoiseach to provide some leadership on this matter rather than acting under the delusion that the Government co-operated with the commission. It is clear from Ms Justice Laffoy that this was not the case. The Taoiseach also said that her only criticism was that a reasonably long period of time elapsed between her letter and the passing of the Act. That was not the case. Ms Justice Laffoy made many criticisms, mainly directed against the Department of Education and Science, which is still in charge.
It is clear that the Government has not taken seriously the fall-out from the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy. We are, unfortunately, destined to debate again problems that are avoidable. This should be avoided for the sake of the victims, who have been through enough pain.
The primary focus in this debate must be on the victims of abuse and the failure by the Government to adequately resource the commission to inquire into the abuse. The Government has been accused by Ms Justice Laffoy of never having enabled the commission to operate properly since its inception. It stymied the work of the commission, which caused delays and created a sense of powerlessness that made its work inoperable.
The learned judge resigned and the Government's spokespersons expressed surprise. How is it supposed the victims felt? Were they surprised? Did they feel let down, again, by the State? Did they expect more? These children were made to work like agricultural slaves in the fields. They were half starved, humiliated, tortured and physically and sexually abused. My colleague, Deputy Conor Lenihan, said he was moved to tears at the revelations. One would want to be made of stone not to be moved to tears when listening to the victims' stories. Many were released uneducated and emotionally shut down into a society that looked on them as somewhat tainted, certainly different. Huge numbers emigrated and many turned to drink, drugs and crime. Many are still imprisoned in institutions while many more are regretting opening their emotional scars. They are dealing with them with various degrees of success.
The purpose of the commission was to look into the State's complicity in this abuse. We will never know if Ms Justice Laffoy would have uncovered that the State or the health boards, the Garda Síochána, the Department of Education and the religious orders knew about it. We will also never know if the abusers, when discovered, were given new jobs where they abused other children. The apology to the victims by the Taoiseach on behalf of the State was correct, but the collapse of the Laffoy commission has undermined that ground breaking statement.
The Laffoy commission was established in haste in the wake of widespread public anger following the television documentary, "States of Fear", and in apparently better economic circumstances when there was no mention of cutbacks. In May of that year, the Taoiseach issued an apparently fulsome apology to the victims in which he stated: "A new comprehensive approach is required to deal with the effects of previous abuse, to detect the children caught in frightful isolation and to put the proper structures in place." The former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, described the commission in unequivocal terms as being entirely independent in performing its functions, a point provided for in the legislation. He said that neither the Government nor anybody else would be in a position to influence its procedures or the outcome of the inquiries. Were these weasel words or did they express a determined commitment to secure justice for the victims? Experience suggests the former.
Subsequent events, culminating in the enforced resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, indicate that the original commitment to inquire into all aspects of child abuse was entered into with a distinct lack of enthusiasm. Ms Justice Laffoy also complained about the lack of extra resources as far back as June 2002. Such a lack of enthusiasm to ascertain the truth has reduced the Laffoy commission to a state of impotence and has seriously undermined the basis on which it was established. It is incumbent on the Government to permit the commission to proceed unfettered by State interference.
Yesterday in the Dáil, speaking on the issue of child abuse, the Taoiseach stated: "We abandoned the children of another generation in these institutions." However, I could not help thinking that this is what is happening today. The resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy and her letter of resignation is a serious indictment of the continuing abandonment of those we had already abandoned a generation ago.
I am not familiar with the day-to-day workings of the Laffoy commission but I am fully prepared to accept the bona fides of Ms Justice Laffoy and, as such, am fully prepared to accept the statements she made in her letter of resignation. Deputy O'Sullivan has quoted from her letter and I will cite one sentence which states: "In retrospect, it seems to me that since its establishment, the commission has never been properly enabled by the Government to fulfil satisfactorily the functions conferred on it by the Oireachtas." That sentence says it all. I say to the Taoiseach that not only have we as a society abandoned another generation, we are continuing in that abandonment.
I agree with Deputy Mulcahy when he said this was not a straightforward issue that can be easily resolved. However, there is an onus, responsibility and obligation on the Government to deal with it speedily, compassionately and equitably. According to Ms Justice Laffoy, the Government has failed to discharge that responsibility.
Some time ago, the Taoiseach issued an apology on behalf of the State to all the victims. At the time it was seen as a seismic shift in attitude, but surely it places a huge onus on the Government to follow up fine words with decisive action. However, last December, the Government decided on a review which was supposed to report by February, but this did not happen. A second review has been promised since last July. Extra resources were promised to the commission but they could not be put in place because the first review was not completed.
The time for statements has concluded. We now move on to questions to the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey.
I have a number of questions. How much time do I have to ask them? Do I ask one question and await a reply or what is the format?
Forty minutes are available and a number of Members are offering. Perhaps the Deputy should ask two or three questions at first and we will see how it goes after that.
While I am aware that the Minister was not responsible for the Department of Education and Science at the time to which these questions relate, he should nonetheless be in a position to answer them. What was the reason for the delay in responding to the request for information by the Attorney General? Given the importance of the issue, why were these discussions held at the closing stages of the negotiations without legal advice being given by him? We know the information the Attorney General requested was not supplied for ten weeks. Did he attend the oral presentation at Cabinet made by the then Minister for Education and Science? If so, were concerns highlighted by the Attorney General at that stage?
In June the Attorney General said the contribution by the religious congregations might be regarded as insufficient. As this amount had been decided long ago by two Ministers, does the Minister think legal advice should have been sought on the matter and that concerns should have been raised earlier?
Everyone has spoken about the figures, including the Taoiseach and the Minister who appears to be content that the highest estimate of the liability will remain at €508 million. In June 2002 the Attorney General noted that the number of cases could double to 5,200. The Minister bases his €508 million figure on 4,000 cases. If it increases to 5,200, it is arguable that a much higher figure will be involved. Will the Minister clarify this?
Deputy Mulcahy, who appears to speak with great authority, often as if he speaks on behalf of the Minister, said any civilised person would choose not to put the victims through the High Court. In light of that, does the Minister intend to put a scheme of redress in place for victims abused in day schools? Such people are being forced to go to the High Court at present because no other form of redress is open to them. Their needs are not being met in the same way.
What has the Government done not just since May 1999 but especially since then in terms of changing the structures in place? If I want to apply tomorrow for a position as a teacher, what checks will be carried out to determine my suitability to work in that capacity? Likewise if I want to become a caretaker in a school, what checks will be carried out to ensure I do not have a history of criminal convictions or was not reported previously? I believe the answer to these is "none". I have conducted extensive research—
The Deputy is making a statement. Perhaps she will allow the Minister to respond which would afford other Members the opportunity to ask questions.
I would especially like to have the last question answered.
Checks are in place. The appointment of caretakers and teachers is a matter for individual boards of management of schools. It is up to them to make the necessary inquiries about the people they intend to employ. I understand a procedure is in place whereby they make inquiries with local gardaí. In many cases where people are employed as caretakers and teachers, the local board of management will be well aware of their character and so on.
On a point of order, it is important we obtain accurate answers.
The Chair has been generous in allowing Deputy Enright to ask about ten questions to the Minister. Other Members wish to ask questions.
The scheme we are discussing, or allegedly discussing, does not cover abuse in day schools, nor has it ever. There were requests for it to be extended to cover it. The issue of abuse in day schools is fundamentally different from that in institutions. Children who attend day schools are in the care of their parents. It would not be wise and certainly would not serve the victims of institutional abuse well to widen the remit of either the commission or the redress board to accommodate abuse in day schools. There are no plans to do that and the Deputy knows that from previous discussions.
I inquired whether another scheme would be established, not if the current one would be widened.
Regarding the calculation of the figure of €508 million to which I referred, Deputy Enright made the point that it was based on 4,000 to 4,500 claims, which is the case. It was also based on an estimate at the time of how much the average claim might be. The figure used at the time was higher than the average that has transpired from the redress board. On that basis, I do not see any need to revise it.
For the record and to ensure someone does not say in six months' time that I categorically guaranteed it would not exceed this figure, the figures worked on during the negotiations and that the Comptroller and Auditor General used are guesstimates, estimates, assumptions and presumptions. We will not know the final figure until the redress board pays the final cheque. If either figure of €508 million or €1 billion happens to be incorrect, so be it. At present, they are estimates and guesstimates.
Regarding the delay in responding to the Attorney General's letter, the then Minister for Education and Science needed to decide on two key policy issues at the time: the cases that would be covered by the indemnity and the period for which the indemnity would apply. These were policy issues for the Government and they were considered from 31 January, after the indemnity was agreed to in principle by the Government, to 13 April, when the then Minister replied to the Attorney General. Everyone in the House knows that the Attorney General gives legal advice, not policy advice, to Ministers. The policy was being decided during that period and that is why the then Minister did not communicate with the Attorney General. Having checked this, because it was raised often during the debate, it is not true to say that there was no contact between the Department of Education and Science and the Office of the Attorney General during the period. There was substantial contact, as I understand it, at official level during that time.
Will the Minister allow publication of information on the workings of the redress board? This is important because different statements have been made during the debate on whether the redress board is working well. I put it to the Minister that there are penalties in the legislation for someone who reveals what has happened in the redress board. This means we do not have information—
The Deputy should confine herself to questions. We have spent the day making statements. A number of Members are offering.
Will the Minister allow publication of information on the workings of the redress board? This is important. How does he propose to reduce the adversarial nature of the commission? This is an important question for victims. The Minister indicated to the committee on Monday that his primary intention in making changes was to reduce the adversarial nature of the process. Will he inform the House exactly how he proposes to do this? Will the Minister inform the House what he meant when he stated that sampling was parked? Has it been dropped or could it be reconsidered in the future?
As regards the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, stated today that Members of the Opposition were given information on the details of the indemnity agreement, notably in February 2002. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report states that from October 2001 to April 2002 the Attorney General's office had no involvement in the negotiations and eventually received clarification on 13 April 2002. Was Deputy Woods correct when he stated he gave the Opposition details of the indemnity agreement before passing it on to the Attorney General to address its legal aspects? There appears to be a contradiction in this regard.
The then spokesperson for the Labour Party, Deputy Shortall, stated she did not see the indemnity agreement until June 2002. What is the exact position? Was the indemnity agreed in detail by January 2002? If it was agreed by that date, why was the Attorney General not involved before that point and, if not, how could the Opposition have received detailed information about it? This point needs to be clarified.
Why was no audit of the assets of the religious institutions carried out when the judgment on the amount of money they should contribute was being made? Does the Minister agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that the cap of €127 million on the congregations' contribution, agreed by the State in November 2001, represented 50% of the lowest estimated cost? If he agrees, why was the figure not increased in line with the later estimates of costs which arose from the revised estimates of the number of people who would go before the board and the size of the sums likely to be awarded? Will the Minister explain the reason the figure agreed in November 2001 on the basis of the estimate was retained after it transpired that it would be much lower than the actual cost?
In answer to the last question, the decisions on the level of the cap and the amount of money it was possible to obtain from the congregations – the latter decision was taken around the same time, perhaps a little earlier, than the former – had already been made when the estimated increases in costs were noted. It was for this reason that the figure was not increased. At one stage a decision was taken to limit the amount of money we would receive from the congregations to €128 million and, therefore, there was no point in introducing new calculations, increasing the agreed figure or following up to find out how many people would make claims. Nevertheless, estimates of the number of victims were provided throughout the process, right up to the point at which the Government decision was made. The first estimate of the number of expected claims was around 2,000, a figure which, to my recollection, had risen to between 4,000 and 4,500 by the time the final decision was made.
No audit of church property was carried out as it would not have served much purpose. If one follows the sequence of the negotiations, which is laid out well in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it is clear that while the church was willing to make a contribution, it maintained, at all times, a fairly rigid idea of how much this would be. The reason the discussions broke down in October was that the church was offering about £54 million of the £108 million.
The Government agreed to the offer without legal advice.
The Deputy should ask her questions in turn and I will answer them in turn. I listened to the contribution of the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, in which he comprehensively addressed the number of occasions on which the general thrust of the indemnity was discussed in the House. Although the indemnity agreement was signed on 5 June, its principles were clear through press releases and the various discussions in the House from 30 January onwards. I have no reason to disagree with the Deputy's outline of events, as he was the person involved and knew who was present in the Chamber or the Joint Committee on Education and Science on the relevant occasions. Given that he addressed the issue in great detail in the House, I will not waste Members' time by revisiting it.
On the question of sampling, I stated clearly, when questioned on the issue in the committee, that it has been parked. The various victims' groups have come forward with an idea which they have asked us to convey to the investigation committee, namely, that it write to everyone who has requested a hearing before the investigation committee outlining the various available options open to them. In addition, they asked that an alternative to the investigation be considered, namely, a confidential committee type hearing in which the victims would be able to confront their alleged abusers. They have requested that the commission provide for these measures and issue a statement to the effect that going before the investigation committee would no longer be a precondition for gaining access to the redress board.
The victims groups are of the opinion – as I stated previously, I do not disagree with them on this issue – that these measures would considerably reduce the number of people who would feel the need to go before the investigation committee. If this proves to be the case, the question of sampling may not arise. I cannot and will not, however, tie the hands of the commission on the question of how it will approach this question. Once the current exercise has been completed, I will convey the request on behalf of the victims and it will be a matter for the commission to decide whether to adopt the approach I have outlined.
I was asked about how I proposed to address the adversarial approach being adopted by certain respondents in the investigation committee. During the first phase of the review, a number of proposals were made, some of them by the commission, to try to diminish the adversarial nature of the investigation committee. One of the suggestions in the Bill aimed at reducing the need for lengthy and adversarial oral hearings is to give the commission the power to require sworn statements. This would require changes in the law of evidence in the context of the commission. Another proposal would allow documents admitted as evidence to stand prima facie and remove the requirement to hold further oral hearings on them. Provision is also made for a procedure by which the cost burden would be shifted on to people who are deemed by the commission to be conducting themselves unreasonably. These three approaches should moderate the adversarial nature of the process. In deference to a request from the survivors' groups, I have agreed to meet CORI to talk about the approach it is adopting and to try to arrange a meeting between the survivors' groups and CORI to see if we can discuss and, perhaps, advance matters and reduce the adversarial nature of the process.
I am surprised Deputy Burton would repeat in the House, on the basis of what she has been told by some people, that the redress board does not appear to be working well. The board should be allowed to get on with its business. It is working well. People are going to it, they are being heard and decisions are being made. If people are not satisfied with the level of awards granted, that is entirely understandable. If they believe they are not being well looked after, although the awards are based on High Court levels, they have the remedy of applying to the courts. They can state their case, put their evidence to the courts and let the courts decide the awards. It is wrong of Deputy Burton to come to the House and criticise Justice Sean O'Leary, particularly when, from the other side of her mouth, she criticises me for sitting down to talk with Ms Justice Laffoy.
She did not criticise Mr. Justice O'Leary.
He is the chairperson. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
That is what the Minister is trying to do.
The redress board will publish an annual report and that will be presented to the House. The first report is due in December. The redress board also has a good website which contains a great deal of information. If people consulted that website, they might be better informed.
The redress board has received 2,000 applications to date and has made awards in 200 cases. The average award to date is just under €81,000. The board is receiving an average of 50 applications per week. The awards have varied from €12,000 to €250,000 and they are being made in line with the recommendations of the Ryan report. They are equivalent to the level of awards made by the High Court. It is not fair, therefore, to criticise the board on that basis.
Does the Minister believe that Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation was inevitable given that when she made a request in June 2002 for additional resources she did not receive an adequate response? She pointed this out in the damning indictment contained in her letter. It points to gross incompetence on the part of the Government. This debate would not be taking place but for that resignation.
Deputy O'Sullivan pre-empted me with her question about the audit. I had intended to ask the Minister if he believed an audit of the institutions' properties and resources would be a good idea. Does he believe such an audit would be a good idea now, given that it would clarify the exact amount these institutions have in trust or in hard cash and show whether the €128 million deal was a good one in that context? It would certainly be a good idea in the interests of transparency.
The legal representative for the congregations attended the second meeting between the then Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Secretary General on 7 January 2002. Why did a legal representative of the Government not attend, given that this is clearly an unfair weighting in a meeting between the State and the religious institutions? Does this not again demonstrate incompetence?
My next question relates to privilege. Will the Minister be able to establish a commission or an investigative committee which will allow the survivors to put their stories on record without being legally prevented from doing so by the religious institutions? It would be a similar situation to that which applies in Dáil Éireann. Is there a power to set up such a body without a referendum? Can it be done under existing law and would it be welcome?
Deputy Burton asked pertinent questions about the redress board. Does the Minister agree that the average payment is between €80,000 and €90,000 at present, that this average has been reached because a number of higher awards have been made but that the general mean payment is in the region of €10,000 to €25,000? While the committee on education and science might have adopted a wait and see approach to the redress board last spring, the board is now seen to be not working well. What people were expecting and what they are getting are not the same. They can go to the courts if they reject a redress board award but they cannot accept the money now and go to the courts later. That is an injustice.
How does the Minister believe that sampling, an option he has not ruled out, will serve to ensure that the truth of every victim's experience will be revealed and that justice will be seen to be done in every case? Why will he not rule out sampling if he views this issue in terms of bringing the truth to light rather than in terms of minimising the overall cost? I have many other questions but other Members wish to speak so I will conclude with that.
With regard to the question about the inevitability of Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, I did not see it as inevitable.
The Minister would not let her do her job.
I had a number of meetings with Ms Justice Laffoy and she was informed at the last meeting about the review, where it was going and the necessity for further review. We had an amiable conversation. On the second occasion, Ms Justice Laffoy was accompanied by her senior counsel. I was accompanied by the Attorney General on both occasions. We discussed our mutual concern about getting closure for the victims in a reasonable period of time. At no stage during the two meetings or subsequent to the meeting of 15 July did I get any indication from Ms Justice Laffoy that she was thinking of resigning and I regret that she felt it necessary to do so.
I see no purpose in conducting an audit of the institutions at this time. Many of the properties owned by the orders concerned are visible.
What are they worth?
They are schools, hospitals, health clinics, sheltered housing and so forth. There would not be much point in conducting such an audit. Furthermore, whether anybody could conduct such an audit against the wishes of the congregations is a moot point.
The Deputy asked why there was no legal representative with the Minister and the Accounting Officer at the second meeting that took place on 7 January even though CORI was accompanied by a legal representative. It is my understanding that it was a great surprise to both the Minister and the Accounting Officer that CORI had brought legal personnel along. It is also clear, however, that the Minister refused to discuss any legal details at that meeting and made it clear that anything of a legal nature would have to be dealt with by the Office of the Attorney General. It was a surprise that there was a legal representative on the other side. It was not expected or arranged—
He could have rescheduled the meeting with legal representation present.
He did not want to. It was not a matter for legal representation at that time.
The Deputy suggested at the committee meeting on Monday that the House should sit for a number of days and Members could read into the Official Report the records of abuse—
As a last resort.
—from various victims. That did not find much favour. It certainly would not have done so with me, and in fairness to other members of the Opposition, it did not find favour with them either. Today's proposal is the same thing. It is essentially to set up some investigation or mechanism whereby we can ignore people's constitutional rights. That is just not possible because we have a Constitution. Sometimes it can be extremely inconvenient. All of us in this House would like to be in a position to ignore the rights of people who we know, or feel very strongly, were abusers. However, in some respects unfortunately, the Constitution does not work that way. It believes that everyone should be treated equally and has a right to defend his or her good name. I do not support anything that would remove constitutional rights from anyone.
I have dealt with the question of the payments from the redress board. I have stated that it has a legal obligation to have regard to the Ryan committee's recommendations and to ensure that it makes payments based on the evidence before it and in line with the High Court payments. It must do that, and it is wrong for anyone in this House to insinuate that it is not doing so, as seems to be the case with the Deputy.
The Deputy made one other point – or perhaps it was a question – to do with securing the awards. I apologise to the Deputy in advance if I am mistaken, but he seemed to be suggesting that we should give people the right to go to the redress board to make their cases, secure their awards, perhaps appeal, and that, having done all that, they should be allowed to appeal again to the court system.
And obviously forfeit their awards.
They have the right.
I would prefer it if the Minister did not answer questions which come by way of interruption. Members of the House submit questions to a Minister and are heard without interruption. The Minister is entitled to exactly the same courtesy of being heard without interruption and the Chair cannot and will not allow Members to frustrate any other Member and have the record of what they say read into the record of this House. I call Deputy Kenny.
Perhaps I might first finish on that point, without responding to the intervention. Victims have the option of going to the redress board and, having gone through the whole appeal and everything else, instituting legal proceedings. They have that option, which is not taken away from them.
I ask Members to be brief since several are offering questions and I would like to facilitate them. We must conclude at 7 p.m.
Will the Minister confirm that the issue of sampling is ended and that every abused person will have the right to have his or her say? Will he confirm that there is no longer a question of sampling on the table? Second, as the Minister responsible for education, is he not seriously concerned that his Department is under investigation? Is it not a source of concern to him? As everyone wants the matter sorted out for the sake of fairness and justice, would it not be better to have it under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach? Third, is the Minister prepared to go back to the religious congregations? The Minister, Deputy McDowell, said today that while it is a binding deal, that does not mean that it cannot be renegotiated. While the extent of liability has risen far beyond €127 million, so too has the value of the indemnity. Does that not provide grounds for going back to the religious institutions and saying that there is a moral responsibility for something else to come in its place?
Fourth, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, belongs to a party that would have pulled out of office on such an issue 18 months ago. We were informed by him today that he was excluded as Attorney General from meetings between October 2001 and January 2002. Yet at the meeting on 30 January 2002, which the Taoiseach confirmed was attended by all Ministers, including the Minister for Education and Science, the deal was agreed. Part of that deal was the indemnity. Was the advice of the Attorney General sought at that meeting and, if so, was it overruled? It is absolute hypocrisy if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform says that he did not give his advice because he was excluded when he should have done so if he felt that the deal was in the taxpayers' interest.
Does the Minister accept that most people would see Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation as an unmitigated disaster, particularly given the message that it sends to the victims' groups? Ms Justice Laffoy mentioned five points in her letter. Did the Minister ever express concern about the delay of which she speaks in it? Does he accept that it led to a sense of powerlessness in the commission? There was a delay in providing staff and resources. Did Ms Justice Laffoy ever get the extra resources which she sought? I know that they were agreed in principle, but did she ever get them? Did the Minister's Department fully enable the Laffoy Commission? Ms Justice Laffoy said that, from the start, she had never been fully enabled.
This is the final question. An tAire has three minutes.
Deputy Kenny asked me whether every person will have the right to state his or her case. We dealt with the issue of sampling, which I have explained, though I am not sure whether he was here at the time. I have dealt with the matter in detail and rather than delay the House, I will not go over it again, except—
I will read the Minister's response.
The Laffoy Commission is made up of two separate committees, the confidential committee and the investigation committee. The former allows people to tell their story. If we were discussing sampling in the future and people were excluded from that process, they would certainly be allowed back into the confidential committee. I agree with the point made by the Deputy and others that everyone should have the right to tell his or her story, and that will certainly be guaranteed in the manner described.
Like everyone in the House who spoke today, I am concerned that such incidents took place systematically in institutions under the control of the Department of Education, as it was then, over the years. The Department, through its inspectorate and in other ways, was responsible for supervision and so on, but there was a failure on the part of the Department and the State generally. Of course I am concerned about that, as is the Government. That is the reason we have put in place the commission and we have done various things – I will not waste the time of the House going over them again – regarding the victims of child abuse. We were the first Government that did that, and we will continue to do so to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion and closure, particularly for the victims.
Regarding the figure for the indemnity and whether we would renegotiate, it takes two to do so. I am certainly available for negotiation. I will be meeting CORI and will raise the issue with it. However, as things stand, I have no power to break the agreement that has been reached. Regarding the Attorney General's advice to the Government, Members will understand that Cabinet confidentiality is involved. However, the Government decision on the principle of the indemnity was made on 30 January 2002 as outlined. The formal Government decision by way of memorandum and decision was finally made on 5 June when all advices were available.
On the issue of the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, I would not accept the description that it was an unmitigated disaster. It is regrettable that she resigned.