Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Oct 2003

Vol. 571 No. 3

Written Answers. - Commission of Inquiry.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

169 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will make available all of the correspondence between his Department and other Departments and the chairperson of the inquiry into institutional child abuse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21759/03]

The Government, in its response of the 9 September to Ms Justice Laffoy's letter of 2 September, in which she indicated that she intended to resign from her position as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, also published correspondence with the commission dating back to December 2002 and the announcement at that time of its review.

I have arranged for staff of my Department's residential institutions redress unit to forward this documentation directly to the Deputy for his information. If it is the case that the Deputy wishes to seek other specific correspondence perhaps he would submit details to the unit.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

170 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Science the advice he received which prompted the review of the inquiry into institutional child abuse and which culminated in the resignation of the chairperson ; the source from which he received this advice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21760/03]

The commission was established in 2000 and it was the Government's intention that it would carry out its work free of the adversarial environment and legal formality of the courts and to deliver its final report within two years. As time went on it became increasingly obvious that this would not happen. There were many reasons, but primarily the issue rests with the fact that, far from being a relatively informal forum, the investigation committee assumed the formality of the High Court, complete with teams of lawyers.

Following the final deadline for receipt of statements in July 2002 the commission indicated that the total applications to the committee was 1957. In November 2002 the commission stated in a memorandum to my Department that, even assuming some level of attrition in the number of complainants to be heard by it, it would not be in a position to deliver its final report for at least a further eight to 11 years. This timeframe was provided to my Department by the commission and was based on the resources that it had at that time. It would be far too late for many of those for whom it was established.

Concern about its progress was shared by survivor support groups who urged my Department to take action to ensure that the report be delivered as soon as possible. They made the point that some of their members had already been waiting for 30 or 40 years for validation.
In addition to the long delay, and the consequences of this for survivors of abuse, there was also serious concern that publication of the final report would be challenged by alleged abusers claiming that they did not have due process in a court of law. The likely delays, the doubts about the ability to publish a full report, and the real probability that the State would have to pay legal costs of the order of €200 million contributed to the need to review the investigation committee.
I remain committed to ensuring that this process of review will be completed as quickly as possible. I also want appropriate amending legislation enacted that will allow for the completion of the work of the commission within a reasonable timeframe and without incurring exorbitant costs.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

171 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Science if he has quantified in terms of financial liability, the likely cost to the State arising from institutional child abuse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21761/03]

I assume the Deputy is referring to financial redress awards to be made by the RIRB.

My Department estimates that the cost of awards over the three-year duration of the redress board will be in the region of between €400 million and €500 million. This would accommodate between 4,000 and 5,000 claimants at an average award of €100,000. To date the board has received approximately 2,000 applications and it continues to receive applications at a rate of approximately 50 per week. The board has made settlements or offered awards in approximately 200 cases with the average payment being approximately €80,745.

No matter what method is used to estimate the overall financial liability that may be incurred the figure arrived at is an estimate. It is only as the board continues to operate and the rate of applications and level of awards become more established that a clearer picture as to the overall financial liability will be available.

The previous Government agreed to set up a redress scheme, irrespective of the financial liability that may be incurred in the operation of such a scheme, because it considered that it was the correct course of action to be followed in ensuring redress for persons who, as children, had been abused in institutions. This continues to be the view of the present Government. I remain committed, in common with my Government colleagues, to ensuring that through the redress scheme and other initiatives in this area survivors of abuse are assisted in reaching some form of closure in relation to past events.

Top
Share