Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 2004

Vol. 584 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Residential Institutions Redress Scheme.

Mr. Costello

Everybody in the House has seen the man who has been on hunger strike for two weeks outside the gates of Leinster House. The matter was raised in the House by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, and Deputy Michael D. Higgins. This 57 year old man is protesting at the manner in which he was treated by the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

We are aware of the circumstances in which the board was set up and the controversial aspects of the funding for victims of abuse in residential institutions. The purpose of the board was to provide a forum and mechanism in which to enable victims to receive compensation in a sensitive fashion. It was strongly indicated at the time by the Minister who was processing the legislation to establish the board that awards would be at least equal to what was being obtained in similar cases in the High Court. That is not the way the Residential Institutions Redress Board operates, according to the tales of woe of the man outside the gate and those of his many colleagues who are supporting him. Others have told a similar tale implying that the board is a secretive organisation which does its work behind closed doors. The media are not allowed in and the victim is not expected to be present. Lawyers present the case.

When the individual in question sought a hearing for his case, his award was reduced by €50,000, which amounted to almost 50% of the original award. On appeal, he received a slight increase. That appears to have been done as a deterrent to others appealing against awards. We must bear in mind that the awards are made in the absence of victims without allowing them an opportunity to tell their story.

The structure has fallen apart since the demise of the Laffoy commission. Many wounded people in their late 50s, 60s and 70s have been severely damaged by what happened to them when they were entrusted by the State to the care of religious orders. When the Taoiseach finally apologised on behalf of the State, they expected the institutions of the State would deal with them sensitively and properly. Above all, they expected to be given the opportunity to tell their story in a suitable forum. They want closure and reasonable compensation.

It seems incredible that a person should go before that board, receive an award and then learn that it has been halved. I do not know the reason for that decision but in this gentleman's case it seems to be because he insisted on giving his own version of his case and then various points were deducted compared to the original allocation granted. How can a person suffer such a substantial reduction in an award unless it is to be interpreted as a deterrent to other people who might seek to appeal? Surely we need transparent procedures in the redress board if we are to deal with people sensitively and ensure proper closure is given to the incredible sufferings they endured.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I am grateful to the Deputy for raising this matter as it gives me the opportunity on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science to clarify the position in regard to the operation of the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, is chairing a meeting of European Education Ministers today, otherwise he would be here.

In 1999, the Taoiseach addressed this House and, on behalf of the State, delivered a formal apology to adults who in their formative childhood years were subjected to abuse while in residential institutions. The Taoiseach also announced a range of measures that the Government intended to introduce to assist victims in recovering from the abuses to which they were subjected.

On 10 April 2002, the Residential Institutions Redress Act was enacted. This Act provided for the establishment of the Residential Institutions Redress Board to provide a mechanism to make financial awards to victims of abuse to assist them in their recovery and enhance the quality of the remainder of their lives. It also provided an alternative to having to pursue traumatic civil court cases to obtain compensation for their injuries.

While the civil courts operate on the basis that a plaintiff must prove his or her case on the balance of probability, the redress board operates on a much lower threshold of proof and does not make any finding of guilt in regard to an individual or an institution. An applicant can engage the services of a solicitor to assist him or her in submitting an application and all reasonable legal costs associated with it will be covered by the board. The Department is not privy to any legal assistance received by individual applicants.

In 2002, the Compensation Advisory Committee established by the then Minister for Education and Science produced a report, Towards Redress and Recovery, which established a weighting scale for the evaluation of the severity of abuse and consequential injury. In addition to this, it set out redress bands for the offer of financial awards, which are in line with High Court awards made in personal injuries cases. These scales have been incorporated into the regulations governing the operation of the board in assessing the amount of awards to be offered to applicants.

In some cases the board will make an applicant a settlement offer solely based on the victim's written application. In the event that an applicant is not satisfied with the offer, the person can opt to pursue an oral hearing of his or her case. If a person decides not to accept a settlement offer and proceeds to a hearing, the hearing takes place entirely independently of the settlement talks. Members of the board who hear the case are not informed of any settlement process. In effect, this amounts to an entirely new hearing of the case.

Following the hearing, the board notifies the applicant in writing of the award on offer and the applicant has a period of one month to accept it. The applicant can use this period to reflect on the offer and consider any legal advice received from her or his legal representative on the merits of the award. In the event that an applicant is not satisfied with an award, the person is entitled under the Act to submit the application to the redress review committee, which will review the entire case. The review committee may uphold the amount of the award, or increase or decrease the amount.

The review committee stage of the process is, effectively, the final option available to an applicant under the redress Act process. However, an applicant still retains the right to pursue a case through the courts. However, the person would have to prove his or her case on a balance of probability and also face the prospect of legal defence arguments.

Over the last week or so, the case of Mr. Sweeney has been covered in the media and Government intervention in the matter has been sought. However, the position is that, under the terms of the redress legislation enacted by the Oireachtas, the redress board and the review committee are entirely independent in their operations. In the circumstances, it is not open to the Government or to the Minister to intervene in their affairs.

Officials of the Department of Education and Science met Mr. Sweeney on 23 April to explain the position regarding the independence of the board and the review committee. It is a matter of serious concern that Mr. Sweeney's health is at risk in this way. However, it is the case that the redress board and the review committee are entirely independent of Government.

I realise the seriousness of the case. I am disappointed that I cannot be of more assistance. I fully sympathise with the case made by the Deputy, but I hope he will appreciate my position and that of the Minister. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to explain the position. I also acknowledge the case that was made by a Deputy on this side of the House prior to my entering the Chamber.

Special Educational Needs.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this issue, one of great importance to the young person concerned and his family and one with much wider implications for people with disabilities and for our society as a whole. This case was brought to my attention and that of my County Donegal colleague, Pierce Doherty, by concerned disability activists and I thank them for doing so.

The case concerns a ten year old boy with cerebral palsy called Christopher. He is a wheelchair user and is the son of Daniel Keenan. Christopher attends St. Macartan's School in Bundoran, County Donegal. He is currently in second class and is due to go into third class later this year. Unfortunately for Christopher, third class and the other senior classes in the primary school take place upstairs in a building that does not have a lift.

When Christopher entered the school four years ago school management notified the Department of Education and Science that a lift would be required for a pupil in the not too distant future. Repeated approaches to the Department over the past four years have been effectively ignored. Now with a matter of months remaining until his class moves upstairs Christopher is facing an uncertain future. Daniel Keenan, his father, has stated that the school authorities and teachers have been excellent in their support for Christopher. They have supported his campaign to have a lift, which has been costed at a mere €17,000, to be installed as a matter of priority. In addition to the repeated approaches to the Department, this campaign has included pleas to councillors, Deputies and Ministers — so far all to no avail.

The family feels that the Department of Education and Science has simply turned its back on this boy. People may glibly ask why third class cannot take place downstairs. First, this would cause major disruption to the school programme and, second, why should any school be obliged to disrupt its programme in any way on this basis? The kernel of this issue is that such a move points the finger at the disabled child as the problem rather than the school building. Third, what if there were a disabled person in each class? What would the solution be then?

Every public building should be required to be 100% accessible. These buildings are owned by the people and exist to serve the people. Legislation which could give effect to this goal is long overdue. Long overdue also is the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill, which has yet to conclude its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

When people with disabilities demand a rights based disability Bill, this case, the case of Christopher Keenan, is exactly what they have in mind. It is not some abstract theory. If people such as Christopher and his family cannot, as a last resort, go to court and require the State to provide them with equal access which is their right, then the legislation will be fundamentally flawed. It will allow the State to argue successfully that it only need vindicate such people's rights if it deems that financial resources are available. I do not want to see the Keenan family or any other family or individual having to go to court but I want their rights to be guaranteed up to and including resort to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

I hope the Minister of State and his colleague will take on board all these points as they finalise the disability Bill. It is imperative that they do. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the rights based need.

An application in respect of the case to which I refer has been lodged with the Department by Christopher's school. The Minister of State will appreciate that there is only one month remaining before the school breaks for the summer recess and Christopher and his family remain in the dark about whether he will be able to go into third class in September. That is not good enough.

His father informed my office today that the Department claimed it had not received sufficient information from the school. If that is the only obstacle, I can only appeal to the Minister of State to communicate with the school as a matter of urgency in order to ensure that the necessary works are carried out without delay and that the lift system is put in place in St. Macartan's school, Bundoran, before the new school term begins in September. I expect that he will give his wholehearted support to ensuring that this is done.

Mr. Gallagher

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity on behalf of the Department of Education and Science to clarify the position concerning the matter of accessibility of schools for all pupils with disabilities and, in particular, the pupil to whom Deputy Ó Caoláin referred.

The Department of Education and Science sanctions special educational needs supports for pupils with disabilities in primary schools on an assessed needs basis to facilitate access to special schools, special classes and also mainstream schools on an integrated basis. Such supports take the form of special class teachers, resource teachers and special needs assistants and are processed on receipt of an application from the relevant school authorities. The Department sanctioned a full-time special needs assistant in August 2000 and also five resource teaching hours in January 2001 to cater for the needs of the pupil in question.

With regard to accommodation in the school, an application under the summer works scheme was received in the Department from the school to which the Deputy referred. All applications received were assessed and categorised by reference to the criteria detailed in appendix B of the circular letter — Prim 34/03 — governing the scheme. The available funding was then distributed on a top-down basis in accordance with the categorisation hierarchy. The purpose of this approach is to ensure precise targeting of funding.

While the school's application under the summer works scheme 2004 was unsuccessful, it is open to the school's management authority to apply for the 2005 summer works scheme when it is announced later this year. The school authority should ensure that the class is appropriately situated to enable the person to participate fully in school activities. It should also use the devolved grant which is paid annually by the Department of Education and Science to deal with any urgent health and safety works.

I have taken note of the points raised by the Deputy, namely, the fact that the end of the school year is approaching, that the school has applied for emergency funding and that the Department is awaiting communication from the school. I assure him that I take this case very seriously and I will discuss it with the Minister at the earliest opportunity. I will ensure that contact is made with the school to try to discover whether a lift is needed or whether the class in which the student will attend next year is appropriately situated in order to allow him to participate fully in school activities.

Mayo Landslide.

Mr. Ring

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. Last September there was a major landslide in Dooncartin and Pullathomas in north Mayo. At that time, the various State agencies, the county council, the fire service, the Garda and the Civil Defence all responded. In the interim, the Government has provided funding for the repair and construction of bridges and roads. However, questions have arisen in respect of whether funding was provided for the building of a barrier.

I recently attended a public meeting held by the residents of the area who are becoming annoyed about the way this matter is being dealt with. A number of people have been out of their homes since last September and it is now almost May. Billions of euro have been poured into disaster funds in other European countries. However, we in Ireland cannot put in place the necessary funding to resolve this problem.

The county council has stated that it does not have funding for the barrier. The Department replied to parliamentary questions I tabled yesterday to the effect that the county council was given an increase of 17.5% in respect of local government funding. The reply also stated that this increase was to cover all the projects relating to the disaster in Pullathomas in respect of which Mayo County Council applied. The council has stated that it does not have the €2.2 million necessary for the construction of the barrier. The people of the area believe it is a waste of public money to put in place bridges and roads without constructing the barrier, particularly in the event that there is a recurrence of flooding and further landslides. They want a barrier to be put in place in order that people will be able to return to their homes and farms. Those involved in farming in the area have not been able to work in the past number of months. People will feel safe in their homes if the barrier is put in place.

Has the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government provided Mayo County Council with the funding? If so, will the Minister of State direct the county manager to spend it on constructing the barrier? If the money has not been provided, that is fine. However, if it has been provided, who will make the county council construct the barrier? The Department's reply to the questions I tabled yesterday clearly stated that the funding has been provided and that the barrier should be erected.

The people are confused and are becoming angry. They want this matter to be resolved. They do not want any further promises. I would have preferred it if the Department, instead of allocating money to the water section, some of which the council will have to take, and providing grant aid for roads under the local government fund, had given a grant to the disaster fund in north Mayo.

I understand that a committee has been established which will be chaired by an official from Mayo County Council. I asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, to chair that committee. A Minister who would be accountable to the House should be in charge of matters so that when I table questions and raise issues, I will receive replies.

It is wrong that we are faced with a situation where the Government has stated that it provided the funding, while the county council has stated that the funding is not available. The poor innocent residents of Dooncartin and Pullathomas have been left to suffer and they want this matter to be resolved.

Will the Minister of State indicate if the funding has been provided? If it has, will he direct the county manager and Mayo County Council to spend the money on the erection of the barrier? People who have been out of their homes since last September want to return to them.

My final plea is to the media which could not obtain enough news and information about north Mayo when the disaster occurred. I call on them to return to the area to see what has happened and to try to help the people to press their claims and obtain the funding from the Government which will allow them to get their lives back on track. The media were present when matters were bad. They should return and support the people in the area.

I hope the Minister of State will provide a satisfactory reply. The Department has stated that the funding is in place. If so, will the Minister of State oblige the county council to direct the county manager to spend it on providing the barrier?

Mr. Gallagher

The position in respect of this matter was set out in the reply to Questions Nos. 800, 801 and 833 tabled yesterday by the Deputy regarding the landslide in north Mayo last September.

Mayo County Council's general purpose grant from the Department for 2004 is just short of €30 million. The allocation represents an increase of 17.5% over the comparable allocation for 2003 and is well above the average increase for local authorities generally. In determining the allocation, consideration was given to the demands on the council arising from the landslide in the Dooncarton area. In December, 2003 the council was notified of its general purpose allocation for 2004 and that this funding could be used by the council to contribute to the carrying out of such works as deemed necessary to prevent a recurrence of the landslide. It is now a matter for the council to determine the appropriate allocation for these works.

The general purpose allocations from the local government fund are a contribution towards the day-to-day operational expenses of a local authority and it remains a matter for the local authority to prioritise its expenditure in the context of the budgetary process. The funding provided to the council through these grants has increased dramatically since this Government first came into office; in fact it has more than doubled since the 1997 initial allocation.

The council's estimated cost of repairing public roads and bridges in the north Mayo area as a result of the landslide was €2,030,500. A grant of €571,000 was paid by the Department to the council in 2003 for immediate remedial works and I have allocated a further special grant of €1,459,500 to the council in 2004 for the improvement, repair and protection of roads and bridges in the area affected by the landslide. These allocations fully meet the estimate made to my Department by the council.

The county council has also incurred expenditure of €25,000 in carrying out repairs to some water supply schemes. This expenditure was taken into account in the Department's 2004 rural water programme block grant allocation of €8 million to the council, an increase of over 63% on the 2003 outturn sum of €4.9 million.

In addition, the Department is continuing to recoup to Mayo County Council 90% of the cost of providing emergency accommodation to households affected by the 2003 landslide. To date, an amount of €7,713 has been recouped and a further recoupment of €13,076 will be made shortly.

I appreciate the extra burden that the events at Dooncarton have placed on the council's resources. However, it should be noted that the financial resources of the council have increased considerably due to enhanced support from central funding.

I understand from Mayo County Council that it has established an implementation working group which is in liaison with the local committee. Works on infrastructure are continuing and the council is in discussion with the committee regarding these works which include protective ditches, berms and fences. When the final examination of protection works required has been completed, the council will be in a position to assess what barriers or other engineering solutions may be needed.

The allocations to which I referred fully met the estimate made to the Department by the council.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 April 2004.