Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Kenny:

Does the Taoiseach not feel any sense of guilt and shame at the publication this week of the report by Amnesty International on mental illness in this country? The report exposed the Government's neglect of people with psychological illness and it highlighted two specific black holes: the plight of prisoners with mental illness who cannot now be accepted into the Central Mental Hospital and the plight of teenagers with psychiatric illnesses.

This Government is now in its sixth year. There have been massive budgetary surpluses for a number of years but the services represent those of the 19th century as distinct from the 21st century. Investing in this area is a matter of choice. This Government has chosen not to support those who are in pain, who are confused and those who feel lost. I say to the Taoiseach that these people have no one in Government to represent them. They have no social partner, no vocal lobby group and no friend in Cabinet. They are relying on the Taoiseach and his Ministers to represent them and to ensure they receive a decent service and collectively the Government has let them down.

The Taoiseach:

In reply to Deputy Kenny, two years ago many of the organisations involved in mental health requested that there should be a specific Minister dealing with mental health and I appointed Deputy O'Malley as Minister of State for that reason to deal exclusively with mental health. The organisations concerned have acknowledged his appointment.

The Government has long recognised that in the past there had been a deficit in the level of funding for the development of mental health services. We demonstrated our commitment to address this through the provision of significant additional resources. We are dealing with an enormous deficit from the past. Great strides continue to be made in developing a service which is comprehensive and which is now community-based. The working group document of 1994 became the blueprint for dealing with the changes in mental health management. It is a community based service and is integrated with the general health services. It is removing the stigma that traditionally applied to psychiatric illness.

In 1984 I was on the working group of the Eastern Health Board which prepared the document Planning for the Future. The Amnesty International report acknowledges the significant advances made in the provision of community psychiatric nursing services, community residences, day hospitals and day centres since the publication of that report 19 years ago.

In the period 1999 to 2002 an additional €70.7 million has been invested in mental health services. This year additional funding of €7.6 million has been provided for ongoing developments. In addition €190 million capital has been provided over the lifetime of the national development plan to develop mental health facilities. This investment is unprecedented. The new Mental Health Commission has an important role to play in improving the quality of our mental health services. While problems in this area have long been highlighted, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health are providing specific funding for the development of services under the new national policy framework on mental health which it is hoped to commence this year. The Government will continue to deal with this major problem of the past.

Mr. Kenny:

If the Taoiseach recognises this as important it is time the Government, now in its sixth year, did something effective about it. The Taoiseach refers to a comprehensive and integrated community based service. Is he aware that, while in Cavan there are excellent community mental health services and 96 staff working in the community, there are only two staff working in the community in Tallaght? In Kildare a lousy €30 per head of population is provided for mental health services. It is not true to say that there is a comprehensive community based integrated service available here. If the Taoiseach believes in a fairer and more caring Ireland will he see to it that the Government commits real resources to do an effective job in respect of those people identified by the Amnesty International report as in dire need of effective and decent services? Will he commit the Government to that now?

The Taoiseach:

I would be the first to admit that for half a century the resources that went into mental health were insufficient. What we have done in recent years is try to catch up and develop a service but we cannot resolve all the problem. In the past two years an unprecedented additional €70.7 million was given to resources and we have put €190 million into the capital end. We all know and accept that those resources were necessary. Many of the large psychiatric hospitals required modernisation and redevelopment, many were rebuilt and a large number of people moved into the community.

When one looks at the figures for the number of people who were in institutions under the care of the State who have now moved into the community, compared to before Planning for the Future in 1984, it is fair to say that there is a comprehensive community based service although it may not be perfect. People are engaged on behalf of the health boards, visiting, minding and caring for people in hospitals and homes owned by the health boards and for those who are in rented accommodation. This year for the first time specific funding has been made available for the development of advocacy services. I accept that enormous strides still need to be made. I am not saying that the mental health service is beyond criticism but we are making progress.

Mr. Rabbitte:

I want to come back to the leg acy the Government has left to the over-burdened taxpayer as a result of the deal with the religious congregations. It diminishes this House that one got more answers in the weekend newspapers than I did in pursuing this matter last week with the Taoiseach. I ask the Taoiseach now to skip the bit about his apology, which we welcomed, and to accept that everyone wants to see the victims get the speediest possible awards.

Did the Taoiseach ever discuss this matter with Cardinal Connell? Is it true that the deed of indemnity that protected religious congregations and gave unlimited exposure to the taxpayer was drafted in Arthur Cox's office on behalf of the religious congregations? Was the agreement based on figures that were grossly out of date – between 900 and 2,000 victims? Is it true that when the deed was signed in June the Department of Education and Science had 3,000 claimants on its files and that there are now 5,000 victims? Is it true that the estimated figure of those alive who spent time in those institutions is between 20,000 and 30,000?

Who authorised or directed the intervention of the Minister for Education and Science at the time, Deputy Woods? Who advised the Minister? I draw the Taoiseach's attention to a document of 14 January 2003 to the finance committee where the official stated that the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance were involved in the negotiations but "however, the final agreement was negotiated by the Minister for Education and subsequently endorsed by the Government". Who accompanied the Minister for Education and Science? I accept that I was wrong last week when I said that he did it two days before he left office – he did it the day before he went out of office.

Why did the secretary to the finance committee feel obliged, the same day, to redo a revised note that changes the meaning of that separate involvement of the Minister for Education and Science, leaving it open to many interpretations? How can the Taoiseach justify leaving the taxpayer with unlimited exposure as a result of a secret deal that never came before the House and in respect of which he refused to answer questions last week?

The Taoiseach:

I answered questions on this last week and on several other occasions. I never had discussions with Cardinal Connell or any other religious person on this matter. I was at none of the discussions whatsoever, contrary to the impression Deputy Rabbitte gave on the "Today with Pat Kenny" programme this morning.

There seems to be confusion over the agreement reached with the religious congregations. That agreement gives indemnity to a number of religious orders that ran institutions which the State entrusted with functions that perhaps it should have carried out itself. There is no agreement with the Catholic Church as some people are endeavouring to make out. There is no deal with it and there is no agreement giving it indemnity.

Despite Deputy Rabbitte's difficulty with my raising the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, I will explain again. It is about providing financial compensation to people who suffered abuse in residential institutions. These were institutions which the State entrusted with functions that the State should, perhaps, have carried out itself. The agreement concluded between the State and the religious congregations was about ensuring that the religious made a meaningful contribution to the State's redress scheme. I use this opportunity to reject the bogus claim that this agreement was a rushed or secret deal pushed through in the last days of the previous Government. The Deputy's office is well aware that nothing is further from the truth. The negotiations with CORI on the extent of the contribution began at the end of 2000, contrary to the misleading opinion some people seek to generate. The House and the public were kept well abreast of developments.

As far back as 22 November 2000, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, issued a comprehensive statement saying that the religious congregations agreed in principle to participate in a child abuse compensation scheme. In the period since then the Department issued statements on at least three occasions detailing progress of the agreement with the religious congregations on contributions to the redress scheme. This can hardly be described as secretive behaviour. I excuse Deputies for not having the time to log into the Department's website to read the statements there.

I remind Deputies that the Residential Institutions Redress Bill 2002, which is central to the agreement with the religious orders, came before the Oireachtas not less than 16 times over five readings in the House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by open debate on the Bill, I and Ministers have answered numerous questions on the issue. The agreement with the religious orders came before the Oireachtas no less than 16 times over five readings in this House and four readings in the Seanad. As well as the opportunities presented by the debate on the Bill for open discussion on the proposed agreement, both myself and Ministers have answered numerous questions on this. I looked at one or two debates from the Official Report at the weekend in which Deputy Bruton and the former Deputy Shatter received replies from the Minister in regard to provisions of compensation; that is not a secret agreement. On 20 June last year Deputy Shortall raised the agreement on the Adjournment and Deputy Bruton did so last week. Last week when Deputy Rabbitte was looking for the agreement I did not know that Deputy Shortall was given an assurance that the Official Report had been put in the Oireachtas Library last June.

Throughout 2001 officials in the Departments of Finance and Education and Science, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, had at least ten meetings with representatives of CORI. All of these are documented, all of them are on Department files. I was not aware of those matters last week, but they are all on record.

A point was reached based on what was thought to be the maximum numbers.

An Ceann Comhairle:

The time has concluded.

The Taoiseach:

There was no exact, scientific formula for reaching a figure for the contributions of the congregations, but there were guiding considerations. The State was looking for a voluntary contribution as it could not compel the congregations to pay and it did not want to put such a burden on them that they would be driven out of business. The Department of Finance had suggested that it should be on a 50:50 basis, according to the figures then available, which was the approach taken.

The redress board was designed to facilitate victims. As we all know, it requires a much lower standard of proof than is the case with the courts. The religious congregations were quite happy to go into the courts on a case by case basis; it was the Government that was not happy with this arrangement.

In May 1999, I was the one who had concerns about it. I was the one who was not prepared to go on saying to these people that the State did not give two damns about them. I made the apology. We made the system easy so that these people could get their money rather than having to go in and fight the State on cases that were 30 years old. I do not make any apology for what the last Government or this one did to help these people. I am afraid that Deputy Rabbitte is wrong in this case.

Mr. Rabbitte:

The Taoiseach obviously had notice because his servants on the payroll of the State were listening to the "Today with Pat Kenny" radio show. Is that the best the Taoiseach can do? The only document in the Oireachtas Library is one that refers to the redress scheme. The four folders which are referred to in it were not in the Library up to this morning.

The Taoiseach avoided all of my questions. There is no point dragging in red herrings about the Catholic Church. I never referred to the Catholic Church but was careful to refer to the religious congregations. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is advising the Taoiseach. Will he advise him as to whether he was involved in this indemnity? If there is anything the Taoiseach does not understand about this question, will he please ask me about it? Was Deputy McDowell, in his then role of Attorney General, involved in drafting the most open-ended indemnity in the history of the State? Is that not a clear question? If he was then how did it get past him and if he was not, then why not?

How many cases are contained in the four folders? There was 3,000 at the time of signing, although a deal was done on completely out of date numbers. Is it true that there are now 5,000? Who accompanied the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods? Who directed that he should become involved? Did the Taoiseach's colleagues know when they authorised – the Minister for Health and Children appears to find this very funny.

Mr. Martin:

He did absolutely nothing about it. The issue was there right through the 1994-97 period. Deputy Rabbitte asked me a question in relation to the legal indemnity—

Mr. S. Ryan:

Was the Attorney General involved?

An Ceann Comhairle:

Sorry, Deputy Ryan, it is Leaders' Questions. You are not the leader of your party.

The Taoiseach:

If the party leader will allow me to reply. He does not need any help from Deputy Ryan. The Attorney General and his office was involved throughout the entire period. All of the issues of the indemnity came fully in front of the Government. Deputy Woods who was then the Minister for Education and Science dealt with the issues on the authority of the Government. All of the Departments were involved in most of the discussions. When Deputy Woods and his Secretary General and one of his officials dealt with the meetings they did not need anybody holding their hands. He did as any Minister would.

Mr. Rabbitte:

What does that mean?

The Taoiseach:

It means that when a Minister goes to negotiate he does not need three more Ministers with him. He does it by himself. We trust out colleagues.

Mr. Rabbitte:

He was not a Minister, he was the Attorney General.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Rabbitte, please allow the Taoiseach.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach:

The institutions were under his jurisdiction.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat.

Mr. Quinn:

Publish.

The Taoiseach:

I will not publish documents relating—

An Ceann Comhairle:

Resume your seat, please, Deputy Rabbitte.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle:

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to obey the Chair or the Chair will have to take appropriate action.

The Taoiseach:

All the matters were fully dealt with. If in the end there were more cases than we thought they will all come out in the tribunal eventually. They are all in the tribunal.

Mr. Quinn:

Publish now.

The Taoiseach:

In our view, the State created, or helped to create, a particular problem and the State has to play its part in paying for it. At the time the decision was made the congregations involved were paying a fair contribution. The name of the game was not to put the congregations out of order but to try to find a quick way of getting redress for the individuals concerned rather than having to put each of them through an individual court case. Like all of these things the records will show beyond all doubt that everything was dealt with properly.

Mr. S. Ryan:

When is the Taoiseach going to answer the question?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

Will the Taoiseach tell us what his hopes are for the talks tomorrow at Hillsborough that will involve both Governments and the political parties in the north of Ireland? Does the Taoiseach agree that we must see definite progress towards the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the re-establishment of the institutions? Does he also agree that this must include progress on demilitarisation and policing?

Does he recognise that the majority of Nationalist opinion will not endorse the PSNI as representative of a new start in policing while it continues to fall extremely short of the recommendations contained in the Patten report? Does the Taoiseach accept that this is not a minor issue? It is an extremely important matter and is not simply a question of Sinn Féin becoming involved in the policing boards, as it is sometimes reflected in a facile manner in the media. Does the Taoiseach agree that for the situation to move forward we must have a truly new beginning to policing in the North and that this is a vital issue at the heart of the current difficulties?

The Taoiseach:

It is hoped that the discussions tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow evening will be about the restoration of the institutions and finding a way of restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and that they will deal with all the important aspects which have been broached in the discussions that have been going on since November. There are a number of important issues and Deputy Ó Caoláin has mentioned some of them. Demilitarisation, the end of paramilitarism and the establishment of trust and confidence are important issues. Policing has to be dealt with. I agree with what the Deputy has stated and I said in reply to Deputy Rabbitte dur ing Question Time last week that policing is probably one of the most important issues because without trust and confidence by the community in the Police Service of Northern Ireland it will be difficult to make the progress we all want to make.

In Weston Park we had moved close to the Patten proposals and the legislation reflecting that position is going through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster at present. I know there are outstanding issues but I hope tomorrow's talks will give an opportunity to find conclusions to some of those very important issues.

I am sure Deputy Ó Caoláin will agree that the most important task tomorrow is to get a fair agreement, whatever the agenda of the various parties. That means we must reach an agreement which deals with the end of paramilitary activity, targeting, punishment beatings and arms procurement and equally deals with demilitarisation and the question of towers and other army infrastructure in areas where there have not been problems for several years. We will be dealing with the bill of rights and other human rights issues. All these issues will be discussed tomorrow, and starting tomorrow and continuing for the next few weeks I hope we can find resolutions to them.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

Does the Taoiseach agree that there can be no single focus in this process and that the singular focus on the IRA's role, very important though that be, is unhelpful and counter-productive? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of all parties to the Agreement, including the British Government, to play their part? The British Government is not a neutral arbiter in this situation but has clear bounden responsibilities which it has failed to fulfil, as the Prime Minister acknowledged at the end of last year. The Government also has responsibilities in all this. Not least of those is to press—

An Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy is making a statement.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

I am asking the Taoiseach whether he accept that not least of the responsibilities of the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues is to press the British Government to fulfil its role and responsibilities, particularly in the areas of demilitarisation and policing.

The Taoiseach:

As I have continually said throughout these discussions, we are endeavouring to achieve full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I accept my responsibilities in these matters and I ask everyone else to accept theirs. There are issues for everyone to deal with. We must move on the issues we failed to resolve during the last period. They are the ending of paramilitary activities and problems relating to that; demilitarisation and policing; and human rights and other issues. I assure the Deputy that I do not see this process as a single agenda but I realise that everyone else has a point to make. I try to include all the issues that have been referred to. People on the other side tend to leave out the issue which is their own party's responsibility, as Deputy Ó Caoláin did today. However, I take a fair view and try to give all points equal importance. I recognise that all issues must be surmounted and we will do our best to do so. We will take our own responsibilities seriously.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 11 Feb 2003

Leaders' Questions.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2003