Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003

Vol. 562 No. 1

Priority Questions. - Residential Institutions Redress Scheme.

Joan Burton

Ceist:

113 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the role played by officials of his Department in the negotiations leading up to the agreement and in the drafting of the agreement in respect of the deed of indemnity between his Department, the Department of Education and Science and a number of religious congregations and signed on his behalf by two senior officials of his Department on 5 June 2002; if his Department undertook an assessment of the resources and assets of the religious institutions prior to the conclusion of the agreement; if, prior to the signing of the agreement, his Department undertook a study of the potential financial exposure of the State arising from the agreement; if so, the results of such study; the estimate of his Department of the potential financial exposure of the State at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5492/03]

In February 2001 the Government approved proposals for a residential institutions redress scheme which formed a major part of its general approach to try and bring some healing and closure to victims of child abuse, recognising its own responsibilities to those victims. These proposals were approved by the Oireachtas in the subsequently enacted Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002.

It was considered by Government that the religious congregations should be asked to make a meaningful voluntary contribution towards the cost of the scheme. However, it should be emphasised that the Government had already decided to go ahead with a redress scheme even if the religious congregations were not to contribute to it. Having regard to the nature of the scheme, and given that it was a voluntary contribution, the issue of requesting an assessment of the assets held by the congregations was considered but the exercise was not regarded as being relevant.

Following the Government approval of the redress scheme a group of officials from the Department of Education and Science, my Department and the Office of the Attorney General met representatives of the religious congregations on a number of occasions during the period February 2001 to October 2001 to explore whether they would make a contribution. It was clear from the early stages of the negotiations with the congregations that they would not participate and contribute to the scheme, without a cap and an indemnity. The decision was taken, following earlier clearance at ministerial level, that the negotiators could propose an approach based on a 50:50 contribution with a cap of £100 million –€127 million, together with an agreement in principle to an indemnity to be subsequently drafted between the parties. This was put to the religious congregations at the meeting of 16 October 2001 but was not accepted by them at that stage.

Following further direct discussions between representatives of the congregations and the Minister for Education and Science during December 2001 and January 2002, the Minister announced, on 30 January 2002, that the Government had agreed in principle to a set of proposals whereby the congregations would contribute €128 million to the scheme in return for the indemnity by the State, the details of which had to be subsequently drafted.

An official from my Department 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.

As at 5 June 2002, when the Government agreed the indemnity agreement, the best information available from the Department of Education and Science was that the estimated cost could be in the range from £200 million to £400 million –€250 to €500 million euros The cost could be higher or lower depending on the actual number of cases and the awards made. The final cost will not be known until the redress board has completed its work, which will be at least three years hence.

I thank the Minister for his answer. He referred to the negotiations of March 2002, of which his officials were informed, and the negotiations of mid-May 2002, in which his officials took part with officials of the Office of the Attorney General. Did the staff of his Department and of the Office of the Attorney General not carry out a due diligence examination of the resources and assets of the religious congregations, with a view to determining how much they could pay?

The Minister indicated that the religious congregations capped their contribution at £100 million, which subsequently became €127 million. Did the Minister's Department carry out an assessment of the assets of the religious congregations, of their capacity to pay and of whether what they were offering to pay was reasonable in the circumstances? The Minister, as an accountant, will know that a due diligence examination is a common feature of such agreements.

On the face of it a 50:50 sharing arrangement appears to be reasonable. Why, then, did he and his officials abandon that strategy? Two types of abuse were taking place in these institutions. There was what could be described as the ordinary abuse in which people were beaten, starved and deprived of family life and for which, without a doubt, the State carried partial responsibility. The religious institutions insisted on the right to control education and health. There was also the question of sexual abuse. There are numerous reports which suggest that no reasonable inspec tions by the Department of Education and Science at the time could have reasonably uncovered the sexual abuse. Why did the Department of Finance decide, effectively, to let the religious off the hook and allow the taxpayer to bear the brunt of the cost of this extraordinary deal?

The Deputy made three points. The first point raised was whether an assessment of the assets held by the congregations was required. As indicated in my reply, having regard to the nature of the scheme the issue of requesting an assessment of the assets held by the congregations was considered but the exercise was not regarded as relevant. I emphasise again that, in any event, what was sought from the congregations was a voluntary contribution, not one contingent on an assessment of their assets and liabilities.

May I say to the Deputy, who has followed this issue for some time, that it was the Government decided as an act of retribution to the individuals concerned that we would have this non-adversarial system. It was the Government that decided to go ahead with a compensation scheme, even if the Government had to meet 100% of the cost of all awards. It was then considered that we should request the congregations to make a meaningful contribution. The next stage was that the congregations had to make up their minds as to whether they wanted to make a meaningful contribution. They had a decision to make, which I am sure they considered over a long period, whether to participate in the Government's scheme by making a contribution or to fight all these cases individually. That is the basis on which the negotiations took place and that is not widely appreciated.

The Deputy's second question was in regard to the 50:50 sharing arrangement that I requested at the start of these negotiations. Any Minister for Finance – I speak for all my predecessors in this office – seeks the maximum amount of contribution from everyone bar the taxpayer or the Exchequer. If in any situation 100% of the cost can be met by somebody else I would gladly proceed in that way, otherwise I would be failing in my duty. We put forward that idea. At earlier meetings the congregations said "No" because they always had the option of fighting these cases independently. We can discuss this matter on a later occasion. We put forward that proposition but the congregations said they would not participate unless there was a cap on their overall contribution and an indemnity.

The Deputy asked about the forms of abuse in these institutions. I am not au fait with the relevant details in the Department of Education and Science stretching back over 40 years but I am led to believe there was evidence on the files of the Department of Education and Science that these institutions were not policed in the proper manner. The State has a very serious responsibility in this regard.

May I ask a brief supplementary?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, we have exceeded the time limit.

Just a brief—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, we have to proceed.

Barr
Roinn