Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 19 February 2004
8 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Education and Science the total number of persons who have made compensation applications to the Residential Institutions Redress Board at the latest date for which figures are available; the way in which the number of applications compares with the original estimate made by his Department; the estimate of the number of likely applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5235/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Residential Institutions Redress Board is an independent body established under the terms of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 which provided for its establishment. The board is in place and fully operational. Judge Sean O'Leary, a High Court judge, is its chairperson. Seven other members have also been appointed.
On the basis of the most recent information available from the board, it has received 2,849 applications. To date, the board has completed the process in 680 cases. The average award is approximately €80,000.
The board provides regular updates as to the number of claims received on its website, www.rirb.ie. It is finalising its first annual report which will cover the period 16 December 2002 to 31 December 2003. When this report is received, I will make arrangements for it to be laid before both Houses
of the Oireachtas.
Prior to the establishment of the board, my Department had estimated that there would be approximately 5,000 applicants. It is too early to determine what the final outcome will be but we can view the information on the website.
The figures the Minister has provided indicate an increase of almost 700 from the last time I tabled this question in December 2003. This is a fairly significant rise in the number of applications. What are his views on the suggestion by the Comptroller and Auditor General that the cost of the entire package under the indemnity deal may reach €1 billion?
I tabled another related question to the Minister recently and got a reply to the effect that the information was not available. Perhaps it has since come into his possession. The question concerned cases where religious institutions had handed over responsibility for the defence of these cases to the State, although it is not a co-defendant because of clause 6(a) in the deeds of indemnity dated 5 June 2002. How many such cases are before the courts?
I am afraid I cannot enlighten the Deputy. I am sorry that she did not get a reply to the question when she originally tabled it. I will certainly pursue the matter.
I got an answer saying the information was not yet available.
It is my understanding that there have been one or two such cases. I will endeavour to get the information for the Deputy; it should be available to us. I again apologise that she did not receive the information when she first sought it. That is the cost of the indemnity to date. In regard to sum of €1 billion referred to in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, that is his estimate. He does not like me using the word "guesstimate". In deference to him I will use the word "estimate" rather than "guesstimate". He estimates that we may have a contingent liability of €1 billion for the redress board, not the indemnity. The figure we have, which I do not yet have any reason to change, is €508 million. We still estimate that it will come in around that figure.
The Deputy also referred to 700 applications since December. She can do her maths on this one. The average number of applications up to December was about 50 a week. It may have since dropped to about 48 per week. There is a belief that more cases present in the initial stages but if we work on the basis of an average of 50 per week, the total number of cases would be about 6,000. That is a guesstimate on my part, a word I do not mind using.
The Minister should be careful.
I tabled a written question to the Minister on a certain issue a number of times and the answer has always been that he is considering it. When, and if, does he intend to add the additional institutions to the Schedule? I am aware that there are a number of outstanding claims on that basis?
It is not totally within my control. We want to try to avoid coming with lists every two or three months or so. A number of people have indicated that they want the institutions in which they were involved included.
We are consulting with other Departments, particularly the Department of Health of Children, where searches in its records are under way. We have sought advice from the Attorney General regarding the inclusion of a number of the institutions and we are waiting for this before we proceed with the decision to include the additional institutions in the schedule.
