Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now resuming in public session. We are here to examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's Special Report No. 96 in respect of the cost of child abuse inquiry and redress. In the session following this one, we will be examining the financial statements of Caranua, which is an independent State body set up to help people who experience abuse in residential institutions in Ireland and have received settlements, redress board or court awards. For now, we are joined from the Department of Education and Skills by Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Mr. Dalton Tattan, assistant secretary, Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary, Ms Catherine Hynes, residential institutions redress unit and Ms Mary Cregg, planning and building unit. From the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, I welcome Ms Marie Mulvihill. I remind witnesses, members and those in the Visitors Gallery to switch off their mobile phones entirely or put them on airplane mode as they interfere with the recording system.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 186 that the committee shall also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy. They are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to make an opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The report for consideration by the committee this morning pertains to an examination by my office of the cost to the State of responding to abuse over many years of children resident in certain institutions run by a number of religious congregations and subject to supervision by the Department of Education and Skills on behalf of the State. There were three key elements to the response: a commission of inquiry to establish what occurred in the institutions; a redress scheme administered by the residential institution redress board to compensate former residents of the institutions for abuse they suffered; and a range of practical and social supports provided to former residents and their family members.

The structures put in place to account for the costs were varied and complex, with the result that it requires considerable effort to piece together the overall expenditure in any one year. Because the work of the commission of inquiry and the redress board was almost complete at the end of 2015, I felt it would be useful, in parallel with the audits of the various 2015 annual financial statements, to compile an overview of the aggregate costs as at the end of 2015. The report also provides information on the contributions towards the costs received from the religious institutions and seeks to identify lessons learned that may potentially assist in the event that it is decided in the future to establish further redress schemes. We estimate that the final overall cost of investigating and responding to the abuse in the institutions will be of the order of €1.5 billion. By far the largest element, accounting for 82%, relates to the redress scheme. The next largest element, at 12%, relates to the various supports provided for the former residents and their families. The costs associated with the commission of inquiry which substantially completed its work in 2009 account for 5% of the total. Awards and costs related to legal cases pursued by former residents through the courts instead of under the redress scheme make up the remaining 1%. The religious congregations were indemnified against costs arising in such cases under a formal legal agreement they entered into with the Department of Education and Science in 2002.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established in 2000 and the Department initially expected it to operate for two years at a forecasted cost of around €2.5 million. In the event, the final report of the commission which is often referred to as the Ryan report was published in May 2009 and the work of the commission cost an estimated €82 million. The redress scheme which was established in 2002 accounts for the largest element of the cost, at an estimated €1.25 billion. The original forecasted cost of the scheme was €250 million. My predecessor reported on deficiencies in the methods used by the Department in arriving at that estimate. By the end of 2015, the redress board had made awards totalling €970 million to 15,579 claimants, an average award of €62,250. Some 85% of the awards were at or below a level of €100,000 per person. The highest individual award made was €300,000. By 31 December 2015, the redress board had approved legal cost payments of €193 million to 991 legal firms in respect of 15,345 applications. A total of 17 legal firms were paid between €1 million and €5 million each, while seven were paid amounts between €5 million and €19 million each.

Outside of the redress scheme, a range of other supports were put in place by State bodies andthe religious congregations to assist the former residents of the institutions. The overall spend on health, housing, educational and counselling services is estimated at €176 million. Since late 2013, the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, better known as Caranua, has been providing support services for survivors paid for from cash contributed voluntarily by the religious congregations following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009. Government policy was to pursue the sharing of the cost of redress on a 50:50 basis between the State and the 18 religious congregations. The indemnity agreement signed in 2002 committed the congregations to contributing to the costs by transferring property, cash and other resources, totalling €128 million. Relative to the Department's then forecasted expenditure figure of €250 million, this would have represented an approximate share of 50:50, but the congregations' legal commitment was capped under the terms of the agreement. In the event, property assets comprehended by the indemnity agreement, valued at around €21 million, still remained to be transferred to the State at the end of 2015. Following publication of the Ryan report in 2009, the congregations offered additional cash and property, valued at €353 million, but this was not legally enforceable. The combined offer was revised down to €226 million in September 2015. Six years after the publication of the Ryan report, only €85 million, or 38% of the remaining offer of €226 million, had been received by the State.

To date, the congregations' combined commitments and offers represent the equivalent of about 23% of the overall expenditure in responding to child abuse in the institutions. Contributions actually received from the congregations up to the end of 2015 represented about 13% of the cost. Some further assets and cash were received during 2016 and the Accounting Officer will be able to brief the committee on the current position.

My report includes a number of process recommendations which have been accepted by the Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. They include a recommendation that the Department should ensure a formal evaluation is carried out of the redress scheme so as to learn lessons for the future and assess the effectiveness of the supports provided for former residents and their dependants. I am glad to note the agreement of the two Accounting Officers to these recommendations.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McCarthy. We received a letter from Mr. Ó Foghlú on 10 April 2017. In respect of that correspondence which we considered just a few moments ago before we invited him in, we were discussing Waterford Institute of Technology and FeedHenry, a matter he deals with in his letter. All I ask him, because he is here in person, is to liaise with the HEA and perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General in due course. We need a full investigation into the State's total investment in the organisation before it was ultimately spun out. Colleagues of Mr. Ó Foghlú from the HEA and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to take him through the detail. We just want to raise that issue with him and ask him to be conscious of it. We are not here to discuss it with him today, but it is an issue to which we will be coming back separately on another day.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I thank the Chairman. I will do that.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú may proceed with his opening statement.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to make an opening statement on the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report and the annual accounts of Caranua. The Department has also provided the committee with briefing material in advance of the meeting.

Special report No. 96 is a welcome overview of matters pertaining to the response to the terrible abuse of children that took place in industrial schools and similar residential institutions. It summarises the position on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Both bodies have almost completed their work and will be dissolved in the near future. The report also summarises other redress-related expenditure and provides a comprehensive summary of how the costs of the various components of redress have been funded, including the contribution being made by the religious congregations that managed many of the institutions.

The report covers the period to the end of December 2015. There have been developments since, particularly in terms of the contributions of cash and property and also in relation to expenditure. Since January 2016, a further €12.4 million in cash contributions has been received under the 2009 voluntary offers from religious congregations. In addition, eight further property transfers have now been fully completed, four under the 2002 indemnity agreement and four under the 2009 voluntary offers. The Department was advised earlier this week that one of these property transfers had been completed. This information was received after the briefing note and my initial opening statement was provided for the committee.

Projected expenditure on redress is expected to reach €1.5 billion, of which over €1.44 billion has been expended to date. The bulk of this expenditure, some €1.24 billion, relates to the redress scheme operated by the Residential Institutions Redress Board. This expenditure is in the forecasted range as set out in previous reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under the scheme which was established in 2002, some 15,600 awards have been made, with an average figure of €62,250 per recipient.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Deputy Connolly, I wish to clarify a point with the Secretary General. He stated that Caranua was established "to utilise up to €110 million in contributions offered in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan report to help meet the needs of former residents". Is that an additional €110 million to the figures he previously mentioned or is it €110 million out of the contributions he previously mentioned?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The €110 million is from the additional voluntary offers made by the congregations post the Ryan report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not an additional €110 million.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is not; it is within the figures we mentioned.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is within the figures. The Department has not received €110 million in cash to date as a result of the additional voluntary contributions made after the Ryan report. The Secretary General stated that the voluntary contributions in place "stands at €193 million, of which ...€97 million ..." has been received or is outstanding and some of it is in property. How much cash has the Department received from that or is that earlier cash?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am just getting the precise figure of cash post the Ryan report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not cash post the Ryan report-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have received €96 million post the Ryan report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but cash in the aftermath of the Ryan report.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, €96 million.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Money might have been received post the Ryan report.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

In the aftermath of the Ryan report, the figure is €96 million.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has been received.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly the figure I calculated. How can there be €110 million in that account?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There is a further €14 million to be received that has not yet been received, but which the congregations have committed to providing to us.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witness is telling me at this point in time, and we will have Caranua in separately, that Caranua is working on a fund of €110 million. That is accepted. He is now saying that they have not even gotten the €110 million yet.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have commitments from the congregations-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am talking about money received. We know about the commitments. Caranua has not actually received €110 million.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No. We have received €96 million of the €110 million.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witness did not highlight that in his opening statement. He gave us figures, figures, figures. I have been adding and subtracting to try to work out percentages. The witness now says that I am right.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Chairman. It is in Caranua's opening statement.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine, but this is the parent body. We will come to Caranua. From the Department's point of view, Caranua is the organisation handling the €110 million. The onus was on the witness to get the €110 million for it. It has not got that yet.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

With respect, in the opening statement I said, "of which contributions of cash and property amounting to some €97 million, or 51%, have been realised". In the briefing note that we provided last week, we made it clear that a total of €92 million in cash offered by the congregations in 2009 has been received.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the full €110 million in cash has not yet been received by Caranua?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to put that on the record. The speakers have indicated in the following sequence-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to clarify, my understanding is that there is a €13.8 million deficit that is due over the next two years and that Caranua has received €96.2 million. Some €51.9 million of that has been spent. That was my understanding.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know. I thank the Deputy. However, with all of the controversy, Caranua has not even gotten what it was supposed to get at this point.

The speakers are as follows: Deputy Connolly, 20 minutes; Deputy Cullinane, 15 minutes; and Deputies Catherine Murphy and Josepha Madigan have also indicated in that sequence. I call Deputy Connolly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to clarify, we are not dealing with Caranua now.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is okay. I am not going to ask questions about Caranua now. I am going to reserve them.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not until afterwards.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá fáilte ar ais roimh Mr. Ó Foghlú and his team. Before I start asking questions - I will ask a few and try to stay away from statements - I think it is important to place why we are here with a redress board, a commission of inquiry and the conclusions of the Ryan report. I hope the witnesses have read the conclusions and I hope Caranua has read them. There are 43 conclusions and recommendations. The report is enormous. I am going to ask if the Department has changed its attitude. From the 2002 indemnity, there is still money outstanding 14 years later. Conclusion 6.03 states that "the deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools." That is not referring to the Secretary General personally, but to the Department.

Recommendation 7.03 states:

The Congregations need to examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse. They must ask themselves how they came to tolerate breaches of their own rules and, when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it. They must examine their attitude to neglect and emotional abuse and, more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead of those of the children who were in their care.

It is very important to place this in context. We will be looking at Caranua and at the refusal to entertain another redress board for the mother and baby homes. That is the context this is in.

With regard to the redress board, the figures from the Comptroller and Auditor General seem very high at €1.2 billion or something. The average payout to the survivors was €60,000. Is that not right?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

€62,500.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By any standards, that is a very average payout. Is that not right?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It was an appropriate payout under the terms of the scheme, but since the scheme was implemented, the Government made a further decision and introduced Caranua to make further services available on top-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to try to ask questions for the 20 minutes. We will deal with Caranua this afternoon.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

But-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Compared to the courts, what is the average payout in the courts? The witness does have that information, because some cases went to court and the average payout was about €120,000 to €130,000. Is that not right for the ones that went to court?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The average payout of the ones that went to the courts was higher, yes. We can get the figure for the Deputy.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

More than double.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, but within that there are a range of different types of findings and-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. I am not querying any of that.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am not arguing that €62,500 is a huge amount of money to be paid, given the suffering that the people underwent.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And given the findings of the Ryan report.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. I am not arguing that.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the scheme of things, when the €1.2 billion is being quoted by the press, it is important to point out that on average people were getting €60,000, while many got €20,000. Many failed to tell their story because they were not able. Such was the abuse, they simply were not able to tell of what had happened to them. I will ask the witness a question before I get into this. Does the witness's Department have a view on the proposed new redress scheme proposed by the commission sitting at the moment on the mother and baby homes?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The commission on mother and baby homes is under the aegis of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not my question. My question was whether the Department has a view.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Department does not have a view separate to that of Government. The Government decision in that regard was announced on Tuesday, which was - in my understanding, though it is not under my direct responsibility - to allow the commission to complete its report in advance of considering the redress.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the witness to listen. Did the Department of Education and Skills give feedback to the Minister or to anyone on the proposal in the interim report that the existing redress or a new redress scheme be made available to those children who were in mother and baby homes unaccompanied? Did the Department have a view on that and give feedback to say that a redress was not appropriate?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is our responsibility to feed into Government decisions and considerations. Our views are not separate from that. They are a part of that overall consideration. That is a matter for Government decision, which is a whole of Government consideration-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. I am still specifically asking because-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The redress scheme is not open. It has been closed. It was closed on a statutory basis following the Government decision post-Ryan report. It is not that there is an open scheme to which this can be applied. It would be a matter of amending legislation.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Theoretically, it is still open and has not completed its business on outstanding issues.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

But it is closed for new applicants.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am still asking the witness a specific question. Did the Department give feedback on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of setting up another redress board or extending this one in relation to the specific recommendation from the interim report on mother and baby homes?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Department's view is in support of the Government's view that the redress scheme is closed to new applicants.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And that a new redress scheme was not appropriate?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

New redress arrangements are not a matter for this Department.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why am I asking that? First of all, it is very important. Second, the predictions of the Department of Education and Skills were totally wrong on the time the commission would take and the cost of it. Is that not correct?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There were severe underestimations of the time and cost, yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out how severe they were. Was €250 million the estimated cost of the redress board?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. The estimates of costs were based on a lower number of anticipated applicants who would benefit from redress and a lower average cost associated with redress. We did not have the information available to us when the decision was made.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the witness there at the time?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Was I in the Department? No. I was a member of staff of the Department on secondment to agencies outside the Department at the time and not working in this area.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The estimate was made for €250 million and it ended up at €1.2 billion. Who was responsible for that forecast that was totally inaccurate, unreasonable and not based on reality? Who was responsible for that?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Those estimates were made within the Department. There was a number of challenges-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that not totally incompetent?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There was a number of challenges to accurately estimating the costs that would arise from it.

There were no comparisons to draw on at the time, either in respect of the work of the commission or a redress scheme. A number of legal challenges faced by the commission caused delays. The initial plan had been for the commission to do the work and then for redress to follow. Obviously, that was changed. In the case of the commission, it unsuccessfully sought to limit legal representation and, therefore, legal costs of third parties gave rise to additional legal costs for it. Initial estimates of expenditure had been made for different reasons and the numbers were much higher than we had envisaged at the time.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

To add to what the Secretary General has said and to give an indication the difficulty the Department faced in estimating it, in July 2005 we had just over 7,000 applications for redress and the redress board had been in operation for several years at the point. We might have expected that we were coming towards the end of that. The closing date was 16 December 2005. By the closing date, the number had increased to 14,768. It had doubled, therefore, in a five-month period.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How would that take the Department by surprise?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

It took us by surprise because the scheme had been well up and running at that point - the legislation had been enacted in 2002 - and had been well advertised. After several years of that, we would have expected that we had the bulk of the applications.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was totally incompetent and I rarely use words like that at this committee. To forecast the cost at €250 million and have the outturn at €1.2 billion shows me that the Department did not conduct a proper analysis. I refer back to the deferential attitude to the religious. It seems that persisted when officials were negotiating and making the indemnity agreement, to which I will return, and their predictions. That deferential attitude did not change and led them to making the wrong predictions. They can correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

The Secretary General has explained some of the factors. The overarching difficulty was knowing what the numbers would be and what the level of award would be. We could make some estimate of the level of award based on the fact that there had been a compensation advisory committee, which had been commissioned to do work on that and, therefore, we had an idea of what the range would be but we had little data on how many people might apply. In the absence of that, it was extremely difficult. Once we had those numbers, from 2004 and 2005 onwards, we were better able to predict what the outturn was likely to be and, from that date on, predicted it accurately, despite the fact that we did not know where in the range the awards would have been made. However, we knew what the numbers would be.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The indemnity agreement signed in 2002 by the then Minister, Mr. Woods, was for €128 million. How much is outstanding? Is it correct that this is a legally binding agreement as opposed to the promise made a few years later?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That is correct.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much of the €128 million is outstanding?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Eleven properties remain to be transferred-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What figure is outstanding?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

-----which have an approximate value of €15 million.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That updates the Comptroller and Auditor General's statement; it is higher.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So €15 million is all that is outstanding

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Of properties.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not confuse me with properties. There was €128 million. The value outstanding is €15 million and everything else has been transferred over. Is that correct?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why has it taken that long?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The transfer of properties is a complicated matter which takes a number of years to work through. The first and most important thing is that the properties are being used for the purposes we wish to see them used for in order that there is no lack of use by the State of the properties or no lack of change of use by the-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Mr. Ó Foghlú give us a list of the properties?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. We do that every six months in writing to the committee. In completing a property transfer, there is a standard conveyancing practice. The indemnity agreement provided that any transfers must be of good and marketable title commensurate with prudent standards of conveyancing practice in Ireland. In many cases, given the age of the properties, the history and title of the property has been proved to be complex.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú should please not list out stuff to me. I have only 20 minutes.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am trying to explain this. This is complex and we also went to Government and got the Government to agree to ensure that the good and marketable title was not an issue. We had to slightly lower the standard so that we could transfer ownership.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fourteen years later, €15 million is outstanding. Mr. Ó Foghlú's answer to that is it is complex and the properties are being used. He will give us a list of the properties. The Comptroller and Auditor General recommended that the Department should vigorously pursue this and Mr. Ó'Foghlú said it is doing that.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We are doing that.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Comptroller and Auditor General has made a number of recommendations regarding a look back assessment of the commission and the costs. Has that started?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why not?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have started to begin to think about how we would undertake it. We have had an initial conversation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but we knew that there would be considerations here, for example, and we wanted to hear the views of the committee in looking at it. We have not completed the work and we did not want to start it until the work was fully completed. It has not been fully completed with all the transfers but we are committed to starting it.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are serious lessons to be learned. Mr. Ó Foghlú has accepted that and he has agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendations that the indemnity agreement be followed up and that there should be a look back assessment. I would have expected that to have started given mother and baby homes and other institutions need to be looked at, that officials would have learned from this and that they would be coming to the committee telling us what lessons they had learned about their predictions, which were inaccurate, in terms of time, money and legal costs. On occasion, 30% of the commission's expenditure was accounted for by legal costs. It was less for the inquiry. There were many examples throughout the world of different commissions and ways of doing things. Is it correct that the idea behind the redress scheme was to cut down on legal costs?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That is correct.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department has not conducted a look back assessment, yet the Government has said there cannot be another commission while specifically citing the cost of this commission as a reason for that. I do not expect Mr. Ó Foghlú to comment on that. None of the 15,000 men and women who went before the commission was at fault. Is that right?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Absolutely.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is important for the record. They had been systematically abused according to the Ryan report. The average payout was little. When the Government, therefore, refers to the major cost of a redress board, it has nothing to do with the applicants.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It has to do with the scale of the abuse.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Ó Foghlú. It has to do with the scale and the systematic abuse. The Department has a role in examining this quickly and learning lessons. The Comptroller and Auditor General has published many reports on an ongoing basis highlighting deficiencies and the Department has not responded. It has not completed a review. Mr. Ó Foghlú has not told me when the review will start and what lessons have been learned.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I can talk about lessons that have been learned. The Deputy has summarised the nature of many of the lessons. The uncertainty at the start about the numbers who were to be included was a key element. The planning in respect of having a commission in advance of planning for the redress and the scale, difficulty and challenge of that is part of what we will have to look at. We have also learned about the legal costs. We tried and succeeded in reducing these costs significantly from comparative costs in the courts but we will have to look at how that can be further worked on for the future.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the figure for the voluntary agreement? How did that arise? Did the Department meet the representatives of the organisations and agree this?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

A number of steps were taken following the Ryan report with the congregations. It was initially led by the Taoiseach at the time with a view to having a collective engagement with the orders. We had a range of different meetings at different times.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was this in 2009?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, following up from 2009.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did officials from the Department of Education and Skills meet with the religious organisations?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

As I said, it was initially led by the Taoiseach at Government level. I can give the committee a list of the various meetings that were undertaken.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be great afterwards, when Mr. Ó Foghlú is giving the committee the list of the properties. These informal meetings took place. Is that right?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Pardon?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These informal meetings took place.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No. Informal would be an understatement.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there minutes for all those meetings?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am not sure whether there were minutes but they were formal meetings which led to commitments from the congregations to make further offers.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Ó Foghlú not sure if there are minutes of those meetings?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have not seen meetings of those meetings, no.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they were formal meetings there would have been. That is okay. These are important questions because some agreement-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am not saying there were not minutes of those meetings. I am just saying that I have not seen them.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. Will Mr. Ó Foghlú check that for us?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a result of that series of formal meetings a figure was agreed.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No. A figure was not agreed. Each of the congregations was asked to make further offers. Many of the congregations responded. I have a note here that there were meetings on 4 June and 24 June 2009.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not use my time with the meetings. I will just get a list from Mr. Ó Foghlú. I want the outcomes of those meetings. What was the figure?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The outcome was, as I mentioned in my opening statement-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Ó Foghlú remind me? I am sorry.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The original offer, which included the values of land as identified by the orders themselves, was €480 million.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was €480 million. That was the original offer at one of these meetings.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Sorry, that was the two together. This was not at one of those meetings. This is from when the congregations came back individually. My apologies, I was adding in the €128 million there. The original offer, was €352.6 million, but that offer has been adjusted downwards to €192.8 million as a result of the Christian Brothers' land offer being withdrawn.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figure is €193 million.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, €193 million.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much of that has been given over?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Some €97 million.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just €97 million. Is it 50%? It is 50%.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just 50% since 2009. Okay. How is the Department of Education and Skills pursuing that?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have agreements in place in which the orders have indicated to us the time when they plan to give us the remaining cash elements, before the end of 2018. We are working through each of the property transfers with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there documents showing all of this?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There are.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they freely available to us as Deputies?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

They are.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great. So, 50% of what they promised in 2009 has not been paid over.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

When the Deputy says paid over, properties can be in use. A property's use may not change. A property may be given by an order to the State. That does not mean that the building's use will change as a result of the order transferring the property.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would there be many properties that would remain in the same role?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There would be a number, yes, under both the initial agreement and the second offer.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if the Chairman is looking at me to stop.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has an extra minute remaining. She is on her last minute.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not realise I had that time. I would not have been so hard on pushing Mr. Ó Foghlú to answer so quickly. I was trying to get them in. Why has it taken so long?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Working through the issues with the CSSO on the range of properties offered under the voluntary offers is the issue. We are progressing some of them. One of them, for example, came over in the last few days. We are progressing them all but it is a big volume of work for the CSSO, working on behalf of the State.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first big problem is value for money. From what I have heard from people who have been through the system, and I have had that privilege in a different life as well, the big problem is that I know when the figure - €1.2 billion or €1.5 billion - is mentioned, it seems as if the survivors are getting it. I have mentioned this already and I am going back to it. That is not the case at all. It is my experience on the ground that a minute part of their story is being told. Mr. Ó Foghlú has acknowledged the abuse was systemic. The State was integral to the extent of that abuse. It has taken a very long time for the State to admit that. Is that not right? The apology was in 1999.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The initial Taoiseach's apology was in 1999, but I think the publication of the Ryan report was the culmination of the recognition of the horrific abuse that took place. It led to the debate and discussion around the issue, the measures that have been taken and it informed changes of practice.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to think that but then we fast-forward to 2009 and we have the Minister for Education and Science of the time making a statement in the Dáil that the State had no input into the Magdalen laundries. That has since been disproved and we have had the Magdalen report. Now we are up to the mother and baby homes and again the State is doing its damnedest. My question to Mr. Ó Foghlú is at what point does an institution learn, if ever? We had an apology in 1999. We had a Minister for Education and Science in 2009 saying that the State had no role in the Magdalen laundries. Now, on the mother and baby homes, the Government has been fast out of the trap in saying that there would be no redress. Why? Because this redress scheme was so expensive.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Neither the Magdalen laundries or the mother and baby homes are funded by the Department of Education and Skills. They are not under the aegis of the Department, are not inspected by the Department, nor were they. The work on the Magdalen laundries was led by the Department of Justice and Equality. I am not personally accountable for that to this committee, however, I do see what the Deputy is saying in terms of the joined-up nature of the impact and the role of the State in relation to all of these. In each case the State engaged with the people who had been in the various places. For example, in the Magdalen laundries there was the McAleese report which was followed by Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations. The State worked that through. On the commission on mother and baby homes, we are all finding the horrific nature of what went on very difficult to see as we learn about it on the news and in official meetings. That is why the Government has established a commission. I would not say that the State is avoiding dealing with these, but I would say that it is not my responsibility to talk about the role of the State here in that regard.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Mr. Ó Foghlú's role to talk about the Department of Education and Skills. It was his role to answer questions about what he said in respect of the proposed redress scheme for the mother and baby homes.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I answered that as best I could.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, he did, but in respect of all of these matters the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Justice and Equality and every single other Department were involved at different levels. My point is that it is denial, denial until the institution and each Department is absolutely forced to do something.

My final question is in relation to the mother and baby homes. It relates to redress. This has been used as an obstacle to a possible redress. In all the meetings I attended, none of the survivors asked for redress. What they asked for was truth and information so that they would be empowered. That has not happened. That is the problem. The redress is a separate issue entirely. I forget the question I was going to ask so I will come back to it.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following directly on from that I want to clarify something before I call Deputy Cullinane. After the Ryan report there were formal meetings with the congregations led by the Taoiseach-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

They were initially led by the Taoiseach.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----with the Minister and senior officials with the congregations. Mr. Ó Foghlú has the dates of those meetings.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the minutes of those meetings to hand?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I do not have the minutes with me.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking if there are minutes.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have not seen minutes of them, but I assume that there minutes for most of them. I have not seen those minutes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly the point I am coming to. We have the Taoiseach, the Minister and officials. Arising from all of that, and we know the scale of the money, the C&AG did a special report, which we are now discussing. As part of that report last year he would have to-ed and fro-ed to Mr. Ó Foghlú with his recommendations and Mr. Ó Foghlú's responses to those recommendations are in there.

How could Mr. Ó Foghlú have responded to the Comptroller and Auditor General properly if he is now telling us he has not even seen the minutes of this meeting between the Government and the religious institution? How could he have properly responded to this report? How could he possibly come in here today knowing a key item for discussion was the second offer being made by the religious institution after the Ryan report and say he knows there was a meeting but has not seen the minutes?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have summaries of the outcomes of the meeting with me and I have seen the memoranda for Government that were prepared arising from it.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So now Mr. Ó Foghlú is saying he has seen a summary of meetings and memoranda but three or four times today he has told us he has not seen the minutes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He said that quite specifically.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have not seen-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to be straight.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be saying to all Accounting Officers that we should not have to drag information from them. We expect people to come in here and co-operate fully. I am amazed and I find it extraordinary that Mr. O Foghlú did not take it upon himself to see the minutes of the meetings at which several hundred million was being discussed between Mr. Ó Foghlú's Department and the religious orders. I find it extraordinary that he did not make it his business to see those minutes so that when he comes before the Committee of Public Accounts he is fully informed of what went on. We are here to discuss with Mr. Ó Foghlú what went on. He is saying he has not even seen the minutes. He is presuming there are minutes. Now he is saying he has seen a summary of the meetings so somebody must have been there to record a summary.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have reviewed the correspondence we received from the congregations, which is the correspondence and follow-on from the meetings. What they offered and how we engaged with them on the offer were very important for me in my preparation and very important for the Department.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I know definitely if minutes were taken?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I cannot answer any further than I already have.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Mr. Ó Foghlú's job to be here.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What were the summaries based on?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What were the summaries based on?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The notes prepared for me indicated that at the meeting on 4 June 2009 the Taoiseach called on the congregations to make further substantial-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not read out the notes. We will ask for a copy of those notes in a moment. How many meetings were there? What dates were they on?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Taoiseach and Ministers met with the representatives of the congregations on 4 June 2009 and on 24 June 2009.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What subsequent meetings happened?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Officials from the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Education and Skills met with representatives on behalf of the congregations on 7 July 2009.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú's officials met again on 7 July 2009.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, and officials from the Department of the Taoiseach.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Carry on.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

On 15 April, the Taoiseach and Ministers met with representatives of the 18 congregations.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the following year.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, 15 April 2010.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is four meetings so far.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There is more. Officials of the Department met with representatives of each of the congregations in May 2010. There were follow-on meetings with other congregations in March 2011. In July 2011, the Minister for Education and Skills at the time, former Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and officials met with representatives of as many of the congregations that were able to attend on 22 July. There were then a number of follow-up meetings between the Minister and a number of orders in November 2011 and December 2011. Officials met another order in February 2012, another one in May 2014 and one in June 2014.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were at least 15 meetings, from what Mr. Ó Foghlú has read out, yet he is saying he does not even know if there are minutes of those meetings.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

What-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú is saying he cannot answer.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I said I understand there are minutes for most of the meetings but I have not seen them.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has anyone beside Mr. Ó Foghlú seen or taken minutes of those meetings?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understood Mr. Ó Foghlú did not know that there were minutes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dragging this out now. We are not finished. I am not eating into Deputy Cullinane's time. He is the next speaker. Has any of the people with Mr. Ó Foghlú seen them? This is very important. The letter Mr. Ó Foghlú got from the committee inviting him to this meeting since the Committee of Public Accounts was established made it very clear that when an Accounting Officer is attending and information is requested during the course of the meeting, he or she should have somebody on hand to go back and check the Department and get something e-mailed or sent over. It should be done during the course of the meeting, because we are here for several hours, so we do not have to wait for it in the post in a week's time. We need to know. This is extraordinary. I do not understand how Mr. Ó Foghlú performed his function as an Accounting Officer for the Department of Education and Skills, when this amount of money is concerned and he has been able to respond to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report - his responses are in the report - yet when we tease him out about the meetings, he says he does not know whether there were minutes taken and that he has never seen them. How did he adequately make those responses to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report if he does not know whether or not there were minutes taken and without taking the trouble to look at them? We are talking about hundreds of millions and Mr. Ó Foghlú does not even know if minutes were taken of thee 15 meetings he has referred to? Can Mr. Ó Foghlú ask his colleagues if minutes were taken? I am asking him to ask his colleagues to give us the answer. Were minutes taken?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

I was not at those meetings. They were prior to my time within the division in the Department.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which was what year?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

When did I join?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

I have been in the Department since 1998 but in this division since late-2015 so it postdates these events by some time.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are here today to answer the Committee of Public Accounts about a special report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and they are telling me they have not checked the files to know whether there are minutes of meetings there or not.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

I-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Tattan not see how it is utterly unsatisfactory for his Department to come in here in this state of unpreparedness? How could anybody make a public appearance and answer the Comptroller and Auditor General''s report in public and say they have not even checked to know if there are minutes of meetings? I find it very difficult. Based on what we are hearing today, the witnesses' evidence will be inadequate. No matter how good or bad it is, it is inadequate before we start. Have the witnesses established if there were minutes?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

There are certainly minutes of some of the meetings. We cannot say with precision if there were minutes of all meetings.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they easily obtainable?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

In some cases, they are online so they are available publicly. They are on the Department's website.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So now Mr. Tattan is telling us they are online yet he has never seen them.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

We can undertake to provide them to the committee.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the very minimum. We are here on behalf of a lot of people. We are not here just for ourselves. I am shocked by the deferential treatment the witnesses gave. They should have shown a bit of deferential treatment to the Committee of Public Accounts and come here ready to answer the questions. Do the witnesses not understand our frustration? We are coming across a bit angry but I am dismayed. It is 15 years on, eight years after the Ryan report and the witnesses are coming in here. In the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report, we have had a chapter in 2002, a chapter in some other year and we now have a special report. The witnesses have arrived here today and Mr. Tattan is saying he has information online and the accounting officer has said he never saw those minutes. How are we expected to get to the bottom of this if the witnesses are so unprepared for today's meeting?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have undertaken, together with the team, extensive preparation for the meeting. We have spent a large amount of time and there have been very many internal meetings and some external meetings, in preparing to respond to the Comptroller and Auditor General's draft report, in preparing for the publication of the report and in preparation for this. It is not something we have taken lightly. Preparation for the Committee of Public Accounts is not something I take lightly as Accounting Officer. It is sometimes difficult to know what information may be sought when we are here. I have brought two folders full of information with me and have read through those, reviewed them and spent a huge amount of my personal time and my team's time preparing. I apologise for not having the minutes with me and for not being able to answer the question. Please be assured that I and the Department take my role as Accounting Officer and the Department's preparations for the Committee of Public Accounts very seriously.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The criticism is not that the minutes are not in the folder. The criticism is that Mr. Ó Foghlú says he has not even seen the minutes and does not know whether they actually exist. That is the criticism. It is not that we wanted them to hand here but we do not know how Mr. Ó Foghlú could be fully briefed to attend here. He said there was a series of at least 15 meetings on what happened after the Ryan report in which hundreds of millions was discussed. Mr. Ó Foghlú said the Christian Brothers withdrew a substantial portion of that.

We wanted to know what was said at those meetings and Mr. Ó Foghlú is telling us nobody in the whole preparation went to look back at the minutes of those meetings.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I make a comment?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, I have made my point.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that, I asked were there minutes because it was very serious. It was not to embarrass Mr. Ó Foghlú. A big decision was made in relation to a sum of money, some of which was since taken back. It is a matter of accountability.

I had my turn, but it is extraordinary that Mr. Ó Foghlú could not give an answer that there are minutes, and that he tells afterwards it is pulled out. That is difficult. We are back to trust. The original estimates for all of the money were wrong. Is that not correct? The original indemnity was €128 million. It was a totally wrong figure. The Department was wrong on the numbers of people coming forward. Then, in 2009, a deal is done. We are simply asking questions about that deal and there are no minutes. There are minutes. The minutes are online. It is a question of accountability and trust, particularly when the figures are being misused by the Government to justify other decisions.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Secretary General understand where we are at?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

To be clear, no deal was done in 2009. Just to be clear, offers were made by the orders. No deal was done. The Government is seeking increased offers.

In relation to the offer that was withdrawn by the Christian Brothers, that was the subject of correspondence in which it was withdrawn. It was not withdrawn at a meeting. I have reviewed that correspondence. Of course, we can provide copies of it.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure during the course of the meeting somebody will get into the specifics of that. Does Mr. Ó Foghlú appreciate the points we are making-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I understand the points.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that there was a series of meeting and Mr. Ó Foghlú does not know whether there are minutes or not, and if they were there he has not seen them, and then somebody says some of them are online.

When the Minister was going into the Dáil to deal with this, how was Mr. Ó Foghlú preparing parliamentary replies, which Mr. Ó Foghlú, as Secretary General, must sign-off on, for the Minister if Mr. Ó Foghlú had not even an awareness of whether ministerial meetings were happening? The Department provides lots of briefing notes. I question the whole procedure in relation to the public accountability, both in the Dáil Chamber and in here, specifically today. Mr. Ó Foghlú, as the Secretary General, does not even know whether there were minutes or not. I do not mean to personalise it. It is a comment on how Accounting Officers should know the key facts of whether meetings happened or not.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There is absolute clarity on the offers that were made, and absolute clarity on the consideration of the offers, what was refused and what was changed. There is absolute clarity on that. The Department has not misinformed the Minister. I apologise if the Chairman feels I am not fulfilling my role in coming here and I will seek to endeavour to learn-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Get the information.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

-----from what the Chairman has said.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make an observation first. Before I do, can Mr. Ó Foghlú elaborate on who exactly is with him here on behalf of his team? We have their names, but what are their roles within the Department?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Certainly. To my left, Mr. Dalton Tattan is assistant secretary. He is in a division that covers social inclusion, special education-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had that.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

-----redress and NEPS. Catherine Hynes, principal officer in the redress area, accompanies him. To my right is Mr. Martin Hanevy. He is the assistant secretary in the schools division - the funding of schools and so on. As part of that also, Mr. Hanevy's role relates to the child protection arrangements that are being put in place in the schools sector at the moment. To Mr. Hanevy's right, is Ms Mary Cregg. She is in the planning and building unit. She is the principal officer in charge of site acquisitions, property transfers and property management.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I take it all of the witnesses have read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, or have they? Can I ask that question first?

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

Yes.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everybody has read it, okay.

I have read the report, probably three or four times at this point. It is a troubling report for all sorts of reasons. It is difficult for us, even to put questions in relation to costs, because nobody is disputing, as Mr. Ó Foghlú stated earlier, that every cent that was given to survivors was entirely appropriate. The issue is who pays, and the issues, in the case of any questions that we put, are around process.

I have to say to Mr. Ó Foghlú that, after reading the report several times and taking on board the gravity of the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report, I found Mr. Ó Foghlú's opening statement to be a bland account of the issues. That is just the first point I would make. I wonder if the Department has any concept of self-reflection, accountability, responsibility and recognition of failures because it does not jump out at all from Mr. Ó Foghlú's opening statement. In fact, quite the opposite is so. That is extraordinary. That is merely my view and I will state that first.

The following is the first question I will put to Mr. Ó Foghlú. I want to focus on policy here. The policy was initially that the congregations that ran the institutions would share equal liability of whatever the overall cost would be. Would Mr. Ó Foghlú confirm that was the policy?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The initial policy and the decision of the Government was actually to provide redress. The decision to provide redress was made, and that the State would ensure that redress was provided was not made at the same time as a decision on shared liability.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, that does not answer my question. What I am going to do is-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I am not trying not to answer the Deputy's question.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----follow the logic of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Okay.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not me saying this. I want to be clear on the facts. On page 11, in the summary, under Contributions from Religious Congregations, the last paragraph states:

Government policy is that the congregations who ran the institutions would share equal liability of the €1.52 billion cost of redress i.e. contribute €760 million.

The point of that, I would imagine, is that the policy at the time is that there would be equal liability, which is the question I put.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Deputy asked me what was the policy. That asks what is the policy. There are important distinctions. The policy is that there would be an equal contribution. That is the policy, but at the initial establishment of redress, the policy was not that. That is what I am saying.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The policy was not-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The policy was not-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú should be very clear. Will he say that again, in terms of the original policy?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

When the decision was made on redress, the decision was made that Government had to make sure that redress was provided and the Government committed to providing redress. My understanding - this is from reviewing the files in detail - is that the Government's actions in setting up a redress scheme were not motivated to any significant extent by considerations about, even at the time, the balance of liability between the State and the orders.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At what point was it Government policy that there should be equal liability? When did that become Government policy, and how?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Once the decision was made in principle, the decision was then made to seek to engage subsequently with the orders in relation to-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking about engagements. This is a straightforward question. The language used in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is straightforward where it states, "Government policy is that the congregations who ran the institutions would share equal liability ...", and it determines 50% of the overall cost of redress, which results in a figure of €760 million. My question is when did it become Government policy that there should be equal liability.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

At the Government meeting post-Ryan.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Post-Ryan?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

On 25 February 2010.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pre-Ryan then, it was not Government policy to ensure that there was equal liability.

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

To assist, it is correct it was not Government policy to have a 50:50 split until following the Ryan report and then the panel report that looked into whether the congregations could afford to offer more. To add a slight addition just to be aware of, in the context of the indemnity agreement, when the indemnity agreement was being considered with the congregations back in 2001 and early 2002, the view was that there should be an attempt to seek a 50:50 subject to a cap, which was €100 million.

That became the Government's negotiating position with the congregations at that time.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand all that. It has been recognised by the witnesses that it is Government policy that it should have been an equal liability. Has that been achieved?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What percentage of the liability has been met by the religious congregations so far? I refer to what has been paid, not what has been offered. How much has been handed over? Is €194 million an accurate figure comprising voluntary contributions and the indemnity agreement?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I think it is €210 million.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does that equate to in percentage terms in the context of the overall cost?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

A sum of €210 million out of €1.5 billion.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that not well below 50%?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, well below.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the initial indemnity agreement was put in place, was there a relationship between the payments the congregations made to the indemnity given? They were to pay €128 million. Was there a relationship between that amount being paid and the congregations being indemnified?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is a collective agreement and, therefore, the indemnification applies to all the congregations. The collective agreement is that the congregations will contribute the figure that the Deputy has indicated.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have paid €106 million of the €128 million.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The remaining transfers are property transfers. They have paid all the cash amount.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they legally obliged to pay the €128 million?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

They have signed up to a legal agreement-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because that was part of the indemnity.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But the Department has not got all of that yet.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No, but the buildings are in the use of the State.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But the Department has not got all of that.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Mr. Ó Foghlú say earlier that the Department expects to get all of the €128 million by 2018?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No, I did not. I have not put a deadline on the land transfers. That was about the cash transfers for the post-Ryan offers. We do not have a target date; it is a matter of working through each of the remaining properties. However, we are working with them and each of them is progressing. There are challenges in some of them.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The €128 million was based on an estimated cost of €250 million. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted in his report that the original forecast was for everything, including the cost of the commission, redress, supports and legal fees. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

At that stage, the focus was on redress. It was not envisaged that there would be a wider panoply of services. I would mention as well-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the commission and for the redress?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, at the same time the commission of inquiry was not expected to cost what it went on to cost. They are ballpark figures.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a ballpark figure of €250 million, which will be €1.5 billion before this is finished. Is that correct?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Building on what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, the overall cost will be €1.5 billion. Obviously, there are some expenditures within that such as the maximum of €110 million for Caranua, which would not have been fully envisaged at the start.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even if that is stripped out, given the estimate was €250 million, the cost will be multiples of that and we can all accept that.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Absolutely.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The €128 million payout that was part of the indemnity agreement with the congregations was based on the forecast of €250 million, which was dramatically wrong. There is a huge variance between what was forecast and what will eventually be the cost. How was the forecasting done? Earlier in response to Teachta Connolly, Mr. Ó Foghlú referred to a lower number of anticipated claimants.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The initial estimate of the redress, which we have looked through, in October 2000 was the number of claimants being unlikely to exceed 2,000 and an average award of IR£35,000.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was that based on?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The level of information available at the time. It was subsequently revised upwards to IR£200 million.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Information from whom or from where exactly?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

From the cases in the courts and from the limited information that was available at the time. There were a large number of cases in the courts. This gets to the kernel of the point that there was not sufficient information available at the start to know about the costs. These were revised upwards, as Mr. Tattan said, over the years.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will stop Mr. Ó Foghlú there because I do not want retrospective excuses. In real time, when somebody was making a decision and estimating a cost, what information did he or she have at the time? One can look back afterwards and say X, Y and Z was not envisaged. What information did the Department have at its disposal? This is not provided in the briefing document or in the opening statement. How did the Department come up with the initial forecast of €250 million? This is important because this is the reason we are only going to get 14% of the overall cost from the religious congregations. The amount committed to by them in the initial indemnity agreement, which they are legally obliged to pay, is based on the €250 million forecast.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I refer to a Committee Public of Accounts report in 2005 when it looked at this issue. The costing that went into the €250 million estimate was based on the number of cases in the courts at the time because it was very much focused on the courts. The belief was at the time that the cases in the court would feed into the redress and it would meet the need of people based on the courts. The average settlement figure used at the time was €127,000. When the Department met the committee about this prior to its 2005 report, it indicated it had used all the sources of information available to it in calculating the liability and, particularly, the extent to which people had applied to appear before the Laffoy commission and the freedom of information cases. That was the approach that was taken.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But the Department got it drastically wrong in terms of the cost.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There can be no disputing that.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because there can be no disputing that, when in this country do people take responsibility for that? Nobody to my knowledge has been held to account for that. Where is the transparency? Mr. Ó Foghlú is the Accounting Officer. He may not have been in that position at the time but given the State and the Department got this so wrong and the taxpayer is paying contributions that should have been paid by the religious congregations, he can understand why we are concerned and why we want to make sure not only is a look back exercise conducted and mistakes recognised but that there is accountability for failures.

With respect to Mr. Ó Foghlú, that is not reflected in his opening statement, as I said in my opening remarks.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There has been accountability with the Accounting Officer in the Department appearing to discuss this very issue closer to the time it took place. When the Deputy says there has been no forum for accountability, he should note this committee has engaged on the issue on a number of occasions over the years. This is not the first time the Accounting Officer of the Department-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Ó Foghlú believe just appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts is sufficient?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That is one of the primary aspects of accountability in the State for an Accounting Officer. That has been the case. The Accounting Officer has been here. I am not seeking to shy away from being here to reflect on what has happened. Clearly, there was an underestimation. The first thing is that the Government decided, notwithstanding whether there would be a contribution from the orders, that it wished to put a redress scheme in place. The contribution from the orders is very important and the Government policy is that it should be 50%. That was an arrangement subsequently put in place. The most important points are that redress was made available, as appropriate, and it was and that the commission was established, held its hearings in order that it could facilitate the societal discussion that was undertaken and came to the conclusions about which Deputy Catherine Connolly talked.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now at a point where we are dependent on voluntary contributions from the congregations because the only legal responsibilities in relation to the amount agreed to are part of the indemnity agreement. Following the Ryan report, there was obviously outrage in this regard and the religious congregations stated they would make a contribution of €353 million. That was then reduced because there were issues with some school playing fields and associated lands belonging to the Christian Brothers. Therefore, the contribution was reduced to €226 million, of which we have received only €85 million, or 38%. What legal options or avenues are open to the State to get the full amount offered?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It was an offer. It is not legally binding.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no legal requirement at all. If we do not get one cent more from any of the organisations based on the voluntary commitments made, there is nothing we can do about it. Is that what Mr. Ó Foghlú is telling me?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No. The Deputy said there was no legal liability. First-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there no legal option open to us?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There is no legal option.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no legal option open to us.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Will the Deputy, please, let me answer the first question before I answer the second? When he says "if we do not get one cent more," he should note that the orders are operating on the basis of a commitment – obviously, they can pull back from it as they wish – to transfer the remaining cash and buildings and land. We are confident that they will do so. Let us park that issue. To be fair-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Ó Foghlú telling me that of the €225.6 million committed to, he is confident that every cent will be paid?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No. I am confident that we are advancing on the land associated with it. We have not seen in our engagement with the orders on these issues that they are unwilling to transfer the land. However, I stress that the figure will depend on the land value when the land is transferred, not necessarily on the land valuations included in the 2009 offer. The land may be worth more or less than they thought it was in 2009 when the offer was made. We are working through the land transfers with them. They have not reneged on them and we are confident that we will receive the land. Moving past that, we have sought what we seek through the engagement. Initially there was the post-Ryan report engagement, after which, as the Deputy will recall, the Government changed and the new Government came in. That Government and the then Minister who was leading on the issue, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, met the orders to ask for further contributions. They have not committed to anything further as a result of that initiative.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is we had a legal commitment of €128 million under the indemnity agreement. We then had voluntary offers, amounting to €353 million, and this figure was reduced to €225.6 million. Mr. Ó Foghlú is confident, notwithstanding valuations of properties, that he will get all of that sum.

The activity of two of the congregations is somewhat problematic. It is fair to point out that some of the congregations have actually given the entire amount they did offer, but some have not. The Christian Brothers initially offered, as I said, school playing fields and other lands, but it withdrew that offer. Its value was about €120 million. It subsequently offered €34 million, but it has paid only €10 million. The Sisters of Mercy offered €127.5 million, of which only €24.9 million has been realised. That, to me, seems problematic. Will Mr. Ó Foghlú explain to me why that is the case?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I will do my best. The Christian Brothers' cash offer is €30 million. It has now paid €21.2 million, leaving €8.8 million remaining which they have committed to providing. It includes a very recent transfer, I believe-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But they are not going beyond it in terms of the €120 million they initially offered-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I will talk about that in a second.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they have not committed to transferring the lands, would they then not look at giving that sum of money in cash? Are we just going to decide that their withdrawal of the offer of lands worth €120 million is the end of it, or will we go back and ask what other contribution they can make?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have pushed them. The difficulty with the lands is that they referred to them as being included in the offer, but when they offered them, they offered to transfer playing fields to a joint trust. As it was not a full offer to transfer ownership, we went back to them and asked that the lands be transferred to the State, with guaranteed access for the schools currently using them under licence for as long-----

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the Sisters of Mercy?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

May I complete my response? This was not accepted by the Christian Brothers. The Minister, having discussed it with his colleagues in government, then asked that they be transferred to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, the trust the Christian Brothers had established, and that, if they ended up selling the land, they should give 50% of the value of the sale to the State. They turned that down. That is what they did. They then informed us that they were transferring the lands to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make one final point. When I mentioned the offer of €225.6 million by the congregations, a statement was made by Mr. Ó Foghlú that this value might not be realised because the land valuations might be lower. If that is the case, we need to get the cash from the congregations to make up the value of the offer. We simply should not accept properties that are worth less than what was actually offered voluntarily and if the land is worth less, it should be supplemented by cash payments to make up the difference. Will Mr. Ó Foghlú come back to me about the Sisters of Mercy? A sum of €127.5 million was offered, of which €24.9 million was realised up to 2015. What is the current figure?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Sisters of Mercy have provided the full €20 million in cash that they committed to providing.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It says €127.5 million was offered and that €24.9 million was realised; there is, therefore, a shortfall of over €100 million.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is the remaining property that we are working through with them. There are 13 educational properties, four health sector properties, 15 in the voluntary sector and 16 to sell to go into the fund. They have completed their cash contribution to the fund; therefore, it is the remaining property offers that we are working through.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back in later.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the point made that our talking about this issue in a very cold way in relation to the finances is at odds with the nature of the issue at hand, but that is what is in front of us. Every one of us accepts that there was a spectacular underestimation of the liability or the extent of the problem.

The extent of the problem has produced a liability. Deputy Catherine Connolly talked about a deferential approach. It seems that the Department was negotiating with orders which had a far better understanding of the potential extent of the problem. While the indemnity was given in 2002, the extent of the problem was in full view by 2009. It strikes me as very strange that when an offer was made, despite the indemnity being given, that it was not included in a firm contract. Given the almost grudging - that is the best word that comes to me - fulfilment of the commitment under the indemnity agreement between 2002 and 2009, surely it should have alerted the Department of Education and Skills to the need to put it firmly on a contractual basis, at the very least?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

to be clear, I agree with the Deputy's initial comment. We are talking about finances and so on, but we are obviously also here to discuss something very different. That is where we are. There were offers. The engagement of the Government, the Minister and the Department with the orders was one in which they did not believe in the 50:50 principle. They have not signed up to and not agree with it. They were not willing to do anything other than make offers. They were not willing to commit to a contract in making them. So far, in the vast number of cases where offers were made, with the exception of the Christian Brothers' property, the orders are on the way to meeting or have seen through the offers made. They do not believe in the 50:50 principle and that is a difficulty. Our engagement with them could only be described as being very robust in seeking additional contributions from them. We have had very frank exchanges and correspondence about the offers and with the Christian Brothers on the withdrawal of the offer made. It is not something we have taken lightly.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How firm did Mr. Ó Foghlú believe the offer made in 2009 was when they were not willing to enter into an agreement?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We were always very unsure about the nature of the playing fields offer. We engaged with them and worked it through, but they were not willing to give us joint ownership of it, which would even amount to a case of the State having half the proceeds were they to sell the land. They have a point of view on this issue with which I do not agree, that the lands are in use by schools. I do not agree with their point of view and wish we could have taken full ownership of the lands. If we had taken full ownership, it might have been possible, for example, to squeeze in a new primary school in a growing area on one section of the lands, or something like that, but that has not been the case.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remember quite well that much of the discussion on the number of people who had initially come forward to seek redress was about people not knowing that there was a redress scheme in place because they had left the country. Who could have blamed them? When the figures doubled, I presume there would have been a sizeable number of people from outside the State that would have increased the number from 7,000 to 14,000. Is that the case?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Deputy has touched on a couple of things. There is an awareness issue. This group of people have been through such hardships that they might not want to identify as part of the group that was subjected to this severe start in their lives. They came through at different times. Following the awareness raising for people outside the State, quite a high proportion of claims were from people in the United Kingdom which shows that quite a number of the people who left are in the United Kingdom. I think 33% of them are in the United Kingdom and 6% in other countries. They became aware at different times of what was available in different ways. When we explain that costs went up and that the numbers of applications increased at certain times, we are not doing so to apportion blame to people for applying late.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For exactly the same reasons, some found it very traumatising to come forward and the redress scheme was a route that did not lead to a courtroom. One of the things that would have influenced people also is that lawyers would not end up with the lion's share of any award made. That is why I find it very hard to reconcile the average payment of €62,500 with the figure of nearly €13,000, the average legal payout. The ratio is incredibly high when one considers that it was a redress scheme rather than cases been prosecuted through the courts.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, it is very high. The comparison with the figure for legal costs, were a case to go through the courts, is a good one. Legal costs represent about 61% of payments made when cases go through the courts. Cases can be very expensive. As the Comptroller and Auditor General notes in his report, under the redress scheme an in-house legal cost team was established to develop expertise in negotiating. Where third party costs could not be negotiated in-house, they were referred to a legal costs accountant retained by the board and then, if necessary, the taxing master. They have to put a huge amount of effort into seeking to minimise the costs involved.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have lessons been learned in the event that a similar redress scheme is initiated in the future?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That is part of the recommendations at which we need to look. How can we put legal arrangements in place on a less costly basis? It is not simple. For example, the commission took a number of steps to try to minimise the number of lawyers that could be brought in. People took lawyers to court and lost cases. In any redress arrangement people want to be accompanied on the legal side and we do not want to deny them that opportunity. The idea that the State should have lawyers to accompany them to be paid at different rates would impact negatively on people's perceptions of their engagement in the process. The approach has been to try to minimise costs, but it has to have regard to the needs of the people going through the process in as fair a way as possible.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ó Foghlú would have had ongoing engagement with the religious congregations that were not forthcoming, that were resisting or taking far too long to comply, at least the ones included in the indemnity agreement. Did he notice a difference in their compliance with what was included in the indemnity agreement when such things as the Ryan report were published? Did that have an impact on the ongoing engagement between the Department and different religious institutions? Did public pressure play a part?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

They signed up to and are seeing through the indemnity agreement. I think the debate in society on the publication of the Ryan report and the engagement with the orders, led by the Taoiseach, led to a huge amount more being offered by the orders.

On the attitude of the orders to be willing to offer more on a voluntary basis, while it is not anywhere near 50:50 and it looks like an insignificant amount in the context of what is not there, that is not to say that it is not a significant amount as opposed to if they were not giving that much at all. That is what I am trying to say. Yes, there was a mindset impact on everybody in Irish society at that time. That included the orders.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, the word compensation would have to be in inverted commas because nothing can compensate for all of the things that were documented in the Ryan report, but ultimately people went through a redress scheme. A redress scheme does not remove the possibility of individuals within the religious orders being held to account through the legal system. Were any proceedings ultimately taken against people who were identified through the process? Who would have prosecuted such cases if that was the case?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Is the Deputy referring to civil cases or State prosecutions?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would have thought there would be State prosecutions.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The commission engaged in its work confidentially so it could not refer on for prosecutions from there. Is that not right?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So it was down to individuals to-----

Mr. Dalton Tattan:

We are aware anecdotally of prosecutions of members of religious orders both in respect of day schools and of residential institutions.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a failing of a redress scheme that it almost produces an indemnity, except for somebody who takes a civil case?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It produces an indemnity for the order. The redress scheme did not introduce the indemnity. The indemnity introduced the indemnity, but the two things became associated. To get full co-operation and to have openness in the commission, the indemnity was introduced to take it away from a prosecutorial nature and to bring it into a safer space. On balance, for the State, but more important for the victims, that brought about as good an outcome as possible, given that some of them had a chance to tell their story and that there was redress available. Given the horrific circumstances, on balance, that package of State responses appears to have met the need to the greatest extent possible.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On quite a small item but one that is important for some people------

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is on her last question.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to the small amount of money provided to allow for work to reconnect people with families. Does the Department have an evaluation on that service at this stage? Some of us will hear from people who feel that there is a resistance in some of the orders to being forthcoming with information that might be available, their records for example. That is really quite hurtful for people to come up against. Has the Department evaluated that at all?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

First of all, I would echo the Deputy's sentiment that it is a very valuable service. It is one that we continue to provide and will continue to provide and support until the demand for it ceases. We currently have a service agreement with Barnardos in Dublin for its operation and we have a performance delivery agreement with Barnardos about how they operate it. We reviewed the scheme in 2011 and we downsized it slightly because the demand had reduced. I am not aware of difficulties in co-operation between Barnardos, in operating the tracing service, and the orders. It is certainly something we can check on and come back to the Deputy on.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because I am going to be leading with Caranua. Most of my questions have been asked. First of all, I have to publicly declare that I have acted as a solicitor for claimants who made a claim to the residential redress board. The last one I was involved in was in 2007. I think I did a maximum of approximately ten such cases. I want to put that on the record so that I am not subject to any conflict in that regard.

Can I just ask about the eligibility criteria which are under review by the Department? Has that review started?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We are consulting on the terms of reference for the eligibility review. We will start the review once we have completed the consultation on its terms of reference.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Ó Foghlú think the criteria used for the survivors were too strict? Does he think that they made it too difficult for survivors? The average assessment was 39 out of 100 points. Most assessments resulted in awards of less than €100,000, which, as has been said already, were quite small. Does he think that, as was alluded to by Deputy Catherine Murphy, some of the perpetrators might have avoided prosecution because claimants were encouraged to settle through the redress scheme rather than go through the courts?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

On the first question, is the Deputy asking about the eligibility for Caranua being too strict? Is that what she is referring to?

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We do not have a firm view. That is why we want to have a review. We understand that there is some unease among the client group and the potential client group and I think we need to explore that thoroughly, but on the other hand we are conscious of the potential maximum pool of survivors now-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the review started yet?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

-----and the total funding available. Even when we started looking at the establishment of Caranua one option was to just do a pro rata distribution but we worked that through, we talked to people and we decided not to do it that way. So, no, the review has not started, but we are consulting on the terms of reference and we want to complete that consultation and then look to see whether the approach is-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When does Mr. Ó Foghlú expect it to start?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We expect it to start in the next couple of months because we are still consulting on the criteria for the review. In this space, we always have to be very careful that we have consulted as fully and widely as possible with the group. Consultation has underpinned the establishment of Caranua in terms of the concept of its establishment.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be dealing with Caranua later on, but I think that should really be expedited because it is such a harrowing experience for these survivors. We know that. If the Department is going to be reviewing the eligibility criteria it needs to be done sooner rather than later.

Can I ask Mr. Ó Foghlú about the contributions from non-Catholic organisations? Have congregations from non-Catholic denominations been pursued to contribute to the redress scheme? I know that there was a very harrowing account by an Eileen Macken on RTE recently. There are 18 congregations that have promised funding - inadequate funding, but funding nonetheless. What is the Department's position on the absence of non-Catholic denominations from contributions?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The redress scheme goes beyond the 18 orders which signed up to the indemnity. We have sought a contribution from the management body of any of the homes or schools within the redress scheme. That would be done with all of them, whether they were Catholic, Protestant or neither. In terms of the follow-up that we have done, we have followed up with them.

We followed up with 24 institutions, although we understand that it is a very small proportion of the redress groups overall. As of yet------

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I am not clear on what the witness is saying.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We have followed up with 24 institutions-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In total.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That includes Catholic, Protestant and non-denominational institutions. We have----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many of them are non-Catholic?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

From a look, there are a number of non-Catholic ones, but we can give the Deputy the full list. Nobody gave any contribution.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the witness answer whether or not any of the contributions made by individual congregations are in any way proportionate to the awards made to those abused under their care?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No, we cannot. We are precluded from getting information on the awards made in law. There was some dialogue between the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and the redress board to get some very high level information on applications, which is published in the-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be helpful to see that data.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We are not allowed to see it. We are not allowed to ask for it or see it and they are not allowed to give it to us. Therefore, we are not allowed to work on the basis of proportionality. We have explored legally whether that is the case. The conclusion legally is that that is the case.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we see that there is not a correlation there and that there is no favouritism, for want of a better word.

I wish to ask about counselling. Some €10 million was offered up for counselling and support. Who was to provide this counselling support? I presume it is not being provided by the congregations under whose care these people have suffered. I presume external groups were used.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Just give me one second.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

As part of the indemnity agreement, there was €10 million for counselling services provided by the congregations themselves. We went through a process to sign off on that to ensure that at least that amount of counselling was provided. As far as I understand, that is now complete.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who provided the service?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Towards Healing is the name of the organisation. It is a Catholic Church-run organisation called Towards Healing.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a Catholic organisation. One can see-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It was part of their contribution under the indemnity which then-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One can see the irony of that. That is the very point I was trying to make, though I did not know what the answer would be. I think it would have been better in terms of reassuring the claimants had they received counselling from an external group. Would the witness accept that?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Perhaps Ms Hynes will come in on the other counselling that was available.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

There is a counselling service provided by the HSE. People who have suffered abuse in any institution can avail of that-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was just told it was a Catholic-run organisation called Towards Healing.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

There is a funded Catholic one called Towards Healing, but in addition-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has provided counselling to claimants who have suffered abuse in Catholic organisations.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

It provides counselling, but it is not mandatory for a person to avail of counselling from Towards Healing.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but does the witness not see the difficulty there?

Ms Catherine Hynes:

I can understand that it is a difficulty that survivors have raised. There is also-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For future reference, I think it would be advisable to employ an external group.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We clearly do not disagree with the Deputy on that-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wish to point it out.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

-----for the future, but this was part of the discussions that were undertaken on the indemnity and-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that, but I think it is unfortunate. That just makes the situation worse for people when they are trying to extricate themselves from a situation after being through so much.

I wish to ask about the Sisters of Mercy health and education properties. Did they offer any schools and hospitals specifically?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

This is post-Ryan we are talking about. The Sisters of Mercy offered a number of different schools. One was a VEC college and one was a former school. They offered some lands. They have offered a number-----

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What lands have they offered?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

They offered Beaumont Convalescent Home grounds, which is going to the HSE. It is not fully transferred yet.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the value of that?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The value of that is €3 million. We have a full list of all of the offers, which we can provide information on. There are a number of offers accepted in principle by the HSE that we are working through. For example, one is the site of the National Rehabilitation Hospital, NRH, in Dún Laoghaire, which is valued at €45 million.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the Smiley's Homes, is it? Is that a different matter?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is the NRH. It is the whole of the National Rehabilitation Hospital.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that being transferred?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. They are in the process of transferring a number of different schools and HSE buildings.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the witness know the approximate total value of all of those?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I have the total value offer from-----

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I interject to ask if that was under the 2002 agreement as opposed to 2009 agreement?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

2009. The total value of properties that the Sisters of Mercy offered post-Ryan report is €107.5 million.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is quite significant. Will that be done over the next few months?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

These are being worked through over time with the Chief State Solicitor's Office, CSSO.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Aylward.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask a few questions about the day-to-day running of the redress scheme. Funeral expenses were recently introduced. Is it true that expenses are paid in advance to an undertaker? This to me sounds like a very bizarre-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a question for Caranua. That is for the next session. We have a second set of witnesses coming in from Caranua. We have the Department of Education and Skills witnesses here to discuss the awards from the old redress scheme. The Caranua people that the Deputy is talking about-----

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry. I was not here at the beginning. Sorry about that.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We just said that the Caranua witnesses will come in when we are finished with this session. They are waiting outside. Those questions are for Caranua.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are for Caranua witnesses. Will they be here in the afternoon?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might even hear their opening statement in a few minutes.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Sorry about that.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Caranua witnesses are all coming in in a few minutes.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Sorry about that. I will just ask a few questions on the terms of reference of the review of eligibility. The terms of reference are being drafted at the moment and looked at again. Under the terms of the review, would there be the potential to make a one-off payment to remaining survivors? Is that a possibility under this review? Would the Department look at this? I have a list here of a few that I can give to the witnesses to look at under the review that they are saying is only starting now.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We are willing to look at different issues in terms of the outcome of the review. I do not want to preclude what the review outcome might be. However, I would say that the issue of cash payments to survivors was something that we consulted on when we were establishing Caranua, but we decided against that approach.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were there any one-off payments ever made to any individual?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There have been no one-off cash payments. The payments are for services.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. What about potential lump sum payments being made to remaining survivors twice per year, such as at Christmas and summer time? Could that be looked at under the review? Is the witness saying that there are no lump sum cash payments at all?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The payments are for services rather than just cash payments to individuals.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So no one ever got a cash payment. It was all only for services. I ask the witness to explain "services". What kind of services were they getting? What is the difference between an individual getting a lump sum and getting services paid for?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I suppose------

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some people might be living in their own houses. How are they given services? Are there no cash payments made to anyone as compensation?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The concept of Caranua under the 2012 Act was that there would be funding for four classes of services: mental health counselling and psychological supports, health and personal social services, educational services, and housing support.

The concept behind it is to support people in accessing services, as opposed to making cash payments to them.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not understand that. I understood that the Department was compensating them with hard cash. There is reference to an average of €60,000 so I thought it was that amount in cash.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The Deputy might be confused. The redress is a cash payment, which was an average of €60,000. Caranua is for the services.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mixed up the two of them.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Over the years they were the settlements to the people who went to the redress board. The average figure is €60,000. Caranua is the recent scheme and that group will be before the committee shortly.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I am putting the wrong questions to the wrong people.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will appear before the committee shortly.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on the legal fees, which were mentioned already by Deputy Catherine Murphy. They appear to be extraordinary. We are not talking about court cases here, but redress. I see that €193 million was paid to 991 legal firms. This represents 15% of total costs. That appears to be large and excessive, particularly for redress rather than fighting cases in court. It is a great deal of money for legal fees. Some 991 legal firms have gained well from that. Does it not appear excessive to the witness?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Obviously I agree that it is a high figure, but the nature of the various arrangements we had in place was to try to ensure that people who had suffered would be helped legally in applying for redress. We put arrangements in place to try to minimise those costs both within the redress board and externally. We have worked that through and we have tried to keep the costs as low as possible. The difficulty is that the denial or limiting of legal access for people is a barrier we did not wish to cross in establishing this. That is the difficulty and challenge when faced with the legal costs, but it is something we must examine in the future.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In hindsight, does the witness believe that initiatives could have been taken to reduce the legal fees, before this started?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Initiatives were taken to minimise the legal fees. The legal fees are much less than they would be in the confrontational court setting. No simple measure comes to mind that could have been taken that would have minimised it.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there an estimate for the cost of the remaining legal fees? It is €193 million already. What is the estimate for the future?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is about seeing out the existing cases, that is, working through the small number of existing cases and finalising the legal fees with the determining bodies.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What percentage of cases is left? How many have been dealt with and how many are left?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The cases have all gone through. It is about finalising the legal aspect.

Bobby Aylward (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I have questions for the other group from Caranua.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we conclude, I have a brief question. With regard to the original estimate of €250 million, Mr. Ó Foghlú mentioned a figure of around a couple of thousand cases that may be in the system. On what figure did you base that €250 million? Was it 2,000 or 3,000?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I think it was 2,000.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where did that figure come from?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It was the number of cases we had on hand at the time. From the middle to late 1990s, the State started to be sued about cases.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the figure?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

At one stage there was a figure of approximately 800 and it was estimated that it would go to approximately 2,000. That was the initial estimate.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department had 800 specific cases and it estimated there would be 2,000.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the 139 institutions covered under the scheme, the obvious starting point is how many people went through the 139 institutions over the years. That is the total population if one is trying to get an estimate. You should start at that figure rather than just those who have already commenced legal proceedings. What is the answer to that? How many people went through the 139 institutions?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I do not think we have accurate figures on that. It is not something on which we have information. That was part of the challenge in the estimation at the start.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You cannot tell me even though they were all under the direct supervision of the Department over the years.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

To be fair, they were not all under direct supervision, but I know the point the Chairman is making.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, but most were.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes, most of the big ones were.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even at the initial stages, although some Department officials had visited some of those schools, there was nowhere in the Department-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

There was no record kept of the total numbers who were in them.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask a different question. I hate to put it this way but the Department was obviously paying the religious orders based on the number of people who went into the institutions over the years.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How was that worked out? Surely the Department worked that out.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

These would have been very historical records going far back. This is the challenge.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. What was the Department's best estimate if it did not know exactly?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I do not have an estimate. All I can say is our understanding of how the estimate was put together in 2000, but I have no-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that, but I am asking a different question now. There were 16,649 applications. To give your own best estimate at this stage, and I realise it is not an exact figure, does anybody have any idea if that was 10%, 50%, 70% or 90% of the people who were in the institutions? Have we any concept of how many people were in them?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Perhaps the Ryan report would be useful here. The wording he used refers to systemic abuse in the boys' homes. It was not quite as strong in the girls' homes. There were high cases of abuse. That is using his words in terms of the numbers. We do not have an idea of the proportion of those who were in the schools and the homes and the relative proportion. We do not even know the numbers who were successful claimants and the degree of claimants by type of institution or by religious order because we are not legally allowed to get that information.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the 16,000 and the confidentiality attached to those agreements. You do not know how they break down. In fact, some of the people were in various institutions, not just one, so it might not even be possible. We understand that and we understand the confidentiality. We also understand that it cannot be broken down by individual congregation because of the confidentiality, and rightly so. I have an entirely different question. Some 16,649 people submitted applications. Have you any idea what proportion that is of the total number? Was it 90% of them?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We do not know.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have no idea? Can anybody help us? I do not know how you will conduct a review of anything if you have no concept of the starting point.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

The industrial schools received a licence to operate. They could only have the number of children within that institution for whom they were licensed. We know from the Ryan report and other narratives that, in fact, the numbers often exceeded the number for which they were licensed. We have a difficulty with tracking children through the system. Take the example of an institution such as Marlborough House. Marlborough House was a detention centre for children who were waiting to be seen by the courts. However, from Marlborough House one could easily have ended up being referred to one of the industrial schools or the reformatory schools, so there would be a degree of overlap. Looking back, we now know the scale of systemic abuse that existed in these organisations. We have limited information about, for example, the numbers that were licensed to operate.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What did the licence number total?

Ms Catherine Hynes:

It varied depending on the size of the institution.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but have you added up the total?

Ms Catherine Hynes:

We do not have a complete picture.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is your best incomplete picture? It is something, and I have nothing.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

I would not like to give an incomplete estimate at this stage.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, but we have no concept of whether that 16,000 represents some or a majority. We need to know, for people to have an understanding and to learn. I accept that you have an incomplete picture, that you cannot stand over it and that it cannot be audited. However, somebody in the Department of Education and Skills has a ballpark estimate. It might be wrong, but it is something. Can you help us?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The ballpark estimates that were wrong are one of the failings that we undertook in the past. Members will understand that we are very hesitant to give any ballpark figures-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even when it is all over, we still do not know how many.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

All I am saying is, off the top of my head sitting here in this forum where a figure would be open to challenge-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could be a headline tomorrow.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. I do not think we will go there, but what we can say is that we will look at this in that context and there may be something in the Ryan report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just to give us a better understanding; it is not to trap Mr. Ó Foghlú.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We can quote from the Ryan report. It states that between 1936 and 1970 there were 170,000 children and young persons-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please read it again.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Between "1936 and 1970, a total of 170,000 children and young persons (involving about 1.2% of the age cohort) entered the gates of the 50 or so industrial schools".

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A total of 170,000-----

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Children.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They represented 1.2% of what?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

The age cohort.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the population,

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes. That is what is stated in the Ryan report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Roughly 10% of that figure have made applications. That is the only figure I have.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

That is his figure. I am quoting from the report.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking Mr. Ó Foghlú to stand over it.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I know that, yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At least, it gives us an estimate. Given that the Department had a vague idea of the licence agreements in operation for the schools at the time, why did Mr. Ó Foghlú consider the 2,000 figure was a valid starting point? It highlights a very major weakness in the original starting point.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I agree that it was a major weakness. What we all learned in the first ten years of the process was the systemic nature of the abuse. We were all surprised and shocked by it. I am not sure anybody would have fully realised and known its scale. If one looks at what would have been the best way to do this, it would have been best to have a commission to look at the scale of the abuse and then to have a redress scheme in place. That technically would have been the best way to go, but, unfortunately, we do not live in a technical world but a real world. The population was getting older and there were appropriate demands for redress. There were many court cases and the Government made a call to provide redress without having the full knowledge.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Ó Foghlú have any idea of how many of the 16,000 were boys and how many were girls? If he does not know, he does not know.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

We do not have access to a breakdown here. I am not sure whether it is something on which they might be able to give us information or whether it will be covered under the-----

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not included in the Ryan report or any of the other reports.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

No.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Not that I am aware of.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Ó Foghlú confirm that the legislation provided that all of the awards given by the redress board, whether it was €60,000 or €100,000, would be disregarded as means when it came to making applications for social welfare payments? I presume the answer is yes.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a yes?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

It is.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would expect it to be. My next question is to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I had a conversation with Mr. Ó Foghlú at the beginning about when the meetings happened after the Ryan report was published in 2009. The offer of €352 million was made after a series of meetings. When the Comptroller and Auditor General was compiling his report, did he get records of any of the meetings or did he see them?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No, I do not think we looked for them.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. McCarthy did not-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

We took the offers as communicated by the Department.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Comptroller and Auditor General did not check the records of the actual meetings.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are concluding the discussion of this issue now. It would be very wrong of me at this stage not to reiterate, on behalf of the committee, the apology made by the Taoiseach in 1999 on behalf of the State to the survivors of abuse when he announced the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. We have been talking about the financial end of it. It might be a little raw and difficult for people, but as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts and a Member of Dáil Éireann, I reiterate the apology on behalf of the State and the Oireachtas made by the Taoiseach in 1999.