Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

First, on how this could have happened, it is undoubtedly true that this represents a systems failure of huge magnitude over many decades. It is important to recognise that while much of what happened took place many decades ago, it in no way takes from the fact that there was a systems failure, as well as a failure to ensure that where wrongdoing occurred, it was corrected and redressed.

In fairness to my predecessor and the Government he led in 1998, which was some years after the programme on Goldenbridge was broadcast, it was then taken on board that such people's stories would have to be heard, a counselling service would be put in place and a commission would be set up to investigate the allegations of child abuse. It also was taken on board that subsequently, a redress scheme would be put in place and that we would proceed in a manner that would confront this dark corner of our past. In fairness to both Ms Justice Laffoy and Mr. Justice Ryan, the outcome of that comprehensive investigation, which gives voice to more than a thousand people and witnesses who came before the commission and the many thousands who have been able to go before the redress board, has been, however belatedly, a sincere attempt by the Government on behalf of the State and the people, to seek in some fashion to redress the wrongs that undoubtedly have been done.

The system that was in place clearly was inadequate in many respects and a grave injustice was imposed upon generations of people who, together with their children, were obliged to contend with what clearly was the oppressive nature of that institutional setting. This was the experience of many people. While this must be said, I also defend the Government's action in 1998 and the subsequent steps it took to confront this issue in a way that all previous Administrations had not been in a position to do. Moreover, everyone in that Government acted in good faith in this respect.

Second, on the agreement that has been referred to in the Deputy's statement, it is important to point out that the State's liability in this matter is independent of any indemnity agreement. Its liability in this matter arose out of acts and omissions of the State or its agents in the management of these institutions over many decades. At that time, anything up to 2,500 cases existed that eventually would end up in court with all the confrontational issues arising therefrom, as well as all the issues that arise under the Civil Liability Act 1961, as amended, as to how one would allocate responsibility and guilt in respect of the State and its agents. The need to avoid this adversarial situation, in so far as possible, was an important consideration. While putting victims at the centre of concern, there was a need to find a way in which redress could be made while at the same time allowing their story to be told and this was the entire purpose of the Government's response in setting up the commission, subsequently adopting the redress scheme and providing immediately comprehensive counselling services, which were a basic requirement.

I also make the point in respect of the indemnity agreement that rather than the State being obliged to follow on thereafter to try to find a way in which redress could be obtained from the institutions or the religious orders, the agreement imposed a responsibility on them to make a contribution towards the cost, which then was indeterminate, and this also was an important consideration. The indemnity agreement imposes a legal obligation on the religious orders to make such a contribution to the moneys to be paid by the State to victims.

The only other way in which an obligation could be imposed on religious orders to make a payment by way of a contribution to compensation was by fighting each claim of abuse through the courts and such an option was fraught with difficulties. It is important to be fair to everyone and as a member of that Government, I take my collective responsibility for that decision and for the means by which it came about, which were in line with procedures, as a memorandum came before the Government. I also make the point that it was because of the then Government's concern for victims that it sought to avoid a situation whereby a more confrontational outcome could have been in prospect.

However, regardless of the legalities of the agreement, this House, in the aftermath of the publication of this report, will make the case that there is a strong moral responsibility to make whatever further contributions can be made by those congregations in the interests of ensuring that the State, the victims and the people can see that every possible effort is being made by congregations and by the State to redress the wrongdoing that has been imposed upon the people concerned. I believe this to be the obligation that now has emerged. Moreover, as I stated, the indemnity agreement itself provided an ability to impose an obligation within the terms of the agreement on a contribution to be made. What has emerged now, as far as I am concerned, is the need for all the congregations, apparently now led by the Christian Brothers, to give a further commitment to provide whatever resources are available to them towards the establishment, by whatever mechanism, of a means that would ensure the people will perceive that further reparation and recompense will be made at this time.

See this speech in context