Michael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

There has been a great deal of poorly informed comment on the agreement the Government made with the religious congregations in 2002. I wish to place on the record of the House the facts regarding that agreement. It was my privilege as Minister for Education and Science to bring through the Oireachtas, in the timescale set by the Government and requested by the victims, two seminal and historic pieces of legislation - the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Act.

The Government and the Oireachtas did not have to wait for this extensive and searching report to know what to do. We knew enough and we knew that in the interests of the victims we would have to act with speed. The policy of the Government on the Residential Institutions Redress Board was informed first and foremost by the consideration of what would be in the best interests of the victims of abuse in residential institutions. This dictated that the compensation should be provided to them on a basis which would be generous, expeditious and involve the minimum of stress to them in progressing their claims. In other words, anything that involved them in an adversarial court process should be avoided if at all possible.

To understand the context in which the Government decided, once and for all, to address the pain and lifelong suffering of children who were abused in the State's residential institutions and reformatory schools, we need to examine the sequence of events that began in 1967. In that year the Government established a committee chaired by Ms Justice Eileen Kennedy which, in 1970, produced the Kennedy report. The report found that the reformatory and industrial schools were inadequately staffed; the institutions were housed in old buildings which were unsuitable for use as residential homes; an institutional approach pervaded the care of children - an approach harmful to their development; the system of inspection was totally ineffective; financial provision was totally inadequate; and the system of payment to the school on a capitation basis should be discontinued and payment should be made on a budget basis.

There was little evidence prior to the 1960s of any understanding of the issues of abuse of children. Neglect and deprivation due to poverty or lack of education were the key areas of concern. Up to the 1970s the focus of child protection was on familial neglect. The Kennedy report led to the closure of the industrial schools and reformatories.

In 1996, RTE broadcast "Dear Daughter" which dealt with abuse in Goldenbridge industrial school. In 1998, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Micheál Martin, brought the issue to Government for the first time with the focus on counselling for victims. The Department of Education and Science employed a social historian from Trinity College to examine the Department's archives to see what evidenced there was of past abuse, how much the Department knew about it and what it did about it. The Minister also gave access to these files to Mary Raftery who, with Eoin O'Sullivan, made the "State of Fear" series broadcast by RTE in 1999.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet had set up a sub-committee to deal with the issue of child abuse and a working group of secretaries-general and officials. I was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee. This working group reported on 28 April 1999 with the report on measures to assist victims of childhood sexual abuse. They proposed a proactive approach to the needs of victims of abuse, rather than relying solely on a reactive response to litigation. They also proposed changes in the statute of limitation, funding for counselling and related services, and funding for research. They suggested a commission where those who were abused could tell their story to a sympathetic panel. In this way they could be assured that the abuse they suffered was wrong and is utterly condemned by Irish society.

On 10 May 1999, the Government agreed these proposals and decided to set up a commission chaired by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. The next day, 11 May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, announced the proposals and made an apology to the victims, in effect accepting moral and social responsibility on the part of the State for past abuse in these residential institutions. While a full investigation and review was still to take place, the initial departmental examination had shown that children were incarcerated for flimsy reasons, for example, unfit mothers, children born out of wedlock, absence from school, or petty theft such as taking an apple from a shop. Many were orphans or from homes which were too poor to care for them. Many children were wards of court sent into the care of the Department of Education. The State had a duty of care, supervision and inspection, and a moral responsibility. The State sub-contracted that duty.

There were reports on the record of various serious physical and sexual abuse, but they were buried and hidden at the highest levels in the Department. There was correspondence from a bishop stating that serious abuse was occurring and this was denied in writing by the then Minister on the advice of officials. There were letters from Daingean reformatory stating that children were starving and dressed in rags, and begging for some extra funding. The letter of reply said, "Make do with what you have".

Similar institutions in England got ten times the allowance per capita. It was clear that a full examination, eventually known as the Ryan Commission, would show an appalling neglect by the State and so it did. The Government at this stage decided to establish the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on an administrative basis and when that had completed its work to then look at the question of compensation. This was a logical approach, but it was not tenable.

Some reporters and members of the Opposition have been asking why this was not done and criticised me for not waiting. The answer is very simple: it would take too long. In practice, we now have the Ryan report eight years later. This would not have been acceptable because victims were suffering in the meantime and some died. They begged me to press ahead urgently with the establishment of the redress board and not to delay the legislation.

On 27 January 2000, I assumed office as Minister for Education and Science. On 2 February, I published the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Bill 2000, accepting the recommendations of the interim administrative commission presented by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy. On 9 March, the Bill began its Second Stage reading in Dáil Éireann. Representatives of the victims followed the Bill every step of the way. Meanwhile, three schemes of payment of legal costs for solicitors were proposed. Each was rejected by solicitors acting for the victims and then by the commission. I pressed on with the Bill as urgently as possible and it finally passed all Stages. By June, the Bill had passed into law and became an Act.

At that stage it seemed that the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was under way but, alas, this was not to be. On 20 July, the commission indicated to me as Minister that solicitors for the victims would not co-operate with it unless a compensation scheme was established. Work on a compensation scheme was already under way and on 7 October the Government approved in principle the draft proposal. On 24 October, I agreed to meet the solicitors regarding the compensation tribunal and assured them of our bona fides.

Meanwhile, on 10 November, senior officials from the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Finance, and the Office of the Attorney General first met with CORI regarding what was termed the "meaningful contribution" which they wished to make to the compensation scheme. They met on nine further occasions. Work on the compensation scheme had been progressing and on 27 February 2001, the Government approved the proposals for the child abuse compensation scheme. It would be open-ended and the Government would provide such moneys as needed, with a contribution from the 18 religious organisations involved if that could be agreed. This was consistent with the Government's approach from the day the Taoiseach apologised to the victims on behalf of the nation.

Problems were still ongoing with the solicitors with regard to their participation in the commission. A fourth legal expenses scheme was accepted by the commission, but lawyers for the victims and for the congregations also rejected this legal expenses scheme. Meanwhile, lawyers for the victims refused to attend the commission thus delaying its progress.

On 13 June 2001, the child abuse compensation scheme was published. Its title was the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. This allowed time over the summer recess for the contents of the Bill to be considered before it was taken in the autumn. On 5 July, the proposed contribution of the congregations made on 26 June was rejected by the negotiators and by me as Minister for Education and Science. On 16 October, the negotiating team, comprising officials from the Department of Education, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General, with ministerial clearance from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Finance, proposed a 50-50 contribution with a cap of €127 million together with an indemnity. This was not accepted by CORI. At this point the negotiations broke down. Furthermore, a leak to the media resulted in a breach of trust between the parties to the negotiations. Thus the full negotiating team was out of the loop for some months. I decided in the interim to press on with the Residential Institutions Redress Bill and leave CORI to consider its position if it did not make any contribution to the Government's scheme of redress.

In line with the Government's commitment to have both the commission and the redress board up and running during the life of the Government, which was into its final year, the Residential Institutions Redress Bill commenced its Second Stage in Dáil Éireann on 7 November 2001. On the same day, together with the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, who is also the Accounting Officer, I met with the representatives of CORI. This was simply to say that the Bill would be concluded early in the new year and that they must now decide whether they wanted to be in or out of the legislation. Everyone wanted to know. I was being pressed by Deputies in Dáil Éireann, and by representatives of the victims, to say what the position would be. I said that unless they agreed to the minimum contribution which the negotiating team had put to them in a package, they could not be included and they would not have any indemnity. They also wanted to get credit for properties given to the State over the past ten years. I told them that the day the Taoiseach made the apology, 11 May 1999, was the implementation date for the whole scheme, and that I would bring their request for credit to apply from that date to the Government, but I would not consider the ten years' request. The representatives of CORI agreed to go back to the 18 religious orders to ascertain if they would agree to a figure of €127 million as the minimum acceptable to the negotiating team and Government. This meeting lasted only 20 minutes because it related solely to a policy decision.

On 22 November 2001, Second Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill concluded in Dáil Éireann. This was a long debate and once Second Stage was passed, the Bill could go to the Select Committee on Education and Science. I explained that we were awaiting news from CORI as to whether it would be included in or excluded from the legislation and that it could be included before Committee Stage concluded if it met the minimum requirements.

The Labour Party tabled a motion which would have delayed the conclusion of Second Stage from 22 November until the end of January when the House was due to resume. The motion was to see and discuss the report of the compensation advisory committee chaired by Seán Ryan SC. The Fine Gael Party stated it would oppose taking Committee Stage of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill until after the compensation advisory committee report was available. This greatly upset the victims of abuse and their representatives. I pointed out that the delay was unnecessary as I had included provision for regulations and that Fine Gael and the Labour Party, if they were not satisfied with the report of Seán Ryan SC and his expert committee, could bring the report before the Dáil for debate. However, the motion was moved by the Labour Party and had to be put and voted on at the conclusion of the Second Stage debate. In the event a voice vote was taken and the motion was defeated. The Bill then moved to Committee Stage, much to the relief of the victims present.

The compensation advisory committee reported early in January 2002, having studied schemes in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Its report set out criteria and levels of compensation based on physical, sexual or psychological injury and increased the levels of compensation to reflect the higher awards given by the Irish courts. The Government accepted these levels of awards, as did Deputies and Senators, and delay was avoided.

On 7 January 2002, CORI met me, as Minister for Education and Science, and the Secretary General of my Department. It confirmed its acceptance of the package proposed by the negotiating team, agreed to the inclusion only of properties transferred or being transferred since 11 May 1999, the day of the apology, and agreed to be bound by the indemnity, as proposed by the Government on the advice of the Attorney General. Detailed discussions on the indemnity would follow, involving the negotiating team and Office of the Attorney General. I agreed to take this proposal, which involved a package valued at €128 million, to Government for approval in principle. On 30 January 2002, the package was agreed in principle by the Government. The final agreement was to be prepared, including the indemnity and a list of properties, for the approval of Government and signatures of the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science.

At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science held in public session on 12 February 2002, I outlined the details of the Government's decision regarding the whole package as well as the inclusion of the indemnity and list of properties, some of which were known at the time. The meeting was attended by 15 Members, myself and my officials. No one was in any doubt about the inclusion in the Bill of the indemnity and the list of properties.

See this speech in context