Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if he will enter into talks with an organisation (details supplied), some of whose members, as teaching orders, are the legal owners of many of the primary schools here, with a view to seeking to have their legal ownership of those properties transferred to his Department while ensuring that they continue to operate as schools under their existing patron in view of the reality that the teaching orders' contributions to the costs of the Residential Institutions Redress Board amounts to approximately 11% of the €1.1 billion cost, as against the 50:50 initially sought by the Department of Finance, or even the amount negotiated by the Minister for Education and Science at the time, when the overall estimated cost was much lower than what has emerged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8136/09]

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The primary consideration of the Government in establishing the redress scheme was to provide justice for people who had been abused in childhood while resident in institutions which operated under the supervision of the State. The Government's decision to establish the redress scheme was made regardless of whether the religious congregations which managed the institutions would contribute to the scheme. The State had a duty to make amends for the abuse of those in its charge. Nonetheless, it was considered desirable that the religious congregations would make a meaningful contribution towards the compensation of victims of child abuse and the Government accordingly entered into negotiations with the congregations which culminated in agreement being reached in June 2002 on a total contribution by the congregations of €128 million. The agreement reached with the religious congregations represented the best possible outcome in the circumstances. The Committee of Public Accounts acknowledged that there was no capacity to coerce the congregations into any agreement and that the State was faced with a substantial contingent liability in any event.

The alternative option of rejecting the offer and pursuing the congregations through the courts would have resulted in a sizable number of protracted legal proceedings with the involvement of victims in a traumatic and adversarial process, substantial costs in legal fees and with no guarantee of a favourable outcome. There would have been substantial risks with such a course and the real possibility that the State would bear most of the cost and receive little or nothing in return.

I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department does not intend to revisit or renegotiate the terms of the existing indemnity agreement or enter into any new agreement which would see the State seek further contributions from the contributing congregations. The final agreement is achieving its original purpose of providing, in a humane and compassionate manner, redress to those who have suffered abuse with an acknowledgement of what had happened by the key parties involved.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for the clarity of his reply. He must have a new answer writer in the Department. This is in no way an attempt by the Labour Party or I to further punish the religious orders. On the contrary, we are all indebted to them because of the contribution they have made to education. However, my fear is that the congregations will be obliged to provide 24 hour seven day nursing care for a now ageing and declining community, the members of which do not have children of their own who could support them, and that they will be forced or obliged to sell school properties to finance this obligation. Will the Minister approach the religious orders and suggest that the State or the community could pick up that cost, however it is to be financed? However, at a time of rising school population we do not wish to see the closure and sale of school buildings, albeit into a declining market. That is the motivation. Does the Minister not agree that both he and public representatives have legal ownership of only 3% of the primary school infrastructure? This means we have no control over the decision of a patron to decide unilaterally to sell a property. The likelihood of that now is less than it would have been three or four years ago, but it occurred three times in my constituency. Will the Minister revisit the position and enter into discussions with the existing owners in control of 97% of the infrastructure to draw some commitments or guarantees? I do not wish for any of these schools to be sold. I hope they continue to operate as schools under the existing patronage arrangements, which are more than satisfactory. However, the fear is that if the costs increase further and we have no control over the schools, the owners may sell them and the Minister would be powerless to stop this from occurring.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two questions and one relates to indemnity. The Deputy is aware that all but two of the properties are in public ownership. There are two cases in which there are legal difficulties and there may need to be a cash transaction.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is nobody's fault. There is no fault either on the part of the Minister or on the part of the religious orders.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is related to the various trusts.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The situation goes back more than 100 years.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apparently the matter is very complicated. I refer to schools and ownership of schools. The issue is important and we must address it. The Deputy suggested that because of its ownership, the church can willy-nilly sell a school. However, that does not take into account our lease arrangement with the church for these schools. For an order to sell a school it must be granted leave to sell by agreement with the Department. That clawback is in place for all the church properties. In that sense there is no chance of the Deputy's suggestion occurring.

New arrangements are in place, including the arrangement whereby the Department buys a site and leases it back to the patron and, therefore, retains total control of the situation. The Deputy's suggestion would have serious constitutional implications. If the church was unwilling to sell, there would be no obligation for it to do so. It cannot sell if it does not have our agreement. From my perspective, the whole system has worked exceptionally well. The Deputy referred to the ageing population, but we will introduce a new patronage model. We are seeking the agreement and co-operation of others.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I respect the Chair and I will be very brief. There is no problem with the modern arrangements or the modern leaseholds. However, the bulk of the schools in built up areas to which I am referring predate those leasing arrangements. In my constituency schools were unilaterally closed down and the Department told us at the time it had no lean or control over that.

The Minister does not know a great deal in regard to this matter, and it is not his fault. We do not have a proper inventory of who owns what, the terms and conditions and so on. Therefore, the Minister's remarks are insupportable. Ownership, control, rationalisation and maximisation of the use of the infrastructure of our schools is critically important from the point of view of the Minister for Education and Science.

As a first step, I suggest the Minister should explore the possibility, not of the closure of schools, but of the orderly transfer of ownership in a reasoned way from religious teaching orders. My question is confined specifically to religious teaching orders, which are subject to a time clause of the State. This would ensure we safeguard the infrastructure of the schools on the one hand and respect the real needs of these declining religious teaching orders and their communities.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The information disseminated to me from my officials is that we have an ownership on the lease and that orders cannot sell without our release of that lease. I respect the comments of the Deputy and I will have the matter further investigated and communicate with him. At a time of scare resources I must consider the priorities.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not requesting the Minister to spend money buying them. The orders should hand them over.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not certain that is a feasible option.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is where I would start.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is something which may be requested. In fairness, the church is very generous in many ways.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the week, I met a priest who offered, for free, a site worth €21 million in the middle of one of our large towns.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course the Minister is aware that with ownership comes an obligation for maintenance and care.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, at the end of the day.