Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 83: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if he will respond to issues in relation to the Residential Institutions Redress Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14357/04]

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Residential Institutions Redress Act was enacted on 10 April 2002. The Act provided for the establishment of the Residential Institutions Redress Board in order to provide a mechanism to make financial awards to victims of abuse to assist them in their recovery and enhance the quality of the remainder of their lives. It also provided an alternative to them having to pursue traumatic civil court cases in order to obtain compensation for their injuries.

While the civil courts operate on the basis that a plaintiff must prove their case on the balance of probability, the redress board operates on a much lower threshold of proof and does not make any findings of guilt in relation to an individual or an institution.

I assume that the issues the Deputy is referring to are around the recent case of a person dissatisfied with the outcome of the redress process. This person has taken the option to recommencing his case in the courts. The Government has agreed to do everything it possibly can to expedite a hearing and, taking into account the papers already lodged for the purpose of the civil case, to agree that the case will proceed on an assessment of damages only basis.

The operation of the redress board and review committee must be viewed objectively and adverse judgments regarding the process should not be made on the basis of just one case. To date a total of 3,540 applications have been made to the redress board and the application process has been finalised in 1,070 of these cases. The remaining cases are at various stages of the process. This indicates a high level of satisfaction with the operation of the board and the process of redress. In the circumstances I do not see a requirement to bring forward amendments to legislation which is working to the benefit of the vast majority of survivors.