Written answers

Wednesday, 15 February 2006

Department of Education and Science

Residential Institutions Redress Scheme

9:00 pm

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 79: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to the fact that many victims of child abuse and organisations that represent them and others who have attended board hearings, including professional witnesses, have expressed serious dissatisfaction with the operations of the board and the secrecy that surrounds its deliberations; her response to these concerns; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5758/06]

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Residential Institutions Redress Board was established under statute to provide financial redress to victims of child abuse in residential institutions to assist them in their recovery and enhance the quality of the remainder of their lives. The board provides an alternative to victims having to pursue traumatic civil court cases to obtain compensation for their injuries.

The provisions of the Act allow the board to make awards based on a generally lower threshold of proof than is required in taking a case through the courts. Notwithstanding this, the redress bands used by the board in assessing the level of award to be offered to applicants are in line with High Court awards made in personal injuries cases.

An applicant is expected to provide proof of identity, that he or she was resident in an institution, that he or she was injured while so resident and that the injury is consistent with any allegation of abuse that is alleged to have occurred while so resident. Awards are determined by the board having regard to the severity of the abuse and the severity of physical and psychological injury and loss of opportunity resulting from the abuse. An applicant may accept or reject an award or may submit the award for review to the review committee. In the event that the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of this process, they can reject an offer and commence proceedings in the courts.

The redress board is not a court of law and the making of an award by the board does not constitute a finding of fault or negligence on the part of a relevant person. It is for this reason that the Act stipulates that all hearings must be conducted in private and an individual who chooses to accept an award of the board must agree not to publish any information relating to an application or an award. This confidentiality provision is required to protect the rights of persons, including victims.

In as far as it can, the board conducts its business with as much informality as possible. To assess the appropriate level of award for each case the board must be in a position to examine the evidence before it and to ask questions where necessary. This can, of course, be distressing for some applicants. In order that applicants may be supported through the redress process an applicant may have either a friend or family member accompany them to the board's offices and, while it is not normally possible for them to attend the hearing itself, they may wait for the applicant and be immediately available to them following the hearing. The board will, if requested prior to the hearing, make a counsellor available to support the applicant. Applicants are entitled to legal representation at hearings, the costs of which are met by the board, and most applicants avail of this facility.

The board received 14,768 applications by 15 December 2005 and by the end of 2005 had made awards in 4,477 cases. The vast majority of applicants have accepted the awards offered by the board and only five awards have been rejected. While the Deputy has referred to people who have expressed dissatisfaction with their experience with the board I am aware that the board itself and officials in my Department have also been contacted by applicants who wanted to express their gratitude for the manner and sensitivity in which their cases were dealt with by the board.

I am also aware that the board has taken account of views expressed about its operations. Officials from the redress board have met with survivor groups on a number of occasions and, where possible, have accepted suggestions made regarding administrative arrangements and procedures. The board is, of course, independent in the performance of its functions.

I believe that the redress scheme is working effectively and sensitively in the interests of survivors and that the board is delivering on its mandate.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.