A redress scheme for survivors of sexual abuse in schools would be at a “far greater scale” than any other scheme in the history of the State, and could have “far-reaching implications”.
A group of civil servants across five senior Government departments warned they could not support a call for such a redress scheme without “concrete data” about how high demand and what “potential costs” would be.
It is possible that a commission of investigation would have to start its work before a redress scheme is set up, with the early stages of the inquiry being used as a way to measure demand for redress.
There are concerns among senior sources about the impact the redress scheme would have on budgets for present-day needs. The Government will now consider if the insurance policies of schools found liable for abuse can be used to “offset” the costs of payments to a possible 40,000 survivors or more.
RM Block
This week Ministers agreed to set up a commission of investigation into historic abuse in schools. Minister for Education Helen McEntee said “further” investigation and analysis was required before an anticipated redress scheme for abuse survivors could be announced.
The commission of investigation and proposed redress scheme were among the recommendations of a scoping inquiry published last year, which detailed 2,395 allegations of sexual abuse at 308 schools run by religious congregations, involving 884 alleged abusers.
An inter-departmental group report (IDG) including officials from the Departments of the Taoiseach, Education, Justice, Children, and Public Expenditure and Reform wrote a report examining the main recommendations of the scoping inquiry. The group of civil servants felt that setting up a redress scheme for survivors of sexual abuse in schools was “as complex” as setting up a commission of investigation. Analysis by the Department of Public Expenditure warned against “the significant risks” of a “rushed” redress scheme, “including the assumption of risk by the State when liability should more appropriately be borne by third parties”. The report said that recent case law on the liability for the actions of school employees found that “the State does not have such liability”.
IDG said such a redress scheme requires “serious and careful consideration” and that it could have “far-reaching implications”.
The IDG report noted that based on information from the Central Statistics Office (CSO), there are more than 41,300 people aged 35 or over in Ireland that have been affected by sexual abuse in schools, with the added note that sexual abuse tends to be “under-reported”.
“In the event that a comparable number of people applied to any future redress scheme, the impact would be considerable and certainly on a far greater scale than any such scheme implemented to date in Ireland,” it said.
It said: “Concrete data regarding the potential scale of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools in Ireland is unavailable and in the absence of such information, the IDG is not in a position to advise on an appropriate response to [the recommendation for a redress scheme] at this time.”
Officials will now carry out further work on the practical issues of a redress scheme.
International examples of redress schemes that succeeded in getting third parties found liable for abuse to pay for redress will also be examined, including a scheme in Australia that succeeded in getting religious organisations to pay for redress by threatening to withdraw charitable status or state funding.
Survivors had stressed to the scoping inquiry the need for the future Commission of Investigation to be carried out quickly, with Ms McEntee this week setting a five-year timeline for the inquiry. The IDG has proposed letting the commission sit in parallel “divisions” to save time. This would be the first time in the history of the State that an inquiry has been carried out in such a way, and it would be likely to require additional legislation passed by the Oireachtas.
