| (From Church & State Magazine, No. 74, Autumn 2003) |
| Laffoy's Resignation & The Indemnity Deal |
| David Alvey |
This journal has covered the unedifying spectacle of the efforts by the Irish State to investigate and recompense survivors of the religious run Industrial School system, since the States Of Fear series of programmes was broadcast by RTE in May 1999. During the four years since then the Laffoy Commission has investigated 40 out of 1,700 cases that have been submitted to it. Separately from the Laffoy Commission, a Redress Board was eventually set up in 2002 to pay compensation to victims of abuse. The Redress Board has been more expeditious but controversy also surrounds its work in that the ‘Woods Indemnity Deal’ is considered to have been over-generous to the eighteen Catholic religious orders who have made a financial contribution to the Compensation Fund established by the State. In recent months a number of developments have occurred which have elevated the whole Industrial School scandal from an electorally insignificant issue to the top of the political agenda. First, Justice Laffoy resigned as chairperson of the Commission. And second, the indemnity deal controversy has caused a public breach between Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice, and Dr Michael Woods, the former Minister for Education. McDowell, who is one of the dominant personalities in the Government, has, by airing his difference with Dr Woods in public, broken ranks with his Cabinet colleagues. It remains to be seen whether he will continue in office. Mary Laffoy gave three reasons for her resignation: inadequate resourcing from the Departments of Education and Finance, a lack of cooperation from the Department of Education, and the Review of the Commission instigated by the present Minister for Education, Noel Dempsey. The immediate catalyst for the resignation was a decision by the Minister to add a second phase to his Review. In response to the resignation, Bertie Ahearn, as Taoiseach, accepted Justice Laffoy’s criticisms and stated that the huge number of submissions had not been expected. His defence was simply that the Government had not intentionally delayed or under-resourced the Commission. But it is noteworthy that, on the Saturday View programme on RTE radio on Saturday 4th October 2003, Noel Dempsey mentioned in passing that the work rate of the Laffoy Commission had been too slow or words to that effect. The Government has appointed Sean Ryan SC to replace Mary Laffoy and the appointment has been well received by the various groups representing the survivors of abuse. The legal representatives employed by Laffoy have been stood down. Ryan who is be made a judge, had a role in drawing up the guidelines for the Redress Board, and was a Senior Counsel in the Ferns Inquiry into the clerical sex abuse in that diocese. It remains to be seen whether he will be able to salvage anything from the administrative and legal wreckage caused by the factors which forced his predecessor to resign. But the issue generating most political heat is the Indemnity Deal. Ever since it was signed in the closing days of the last Government (5th June 2002), it has been regarded with deep suspicion in Opposition and media circles. That the negotiations were conducted in an uncommonly secretive manner simply heightened the controversy—the media have been able to winkle out most of the information on their own terms through the Freedom of Information Act; they have even been able to show up the bias of the Department of Education by extracting correspondence from the Department of Finance that was refused for ‘legal’ reasons by the Department of Education. The Public Accounts Committee questioned a number of the main participants, including John Dennehy, Secretary General of the Department of Education and has generally kept a watching brief on the matter. Despite all the opposition, however, it is just conceivable that the Government could have ridden out the storm of this controversy had it not been for one other, unprecedented, source of criticism - that from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), John Purcell. Purcell published his report on wasteful expenditure of public money on 30th September 2003. It contained a section critical of the Indemnity Deal. His case as summarised by Liam Reid in the Irish Times (1.10.2003) is as follows:
The furore following this criticism led to Dr Woods being interviewed on Morning Ireland on RTE radio (1.10.2003). Woods categorically denied that the Attorney General’s office had been kept in the dark. Michael McDowell, the Attorney General at the time and now Minister of Justice, made the following statement later that same morning :
In making this statement McDowell was taking on the Taoiseach as well as Dr. Woods. Bertie Ahearn stated in the Dail later that day (October 1st):
These statements reveal a serious difference between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, who is also a prominent member of the junior partner in the present Coalition. Mary Harney was forced to make a statement to quell rumours of a rift between Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats. She backed Bertie. In all the acres of newsprint devoted to this controversy there has been little mention of the actual provision which Woods conceded in the negotiations with the orders without the knowledge of the Attorney General’s office. It was that the State indemnity was to cover the Church in all legal cases concerning the Industrial Schools, not just cases coming before the Redress Board. The effect was to also make the State liable for the costs and compensation in all cases successfully brought against the Church in the Courts. This was a concession that Woods did not have to make and which will add considerably to the liability of the State. It has already been invoked in a legal case. A claimant sued a religious order and the State took over the case and reached a settlement out of Court (one which exceeded levels disbursed by the Redress Board). It is well known that Bertie Ahearn and Michael Woods sympathise with the interests of the Irish Catholic Church. John Dennehy, the Dept. of Education official involved, is also known to have conservative Catholic loyalties. (He was a witness for the Church side in the Chaplains case brought by the Campaign to Separate Church and State.) It is known that the representatives of the 18 religious orders involved in the negotiations were fixated on keeping the negotiations secret. They complained vociferously about leaks to the media. Clearly the Indemnity Deal was negotiated by parties who can be easily identified as old-style Irish Catholics. What this controversy reveals is the ineffectual nature of old-style Catholic conservatism in contemporary politics. Admittedly the fate of Christian Brothers in Canada—financial liquidation—has been avoided, but at what cost? Media coverage of the Indemnity Deal has been a public relations disaster for all the parties to it. The conclusion that may be drawn by thoughtful observers who have followed the controversy was well summed up a letter to the Irish Times on 4th October 2003:
Catholic conservatives can no longer trust that, when acting to serve the interests of the Church before those of the State, their colleagues or underlings will turn a blind eye. The Indemnity Deal and the shabby treatment of Justice Laffoy both show the weakness of Bertie Ahearn as a political leader. He would have better served the State and ironically the Church if he had put his political weight behind the Laffoy Commission from the start, instead of leaving it to flounder in a quagmire of legal wrangling and official hostility. If he had taken the approach of the letter writer quoted above instead of following his defensive political instincts, the entire scandal might have reached a closure acceptable to all parties by now. The victims should have been paid compensation, whatever it costs, and the compensation paid out quickly and willingly. A detailed acknowledgement of the abuse that took place and who was responsible for it should have been made. The Department of Education should have been directed to assist this process in every way possible and, if that entailed a purge of Catholic conservatives, so be it. Finally the practice of allowing all parties to the investigation to be represented by lawyers should not have been allowed. There are many British and Continental precedents for public inquiries being carried out by a member of the Judiciary backed up by appropriate staff, without allowing the parties being represented to have their own legal representation. Litigious wrangles were one of the causes of the failure of the Laffoy Commission. It
would have been possible to do all of this, to handle the matter with
political adroitness and administrative efficiency while retaining Catholic
loyalties. But the political sophistication required to face up to and
process a scandal like the story of abuse in the Industrial Schools seems
to be altogether lacking in Irish Catholic culture. |
| If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union. |