This week was marked by further exploration of Ireland’s past, specifically focusing on the darker aspects of Irish history, with the release of a report by leading lawyer Mary O’Toole investigating sexual abuse cases in boarding and day schools. This follows closely on the heels of the recent publication of ‘The Revelation of Ireland, 1995-2020’ by Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, which suggests that grim disclosures about Ireland’s past will persist. It is quite unlikely that these would be the final revelations.
The report released this week was triggered by the recounting of abuse incidents by past attendees of Blackrock College in Dublin, arguably the nation’s most renowned educational institution. During the 1990s, when the horrifying disclosures of widespread physical and sexual exploitation in industrial schools, orphanages, and correctional facilities first came to light, many speculated that this was a result of Church and State’s actions against the most unfortunate, poorest, and most destitute children. The wealthy and well-connected youngsters, who received costly education, would never undergo such experiences, they assumed.
However, we now know the reality that the perpetrators harboured – and at times safeguarded and enabled by the orders – didn’t discriminate based on economic status. Regardless of wealth, class, or privilege, being unfortunate was the only criterion.
Modifications in law regarding timeframe could be beneficial to victims looking for redress for abuse incidents during their school life, as mentioned by a solicitor.
Education Minister Norma Foley has made a commitment that the sexual abuse commission in schools will be established as soon as feasible.
The cost of the redress scheme for the schools abuse inquiry may be as high as €5bn.
Every child who has been victim of sexual abuse in schools should be entitled to compensation.
Further, it stands to reason that other schools not covered by O’Toole’s report may have witnessed child abuse at a similar scale. Consequently, if accurate, the number of abuse allegations are likely to far exceed the 2,400 cases reported this week.
The government, or rather, the next administration, as implied by a current office bearer, will inevitably have to grapple with ethically challenging decisions relating to the extent of the Investigation Commission that needs to be established and the nature and scale of the redress scheme. It is worth mentioning that some orders have been interacting with survivors, listening to their accounts, and in some instances providing compensation.
Previously, it was widely anticipated within the Government that an abuse compensation scheme would only come to fruition following the completion of the pending inquiry. However, this presumption has disintegrated this week.
Simon Harris, whose political senses have been hyperalert even while he’s been in Kyiv, grasped this. On Wednesday, he shared with journalists covering his Ukrainian capital trip that the commitment to recompense couldn’t be “shelved” until the conclusion of a thorough legal inquiry. It would be unfeasible, he stated, to postpone the resolution of the challenge of compensating abuse victims until the end of the anticipated Commission of Investigation procedure. “Individuals can’t endure wait periods extending to five, six, seven years, or longer.”
His remarks stirred up a small storm back in Dublin (one of several this week, it appears), however, the point Harris makes stands. The compensation scheme must proceed concurrently with the pertinent investigation.
Highlighting this truth has resulted in apprehensions about the potential financial extent of the scheme, confirmed by many high-ranking Government officials whom I had conversations with this week. No one among these individuals disputes the necessity for a compensation plan. However, they are worried about its scale and the source of its funding. One estimation indicated that it could cost up to €5 billion.
For perspective, in relation to the present controversy, that sum could provide approximately 15,000 Dáil bike shelters. Thus, the Government must approach this matter fully aware of the implications.
Past experiences have provided some unmistakable teachings: investigations will extend beyond their projected durations; the tally for compensation will far exceed initial projections; extracting funds from religious institutions will prove to be a herculean task. As an example, consider the compensation scheme for industrial school abuse victims, established in 2002. This came after Bertie Ahern’s state apology in 1999 resulted in discussions between the Government and the religious orders concerning who would cover the compensation for the victims of abuse at the institutions operated by the orders, whom the State had previously placed in their care.
The estimated cost of the bills, tied to the records orders, totaled around €250 million. The State, under contentious and unconventional conditions, had agreed each order was to contribute €125 million, a sum which was set at a limit. Simply put, if the cost exceeded expectations, the State would bear the financial burden. Predictably, the final cost was a billion euro more than originally scheduled. It’s worth noting that several individuals had foreseen and cautioned against this outcome for many years, and a billion euro was a considerable sum in the past.
Upon the release of the inquiry report, public outrage prompted the orders to pledge an additional €350 million. However, only €120 million of that pledge has been fulfilled to date. Hence, out of the total €1.25 billion, the orders have paid merely €250 million, leaving the public to shoulder the remaining cost. The masses have also had to bear legal expenses of €200 million, with several law firms gaining substantial fees – six of which received over €10 million each.
I studied at a school mentioned in this week’s reports and my experience was nothing but pleasant; apparently, however, others had different experiences. This raises more questions than it answers. Do we need sweeping investigations into every reported abuse incident in our schools? Or would an outlined sample examination seem more efficient? Who’s eligible for compensation? Every individual who has reported any sort of allegation? How can we push religious orders to contribute significantly? Can we reduce lawyer engagements? Which services will be compromised to compensate for these expenses? And when will we draw meaningful lessons from this historical occurrence?