Issued on Behalf of BLM

31st October 2016

REDRESS: CAN THE COST BE CALCULATED

Compensating those who spent time in a residential home in Northern Ireland, either run by the state or on behalf of the state, could cost an estimated £300m if redress is opened to every person who spent time in care, according leading lawyer, Fintan Canavan of law firm BLM.

“The task of trying to put a value on a potential redress scheme is daunting, but is one which is being tackled in Northern Ireland and is likely to be considered in Scotland and England and Wales,” said Canavan. 

On Monday 17 October, representatives of victims and survivors groups in Northern Ireland presented a paper entitled “A Cost Analysis of A Proposed Redress Scheme for Historical Institutional Abuse” to MLAs at Stormont, Belfast.

This paper is the latest step in a process going back to the start of the campaign for a Northern Ireland inquiry which gathered over 6000 signatures. That campaign led to the creation of the Historic Institutional Abuse Inquiry (HIAI) led by retired High Court Judge, Sir Anthony Hart.

In November 2015, Sir Anthony Hart announced “…there should be a scheme to award financial compensation to those children who suffered abuse in children’s homes and other institutions in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1995.”

In March 2016 a report was produced by Ulster University entitled “What Survivors Want from Redress” recommending a common experience payment of £10,000 per resident and an additional common experience payment of £3000 for each year spent in an institution.  Each person could then apply for a further “top up” payment to reflect any abusive experiences suffered by them in the institution.

A further report was prepared entitled “What Survivors Want: Part Two A Comprehension Framework for Historic Abuses in Residential Institutions” in May 2016. This report sets out a “tailor made out of court redress plan” based on consultation with survivors and research and analysis of their views.

What comes out strongly in all reports is the recommendation of a financial redress scheme rather than any form of scheduled payment/pension payment approach. According to Canavan, “overwhelmingly a lump sum approach is recommended. There is a strong feeling for a “common experience” payment (as has been paid in some previous schemes) which is paid to all those who were placed in care regardless of the home or the duration of the stay. This would then be coupled to a scheme to reflect the time in care and the experiences reported during that time period.

A figure of £20 million has been quoted widely by the media coming from report from a victims’ group. This figure would reflect compensation only being paid to those who have come forward to the HIAI and does not reflect the likely situation where (as has happened in other jurisdictions and schemes) significantly more people will seek a payment from a redress scheme than have come to the Inquiry. It also does not take account of the fact that this Inquiry was limited to a number of institutions and that residents of other institutions would also expect be entitled to avail of the scheme.

The ‘Part Two…’ report referred to above calculates an estimate of the cost at different levels of claimant and ranges from £20.1 million to £307.3 million to include a contribution to the costs of the applicants.

While the victims and survivors have been pressing for a decision now and some form of interim payment scheme, the Executive is awaiting the full report from the HIAI. It seems unlikely there will be any decision until they have considered any scheme recommended by the panel created to advise on the issues following the evidence gathering they have carried out.  “The ultimate liability is based on assumptions which are impossible to validate and therefore should be treated with caution,” concluded Canavan.

END

For further information please contact

Claire Aiken, AIKEN, claire@aikenpr.com

02890663000/ 07831717535