I want to raise the case of the separated mother of two who faces the prospect of having €500,000 in costs pursued against her by the State in respect of a damages action she took over the sexual abuse she suffered while attending primary school. Deputies will recall that the principal of the school concerned was jailed after being found guilty of 21 charges of indecent assault from a sample of 380 counts relating to 21 girls. The State successfully sought to deny liability for the actions of the teacher, even though he was employed by the State. We now have a situation in which the woman, who was described by Mr. Justice de Valera as having suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the unforgivable actions of a teacher, faces the seizure of her only asset, the family home.

This should be contrasted with the issue I raised yesterday with the Taoiseach regarding the more than €1,300 million in compensation paid out by the Government for the abuse of young people in residential institutions. The Taoiseach will recall that the State voluntarily agreed to pick up the charges and costs in cases to which it was not and could not have been a party. When I asked the Taoiseach why this decision was made, he said: "The Irish church does not have those resources." He also said he makes no apology for spending €1,300 million in taxpayers' money on discharging this liability when the State was not a party and could not have been made a party because the church did not have the resources. What about the woman who does not have resources, who was sexually abused and suffered catastrophic injuries and who now faces the seizure of her home to discharge costs of €500,000 because the State will not admit liability? By claiming the teacher was not its agent, the State pleaded successfully that it did not have liability and it is now pursuing the woman for the charges. Should not the same conditions be applied to that woman out of compassion as those applied in respect of the sloppy, secret and negligent deal conducted through Deputy Woods which the Taoiseach tried to justify?

I will address both issues. Obviously, I cannot comment on the circumstances of a case that is before the Supreme Court but, when the case concluded in the High Court last March, I made it clear that the Government had asked the State Claims Agency — the statutory body which deals with legal fees — to approach the issue of costs in a measured and sensitive way. The woman lost her case in the High Court and, because there was a large bill, I said we would do that. I understand the State Claims Agency told the lady's solicitor on the record at an early meeting that while some arrangements would have to made regarding costs there was no question whatsoever of her losing her house — so that does not arise. However, the lady's solicitor informed the agency that she intended to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, so obviously I could not go any further. If she did not want us to deal sympathetically and in a measured way with the issue at the end of the High Court case, but wished to proceed to the Supreme Court, as was her right, then I could do nothing. In any case the High Court has put a stay on the costs pending the termination of the Supreme Court appeal, so I can go no further in that.

On the second issue raised by the Deputy, 14,000 applications have been made by people in residential institutions to the redress board. These are vulnerable people who were in institutions, either sent there by the State or under joint authority by the State, which was jointly responsible. When seven years ago I gave the apology for how these people were treated, because their lives were ruined and destroyed, we said we would set up a redress board — the numbers have increased from the originally envisaged 6,500 to 7,000 cases — and to give these people awards of court. This was the right and humane thing to do. The State would have had to pay for these charges. In our view the State was responsible. They were State institutions or institutions run by religious to which the State sent these people. The State, in our view, is liable for that. The figures are higher, but we will not stop half way down and state we cannot pay the people involved. There was the deadline of last December which showed that we would have cumulative average awards of approximately €76,000 and legal and administrative costs of approximately 20%. We have paid those costs. I make no apology for paying those people to whom I made an apology and for whom we set up a redress system.

That is not the issue. The issue is that if the Taoiseach sent out Deputy Woods to do this secret deal because the church did not have the resources, why does the same principle not apply in this case? In reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan, who raised the issue after the Taoiseach made his remarks about the measured response, the nice Minister for Education and Science replied as follows. This was in the case of the mother of two facing the costs of €500,000 and the loss of her home. The bossy Minister for Education and Science said:

The State has a responsibility to the taxpayer to fight cases where it knows it has a strong defence. In that context, it is also natural to seek an order for costs when it successfully defends a case.

That was the formal considered response written for her by her departmental officials and parroted faithfully here by the nice Minister for Education and Science after the Taoiseach's measured words.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

What do his measured words amount to? Of course, the woman concerned has no choice but to appeal to the Supreme Court where the Government will claim in defence that it has no legal responsibility for the actions of teachers in such circumstances. However, here we have a circumstance where the Taoiseach believes on the one hand an organisation can cap its liability at £100 million for people abused in residential institutions with the State picking up the remaining €1.2 billion, while on the other hand in a case involving an individual citizen where the principal was jailed for sexual abuse——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——where she received what was described by the judge as catastrophic injuries, the Minister with responsibility has said the costs will be prosecuted against her. In those circumstances it is not for the Taoiseach to say that her home is not at risk: that is not how the system works. If she is responsible for the €500,000 and that is her only asset, then her home is at risk.

They are two separate cases, as the Deputy knows. I am not responsible for the lady pursuing the case to the Supreme Court — that is her right, so I have no comment to make about that. However, when the issue arose following her High Court case I made it very clear on the record of this House that we had asked the State Claims Agency, the statutory body that deals with these cases, to approach the issues of costs in a measured and sensitive way. The issue today was that she would lose her house. I was putting on the record that the lady was told last spring on the record at a very early meeting that arrangements would have to be made regarding costs because she lost her case. There was no question whatsoever of her losing her house. The solicitor came back to advise that she would go to the Supreme Court, as is her right, so I cannot get involved. As I said, the High Court has put a stay on the costs order anyway, so the issue does not arise until the end of the Supreme Court stage. However, the house issue does not arise at all.

While I know the Deputy knows the answer, to avoid confusion let me say the State was liable jointly for children it took into care and that was the point. We were liable for that. If we were going to apologise to them, say we would compensate them and set up a redress board for them, the ultimate number was a matter for the independent redress board to look at the cases and decide whether we were liable and it was for us to pay them the costs. The Deputy can either agree or disagree with that. I know the Deputy believes we should have——

The Taoiseach voluntarily agreed to discharge——

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

——costs where the State was not a party and was subsequently made a party.

I am answering the Deputy's question. I was not going to get into a position of saying we would put a cap on the number of people who could enter the redress system or a cap on the money going out. We did not do that. These were people we were entitled to look after. We have all heard horror stories about these people and we need to be sincere about what we did.

The Government was trying to look after the woman too.

What happened was horrific.

If I did not honour those commitments, I would have been in here week after week saying why I did not. The fact is I honoured the commitments and we will finish that process. The State is not liable for abuse by teachers or others — they are not State employees. In one case the State was liable jointly for children it took into care and in the other case it was not.

Whose employees are they?

If Deputy Rabbitte is stating the State should have no responsibility to fight cases where it knows it has a strong defence, that would be an extraordinary thing for any state to do.

Who paid the teachers?

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is not even in the Labour Party. Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

I have made clear what we would try to do for this lady after the High Court case and I am not in a position to make any further comment on the matter until after the Supreme Court case.

The Taoiseach might have a whip around.