Ahern rejects link between abuse cases

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has rejected Labour Party comparisons of the State's treatment of the Catholic Church in capping its liability for abuse cases at £120 million, while pursuing a woman for €500,000 in legal costs after she lost a damages case.

Mr Ahern reiterated previous assurances that there was "no question whatsoever" of the woman, Louise O'Keeffe, who was sexually abused by her primary school principal, being forced to sell her house to pay the State's legal costs.

The State successfully sought to deny liability for the actions of the teacher, and Ms O'Keeffe, whose costs currently stand at €500,000, has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Labour leader Pat Rabbitte said the Minister for Education had said the State "has a responsibility for 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."

He added that if the church did not have the resources, "why does the same principle not apply in this case?"

Mr Ahern said it would be an "extraordinary thing for any state to do" not to fight cases where it had a strong defence.

Mr Rabbitte claimed that "we have a circumstance where the Taoiseach believes on the one hand that an organisation can cap its liability at £120 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, 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".

The Taoiseach said 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."

Referring to the 14,000 applications in the State redress scheme, Mr Ahern said "if I did not honour those commitments I would have been in here week after week saying why I did not".

Insisting that they were two separate cases, Mr Ahern said he was "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."

He stressed, however, that the State Claims Agency had been asked to approach the issue of costs in a measured and sensitive way. He added that "there was no question whatsoever of her losing her house". She was going to the Supreme Court "as is her right, so I cannot get involved".

However Mr Ahern pointed out that "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."

Opinion: page 16