That deal gave the religious a bargain way out, but now, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it will cost the State at least €1 billion. If the church still sold indulgences, this Government would be guaranteed a red carpet to heaven for its noble sacrifice on behalf of the abusers. The Taoiseach and the Minister were right yesterday and today when they said that the State would be liable for a large share of the costs in court actions taken by survivors, but why was the shoddy, shameful €128 million deal arranged in the first place?

My colleagues, Deputies Dan Boyle and Trevor Sargent, will be speaking about the matter later and in committee tomorrow, so I will not go into too much here. However, the Government made a grave and fundamental error in signing the deal, since it transpires that a large proportion of the property cannot be sold commercially to raise funds to compensate victims. It also made another grave and fundamental error in its estimate of the true cost of compensating the abused.

Until proven wrong, I will firmly believe that the Government originally agreed the €128 million because it was running scared of the court route. It knew that the church would, in many cases, successfully tie the Department of Education and Science and other Departments in as co-defendants, creating a potential for compensation far higher than €128 million. I am not sure whether the costs of the court action would be higher in this case after the report relative to the redress and Laffoy costs. However, I have no doubt that the Government's motivation was primarily driven by cost. In doing that deal, the Government let the church off the hook in an effort to cut costs. Now it transpires that they are huge.

I do not believe that cost is the issue now. Getting to the truth and justice are the issues, and the Government must show that. If cost was unimportant, how come the survivors who received a settlement through the Residential Institutions Redress Board cannot go to the courts and face prosecution if they reveal the details of their award? Let us examine the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Admittedly, the Committee on Education and Science had no problem with the weighting initially proposed, but it is clear that the redress board is not working well. The weightings are inadequate and come nowhere near matching the compensation payments of the High Court, as recommended by Seán Ryan in the O'Gorman case, for example. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the highest payment to date was just over €200,000 for a person who was experimented on. He certainly did not do it in committee. If that is so, what do other victims have to look forward to in purely financial compensation for their suffering? The redress scheme must be reviewed and revamped.

I now come to the Laffoy commission. The reason this debate is taking place is that Ms Justice Mary Laffoy resigned. The confidential committee has worked out to some extent, and after a year of asking the Minister has finally accepted that those who have received counselling and simply wish to tell their stories will now have the option of moving from the investigations committee to the confidential committee. For those who still wish actively to seek justice, the investigations committee remains a farce. I concede that it was hounded by the religious, but also by the Government, which Ms Justice Laffoy pointed out had not assisted her in doing her job. She said that she would be able to complete it by July 2005. Her letter was a critical indictment of the Government's obstruction and incompetence in dealing with bringing the truth of what happened to light.

Along with other representatives, I questioned the Minister at last Monday's committee meeting. His responses regarding Ms Justice Laffoy's criticisms were not convincing, and we let the media and others decide on it. In moving past the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, the Minister must now show transparency and openness. So far he has done the opposite, showing great contempt for this House in announcing the appointment of Mr. Seán Ryan SC as Ms Justice Laffoy's replacement. His appointment, notwithstanding his credentials, is premature. Any new appointment or independent investigation that he is to carry out should have awaited the interim Laffoy report in November, this Dáil debate and the Minister coming before the Committee on Education and Science.

Mr. N. Dempsey: Did you ask the victims?

Acting Chairman: Allow the Deputy to speak.

Mr. Gogarty: We are talking about getting to the truth for the victims, and the Minister is obstructing that. If he wishes to help the victims, he must do two things.

Acting Chairman: Six minutes have now elapsed in the Deputy's slot.

Mr. Gogarty: He must publish all the documents on the changes that Ms Justice Laffoy proposes in advance and in full public view. He should banish sampling from the agenda. He has stated in meetings with groups representing victims that sampling would not be examined for the time being, but he has not ruled it out. Sampling should never be introduced. Each survivor's experience is as valuable as that of the next, and it is not enough to gather clear sample evidence in this instance.

If this mess is not cleared up in a forthright, honest and transparent manner, perhaps other options must be considered, such as the establishment of a forum where survivors can state their experiences under privilege without fear of legal interruption or a return to the courts, with the State openly admitting its liability and working with the victims to countersue the church. One way or another, things cannot go on as they are if we all claim to have the survivors' best interests at heart.

Mr. N. Dempsey: With regard to the question about the inevitability of Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, I did not see it as inevitable.

Mr. Gogarty: The Minister would not let her do her job.

Mr. N. Dempsey: -----from various victims. That did not find much favour. It certainly would not have done so with me, and in fairness to other members of the Opposition, it did not find favour with them either. Today's proposal is the same thing. It is essentially to set up some investigation or mechanism whereby we can ignore people's constitutional rights. That is just not possible because we have a Constitution. Sometimes it can be extremely inconvenient. All of us in this House would like to be in a position to ignore the rights of people who we know, or feel very strongly, were abusers. However, in some respects unfortunately, the Constitution does not work that way. It believes that everyone should be treated equally and has a right to defend his or her good name. I do not support anything that would remove constitutional rights from anyone.
I have dealt with the question of the payments from the redress board. I have stated that it has a legal obligation to have regard to the Ryan committee's recommendations and to ensure that it makes payments based on the evidence before it and in line with the High Court payments. It must do that, and it is wrong for anyone in this House to insinuate that it is not doing so, as seems to be the case with the Deputy.
The Deputy made one other point - or perhaps it was a question - to do with securing the awards. I apologise to the Deputy in advance if I am mistaken, but he seemed to be suggesting that we should give people the right to go to the redress board to make their cases, secure their awards, perhaps appeal, and that, having done all that, they should be allowed to appeal again to the court system.

Mr. Gogarty: And obviously forfeit their awards.

Mr. N. Dempsey: They have the right.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The termination of section 481 relief with effect from the end of 2004 was announced by the Minister for Finance in his 2003 Budget Statement as part of a programme of tax base broadening measures. In view of the likely implications of this measure for the film sector, I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to carry out an analysis of the economic significance of the section 481 scheme. I have recently received their report and will draw on its evaluation of the economic significance of the tax relief in my discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, on future support for the film industry in Ireland. As these discussions must, of their nature, remain confidential, I do not propose to make any public statement for the present on the PWC analysis and conclusions.

Mr. Gogarty: Could the Minister publish certain findings of the PWC report indicating, in broad general terms, whether it favoured the Government's current plan to abolish section 481, recommended an alternative scheme or recommended no alternative? This might either relieve some of the industry's fears or give it an opportunity to put forward its own alternative proposals. Given that there are over 4,000 full-time and over 3,000 temporary employees in the film industry, does the Minister agree that the cost of approximately €12 million in relation to the implementation of section 481 - I refer to the real cost, not the €25 million overall cost which is reduced by certain benefits - provides advantages to the country to a far greater extent than that figure might suggest? Does he agree that, through employment and other off-shoots, the section 481 incentive is a positive revenue filter rather than a negative one?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I have received two reports, including one from Screen Producers Ireland which set out a very cogent case for the retention of section 481. I have also received the PricewaterhouseCooper report, the contents of which I am not prepared to divulge at this stage as they are the subject of my ongoing discussion with the Minister for Finance. On a number of public occasions, the Minister for Finance has stated - and I agree with him - that the present section 481, as constituted, is open to abuse and has been abused in the past. There is more than anecdotal evidence of this. Any Minister for Finance must ensure, in the interests of Irish taxpayers, that a situation is not tolerated whereby a section can be abused by a minority. Accordingly, I considered it incumbent on me to bring forward concrete proposals to the Minister for Finance to show him that we could continue with section 481 and, at the same time, eliminate to the greatest possible degree the opportunity for abuse of the system.
Undoubtedly, section 481 has been of enormous benefit to the Irish film industry. It is true that when it was first introduced in this country it was a pioneer of its kind. Unfortunately, other countries followed suit and even improved on the incentive we were offering. It is true that some countries now offer a greater incentive than we do to attract film makers. The cap on the present section 481 seems to cause difficulty for the industry. The figure is approximately €10.5 million and the industry is of the view that it needs to be increased. It is also argued that the cap on the amount which an individual taxpayer can contribute should be increased from €38,000.

I believe the fact that the cap is at €38,000-odd illustrates section 481 relief is not a haven for the very wealthy - it is not a tax shelter in that sense. It is my fear that if section 481 goes, we will not be in a position to attract the type of films we have been able to attract in the past. That, in turn, has serious consequences not only for those involved in the industry but for the country's overall image. One of the best ways to sell the attractions of one's country is through film, as evidenced by several examples which I need not mention.
The current position is that the Minister for Finance and I are getting on with our discussions in relation to section 481 and other matters relevant to my Department. I will not divulge the contents of the PriceWaterhouseCooper report and it would be quite wrong to do so until the current discussions have been completed. I hope we can achieve a fair balance, on the one hand addressing the concerns of the Minister for Finance and, on the other hand, retaining a system which will attract film makers to Ireland, assisting the film industry and the country's general image into the future.

Asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism when he will be establishing a high level implementation group to drive forward and monitor the plan emanating from the Report of the Tourism Policy Review Group; and the likely make up of this group in terms of sectoral representation. [22421|03]

Mr. Gogarty: I have a copy of the report. A couple of questions arise from it and there are quite a number of recommendations. Will the Minister indicate how the vision outlined in the report will be made a reality? With regard to the task force being established, what powers will it have to influence other Departments, semi-State bodies and others involved in promoting the tourism industry? Will it have any real clout? Many questions which I have put down to the Minister have been disallowed or transferred on the basis that they were not within the remit of his Department. For example, a recent question about a rip-off in relation to car parking at the cliffs of Moher was rejected. Deputies are unable to raise such issues with the tourism authority and obtain a proper answer and a commitment to follow up the matter.
In that regard, should the task force put a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the quality of rivers and the state of the angling industry? The report states that angling is in decline as a pastime, one of the reasons being a poor product. Reading between the lines, that suggests a water quality problem. Walking and cycling activities have declined. In relation to walking activity, does the Minister believe the problem is attributable to land being barred? (Mr. Gogarty)
What powers would a task force have to ensure the findings of the report are implemented?
In the executive summary of the report, the section dealing with tourism and the environment states that a lead role should be played by tourism industry representative bodies to ensure proper environmental management. Is that passing the buck or should the Minister's Department or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government also take a lead role to ensure that management?
As long as there is no proper transport infrastructure in place, the report will be long on vision but short on specifics when it comes to implementing measures that will benefit the tourism industry for years to come.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I do not agree that the report is long on vision but short on implementation measures. In the report the recommendations are clearly set out and, unusually for a report of this nature, the methodology whereby each of them can be achieved is also set out. I am grateful for that to Mr. John Travers, the former chief executive of Forfás who chaired this group in an outstanding manner. I am also grateful to the group as a whole, whose members proved themselves expert in this field.
The intention is to set up an implementation group with a chairman charged with implementing the recommendations set out in the report. There will be a progress report every six months and a forum every year, meaning we will be in a position to examine progress in implementation of the recommendations.
It is true that if the report is to be implemented, it will require co-operation from a number of Government Departments. The implementation body itself will not have enforcement powers. Accordingly, I expect the implementation body to make recommendations on the structures that will be required to ensure implementation. I also expect the body to require my Department to become involved formally with other Departments to implement some of the recommendations.
I will ensure recommendations applying to my Department will be implemented and that State agencies under my remit will pursue the wider agenda with industry representative bodies and my ministerial colleagues. My Department has already started to re-organise its own structures in line with the approach outlined in the report.
Ireland's green image abroad is of immense importance in attracting tourists and it is crucial that we continue to conserve and improve the environment as far as possible. The beauty of our land and seascapes is a major draw and it is of immense importance that the environment remains unspoilt. In that respect, the product development committee, under the remit of Fáilte Ireland, has been examining applications to see if it can grant-aid some environmental proposals that have been put forward. I hope it is in a position to do that because it is of considerable importance.
This is not a question of passing the buck, it is a question of everyone recognising that they have responsibilities. Staying in some hotels in Ireland, a person will see recycled paper and there will be a sign detailing contributions to the environment but in other hotels there will be no such sign. It is true that the industry itself can help as well. It is a partnership.