The Comptroller and Auditor General has criticised the description of his estimates on the €1 billion potential liability of the State for child abuse compensation as "guesstimates".
Mr John Purcell told deputies at the Public Accounts Committe hearings yesterday that the €1 billion figure was an accurate estimate of of the potential liability calculated by statistical experts from his office. "Maybe I'm being a bit prickly, but I don't like the word 'guesstimate'."
Former minister for education Dr Michael Woods described Mr Purcell's figures as "guesstimates" on Tuesday evening.
Commenting to the PAC hearing on his report on the redress scheme and indemnity deal with the orders, Mr Purcell stressed that the €1 billion figure was a "contingent liability" estimate, rather than a predicted outcome. He also stressed the report "does not express an opinion" on the decision to agree the deal, but was based on whether potential costs and liabilities had been properly estimated. He said his report was critical of that process on four points.
The Department of Education did not appear to carry out any detailed analysis of numbers, while there was no understanding of the State's liability.
He also found that there had been no effort made to "stress test" the orders' potential liability, while the handling of the Attorney General's involvement was also questioned.
A greater diligence would have created "greater rigour" and aided the State during the negotiations with the religious orders.
It also emerged that at a key meeting to discuss the redress scheme, the religious congregations had a legal representative while the State had no legal official in attendance.
At that meeting, in January 2002, Dr Woods met the religious orders along with his secretary general, Mr John Dennehy, to discuss their contribution to the redress scheme.
Mr Dennehy told committee members that the congregations were accompanied by a legal representative, but Dr Woods refused to discuss the proposed indemnity. Mr Dennehy said there were no issues raised that necessitated the attendance of a representative from the Attorney General's Office.
During the hearings it also emerged that the Attorney General's Office was not aware until April 2002 that the proposed indemnity deal would extend wider than previously proposed.
Fine Gael TD Mr Michael Noonan said in November 2001 a senior official from the Department of Education wrote to the congregations setting out an offer from the State which included an indemnity on all cases coming under the remit of the redress board.
Three months later, according to the C&AG report, the Attorney General's Office believed the State's position was that the indemnity would apply only to cases which actually came before the redress board. In a letter Dr Woods told the Attorney General in April he informed the office of the policy change.
The PAC committee was also informed by officials that detailed discussions on the indemnity began in mid-April 2002, a fortnight after legislation, which provided for an indemnity deal in principle, was enacted.
The Labour Party leader, Mr Pat Rabbitte, said it was impossible for the last Dáil, which broke up at the end of April, to have debated the terms of the deal if they had not been agreed at that stage by the State.