Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Apr 2003

Vol. 565 No. 2

Other Questions. - Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Liz McManus

Question:

7 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the fact that people who are placed in residential institutions voluntarily by their families are having difficulty in accessing records that are acceptable to the Residential Institutions Redress Board; the action he intends to take in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10183/03]

My Department maintains records on the former residents of 59 industrial and reformatory schools who were placed there by way of a court hearing. Many children were placed in the schools by alternative means, for example health authority referral or voluntary placement, and in such instances my Department generally does not hold information. The primary reason for the absence of information in the case of health authority and voluntary placements is that my Department paid a per capita grant to the schools in respect of all residents who were placed there by the courts. When school authorities were communicating with my Department, they only did so in respect of those residents for whom capitation grant was received.

In a limited number of cases, the name of a resident who was placed voluntarily in the school may appear on an archive list of residents provided by the school. In most cases the name appears with no other identifying information so it is impossible to verify with any degree of certainty that the name refers to an individual resident. My Department has consulted the redress board in relation to providing evidence of residency to former residents. To assist applicants who have made a claim to the board and to avoid creating delays for the board, officials in my Department are currently issuing a customised report to more than 2,000 residents who have applied to my Department under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act for access to their personal records. The redress board has confirmed that this document should normally suffice as evidence of residency.

My Department receives a large number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act from former residents who were placed in the schools other than through the courts. In all such cases, the former resident is provided with available information to allow him to pursue his request with other authorities, such as religious orders and health boards. The Residential Institutions Redress Board is an entirely independent statutory body. It is a matter for the board to determine its requirements as to what is acceptable as evidence of residency in an institution. Notwithstanding this, my Department will provide any assistance possible to the redress board and former residents in this matter.

I know that this matter has been brought to the Minister's personal attention. It was an issue for a number of people who were told only that their name was on a list, which was not enough for the Residential Institutions Redress Board. I was trying to figure out exactly what the Minister was saying, but I gather that his Department has tried to give as much information as possible. Has this information satisfied the redress board?

As I understand it, we have undertaken to give to the board a list of people who have made inquiries about residency in these institutions and the board has agreed to accept this as a basis for a claim. What happens after that is a matter for the board. I met people a few weeks ago in London who had been looking for records, and the only records they could find were their names on a roll. Some of these people could not get passports because there was no record of their births, others did not know where they came from or why they had been placed in institutions. Anything we can do to facilitate the people that have gone through this kind of pain and suffering will be done and we will try to make it as easy as possible for them.

A number of people who did not attend the institutions listed in the Schedule to the Act have been in contact with the Department. I raised this on the Order of Business of 25 March and the Taoiseach informed me in writing afterwards that the Minister's Department was giving consideration to the insertion of additional institutions under the terms of the Act. Is this the case and when does the Minister expect this to happen?

Will the Minister acknowledge the need for the Department to be proactive, given the lack of satisfaction expressed by people who have resorted to the redress board in other areas? I mentioned earlier the news that the diocese of Ferns had admitted negligence. Irrespective of its being unrelated to residential abuse, the church has admitted negligence, but the State has not so far admitted negligence even though there has been a heartfelt apology from the Taoiseach. Will the Minister admit that the attempt to search for certain records of people who were incarcerated in State institutions has been compromised by changes under the Freedom of Information Act? I do not know whether the Minister had a personal role in this.

Will the Minister acknowledge the absurdity and deviousness of members of the Government telling victims of abuse in London that it would cost the State less to go through the courts process? The church will defend itself by trying to lay some of the blame on the State, as will the victims. If the matter went through the courts rather than being dealt with by a cosy €128 million deal, the State would be liable for far more. The State should come clean and admit that crimes were committed and that the church and the State itself were involved so that the victims can have some closure.

I will not accept the Deputy's calling me devious. The only person who made statements on this matter in London was me, and I was not in any way devious. I was asked a direct question and I gave a direct answer. If the victims going through the redress board were obliged to go through the courts, many of them would not succeed in their claims.

Would it cost the State more or less?

It would cost it considerably less as most of these cases would be dismissed because of insufficient evidence. That is what I said in London and I do not accept that I was being devious. I have tried to be as honest and straightforward with people as possible. As to whether I had a role in the change to the Freedom of Information Act, I am a member of Government and I accept full responsibility with the rest of the Cabinet for that. The change does not affect access to personal information, nor does it affect our response to queries about personal records. We will respond as we have up to now.

Deputy Enright asked whether other institutions would be included in the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act. We are compiling a list at the moment. I do not know when it will be completed, but we intend to add other institutions to the list. The priority at the moment is to ensure that the redress board can deal with its current cases as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I ask Deputy Gogarty to read the apology to which he referred, which contains everything he and the victims require. I have received a number of responses to the meeting in London. People said that while it did not take away their pain, they accepted the sincerity of the apology that was made on behalf of the State and the people.

Top
Share