Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
Residential Institutions Redress (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages
SECTION 1
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 15, to delete "17 September 2011" and substitute "17 September 2013".
The amendments speak for themselves, although I acknowledge the Minister of State referred to this issue in his Second Stage reply. I am seeking the extension of the scheme from 17 September 2011, as proposed by him, to 17 September 2013. The redress board is still processing a backlog of more than 1,000 applications. However, late applicants can only apply for compensation if they can prove exceptional circumstances, which usually means where physical or mental illness prevented them from applying sooner. Now even that avenue will be closed to victims if the proposal is passed. When the Ryan report was published in 2009, Irish centres were inundated with inquiries from people seeking redress. Many of them had lost all contact with Ireland. They knew nothing about the redress board and were unaware of the right to apply for compensation. Many of the people who came forward left Ireland and cut themselves off. They wanted to put Ireland behind them and, therefore, they stayed away from Irish groups and societies.
I have serious problems with how the scheme is being advertised, although I acknowledge it is a separate issue and the Minister of State said he will address it. I agree with colleagues about the cut-off date in this regard.
It is wrong to close the redress board to victims of abuse and I am seeking to extend the closing date to September 2013. I echo the calls survivors groups made in 2009 when the Ryan report was finally released to the public. According to Right of Place, at least 150,000 children and teenagers went through orphanages and it is estimated 100,000 left Ireland afterwards, with at least half travelling to the US. There has not been a significant take-up. This September is not the right time to close the scheme, particularly in the context of the release of the Cloyne report yesterday. It took Mr. Justice Ryan ten years to produce a report. Surely, we can give the victims in this situation time to come forward. One woman mentioned in the Cloyne report said it took her 40 years to report what she had gone through.
The purpose of the amendments is to give space to victims who were clearly wronged and not to drag out the scheme. There are people out there whom we have not been in touch with. Many people have not heard about the scheme or may not be mentally in a place where they can come forward to tell their story. However, I am also conscious that we need to give space to those who have not had the opportunity or who may not be in the correct frame of mind. That is where I am coming from.
I support the amendments. It is important that the deadline be extended for the reasons Deputy Crowe outlined. People still may not know about the scheme. They are living in England and they are not part of the Irish community because of their experiences in residential institutions. We should allow time for them to avail of the scheme. If the Minister of State accepted the amendments, a rolling advertisement campaign could be run over the next two years to highlight the scheme. There would be nothing worse after 17 September if 100 or 200 people came forward who had only been made aware of its existence. I am aware of a number of victims who are unable to face up to what they went through in these institutions, even though the opportunity has been available to them through the redress board to come forward for many years. They have not mentally been able to face up to what they went through and to take the next step of acknowledging it and going before the board.
I accept the Government has to set a deadline for the scheme but it is too important an issue for these people. If we leave even a small number of people continuing to suffer without the opportunity to appear before the board and to put their story, that will be a great tragedy.
The other reason I support the amendments is that we are in the summer holiday period. People will be away and they will not read newspapers when these advertisements run over the next few weeks. People will miss them and it would be a bigger crime if they could have had an opportunity to seek redress but missed it because they were away. There is merit in extending the period of the scheme and the Minister of State should give serious consideration to it. That would not hinder, hamper or prolong unduly the work of the commission. The importance and value of that is much greater and would ensure that nobody is left out.
Previous speakers have made the point that it is not a good time of year to try to get information to the widest possible number of people. We are all aware that the activities of voluntary organisations, apart from sporting organisations, cease during the month of August. Many of the people we know who are leaders in Irish communities or voluntary organisations abroad come back home to visit during August. There is concern about the timing of the measure. I would prefer if the end date was later than September. None of us in the House would like to see any individual deprived of his or her rights. Would it not be possible for the Government to incorporate in the residential institutions statutory fund Bill the residual functions of the redress board? That would enable the work of the redress board to be activated again should applications that meet the criteria applied by the redress board arise.
To my knowledge, previously when statutory agencies ceased to exist residual functions were transferred back to the parent Department and when necessary the legislation could be invoked to deal with issues arising. When so much good work has been done under the auspices of the redress board it would be unfortunate if any one individual or a small number of people were deprived of their right to avail of the redress scheme. The measure should be incorporated in the statutory fund Bill. Hopefully, it would not need to be activated at any time but it would be a safeguard to ensure that nobody, through illness or other situation, who was not in a position to be advised or to know of the existence of the scheme would be left out. It would be a shame if in six or seven months time or later such a person became aware of the scheme and met with the criteria but was not able to avail of it.
I am pleased that the Minister of State gave an assurance that following an analysis by the Department and the relevant agencies and redress board they are convinced that the vast majority of potential applicants have made appropriate application. The establishment of the statutory fund Bill will be complementary to the work that has already taken place. I cannot see why a provision could not be incorporated by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, in the autumn to deal with any particular lacuna that might arise following the proposals contained in the legislation.
I regret that I cannot accept Deputy Crowe's amendment. As I explained on Second Stage, the Government believes that the redress board has, by and large, completed the task assigned to it. The timeframe for the receipt of applications which was set out in the original legislation provided a reasonable period within which applicants could submit their cases. The legislation also made provision for the acceptance of late applications in certain exceptional circumstances. We are now at that juncture where the original cohort of people who became aware of the supports available through the redress board accessed the provision of that support during the early stages of the board's existence. We are now finally dealing with those exceptional circumstances.
One must bear in mind that a total period of eight and a half years has been made available. It is a long time for the making of applications. I believe it is an adequate period. Deputy Crowe indicated that in 2009 the publication of the Ryan report jogged the memories or incentivised a new cohort of people to access the redress board. That in itself is reasonably sufficient for us to conclude that we are now dealing with the last few exceptional cases. It is now time to prepare for the closure of the board and the setting of a date after which it will not be possible to receive applications. It is an essential part of the winding down process. In all of the circumstances that have been voiced today, the Government is satisfied that 17 September 2011 is the appropriate cessation date. We do not believe there is any justification in extending the date further.
My argument is based on the timescale and date. It took the State years to accept its role in regard to the institutions. Brave journalists wrote about the situation and then we woke up to the fact that a problem existed. The State apologised and tried to make restitution.
It appears that the State is trying to save money. The Minister of State accepted that a cohort of people in Britain came forward. I suggest that a significant number, perhaps up to 100,000 people went to the United States. Not many applicants have come forward from there.
In many cases information about the redress board has come about from victims talking among themselves following chance meetings and hearing about what was happening in this country. People do not put themselves in a pigeon hole. They went through a certain amount of difficulty in the institution and they find it difficult to talk to people. Many victims do not talk to their families about what happened but they may talk to other people. Many have cut themselves off. This move will be seen as the State protecting itself. What emerged in the case of the Cloyne and Ferns reports is that it was not about the victims but the institution protecting itself. I accept the board has existed for many years but I worry that we are sending out the wrong signal to those victims with the closure of the redress board within a short period. What option is there for a person who decides to seek recompense for what he or she went through, other than the courts? The only ones who will gain from such an approach are barristers and such individuals rather than the victims. It is not a great forum for people to get recognition and tell their story. The redress board was established to allow people to tell their story. On that basis I call for an extension of the redress board. I accept the Minister of State cannot do it if his hands are tied. I wish to press the amendment.
Deputy Crowe referred to the publication of the Ryan report. Perhaps I misunderstood him but he appeared to think that it jogged the memories of only a cohort resident in the UK. I suggest that the shock and horror we felt as a nation reverberated around the whole world at the time. While no one would claim to be 100% confident that every single person who requires redress has accessed it, the revulsion we all felt at the time did reverberate around the world and one can only conclude that the vast majority of those who intended accessing the redress board have done in the past eight and a half years.
It is also important that the winding down of the redress board does not take away the right of citizens to take a civil legal case against any institution or person whom it feels has abused them in the past. It is also important to point out that the significant psychological and counselling services that are available to every other citizen of the State are also available on an ongoing basis to the former residents of these institutions.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 94; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Barry, Tom.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Troy, Robert.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Collins, Joan.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
2.—The Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 is amended in section 13, by the insertion of the following subsection:
"(4A) Where the applicant believes the Board failed to deliver appropriate levels of compensation, the applicant may appeal the decision to the High Court.".
I noted the Minister in his Second Stage speech——
Will Members give Deputy Crowe the silence he deserves? Any Members wishing to have a conversation can do so outside the Chamber.
It is important that an appeals avenue is provided for those who believe they did not receive appropriate levels of compensation. The Minister also referred to it in his Second Stage speech. I believe this is an important proposal because there is so much confusion surrounding this issue and people must be aware of their rights in this regard. This amendment would also be helpful to those victims who are still confused by this matter.
I cannot accept this unnecessary amendment. The framework under which awards are made by the redress board is based on the report published in January 2002 by the independent compensation advisory committee, chaired by Seán Ryan SC, Towards Redress and Recovery, which advised on the appropriate levels of compensation for injuries relating to childhood abuse. Having reviewed international precedents, the committee concluded the best guidance as regards the amount of awards was to be obtained from within the State by reference to the level of awards made by the Irish courts for pain, suffering and the loss of amenities arising from serious personal injuries.
The committee devised a two-stage process for the board to follow in determining any redress award. First, the board assesses the weight to be attached to the different elements that go to make up the experiences of victims of abuse. The weightings produced an overall assessment which the board reviews to ensure it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the particular applicant involved.
Independent legal advice, through the redress board, has always been available to applicants. Up to 97% have chosen to avail of this independent advice. Some 75.2% of the 13,720 awards were made following settlements, while a further 18.8% were made in the aftermath of hearings. The remaining 3% were made following reviews by the residential institutions review committee under the independent appeals mechanism provided for in the 2002 Act. A tiny number of applicants — approximately 13 — have rejected their awards to date. In the light of the information I have just provided, I cannot accept the amendment.
The methodology used to calculate appropriate amounts of compensation was recognised by many individuals with a legal background as containing a number of flaws. Compensation was delivered under a points system as opposed to one based on the principles relating to the calculation of damages applied in the High Court each day.
I recall the long saga relating to a man from Tallaght who went on hunger strike outside the gates of Leinster House. The individual in question felt he had been let down by the system and was seeking a mechanism by means of which he could move his case forward. It was eventually resolved. When tabling this amendment, I was of the view that it was important that a message be sent from this House that there would be a mechanism in place to allow people to take their cases to the courts. I thought the amendment would enhance rather than detract from the Bill.
On foot of the provisions contained in the original Act and the extensive work done by the committee subsequently, it is safe enough to draw the conclusion that the scrutiny required and the exploration necessary of the international precedents regarding the amounts to be awarded to victims were carried out. One could conclude — reasonably fairly — that the awards offered were substantial and appropriate in respect of the levels of personal injury and abuse suffered by the victims in the relevant institutions for many years.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order and cannot be discussed.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
TITLE
Question put: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 88; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Troy, Robert.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Collins, Joan.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Higgins, Joe.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.