Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Jun 2012

Vol. 768 No. 3

Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Robert Dowds

I will be sharing time with Deputy Seán Kenny. This is an issue on which I was not originally inclined to speak, but having been approached by members of a survivors of child abuse group I decided it was appropriate to speak. It is quite far removed from any experience I have had in my life, so in a sense the more I looked at it the more it shocked me on two fronts. The first is with regard to the State. The 1916 Proclamation aspires to cherish all the children of the nation equally and sadly this story indicates the opposite. Given that religious institutions were involved, the treatment is absolutely in contradiction with the core Christian message of loving one's neighbour as oneself. It is particularly shocking when related to those two things.

Residential abuse in Ireland represents an exceptionally dark chapter and we had a number of dark chapters in the 20th century. We are now familiar with the scars of torture that were inflicted on young children during their internment in these institutions. The abuse perpetuated in so many industrial schools operated by the Catholic Church is difficult to comprehend and quite stomach churning. The Ryan report exposed one of the blackest stains in the history of the State, including that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential. Some religious officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistency shielded their orders amid a culture of self-serving secrecy. This is where the State comes in because Government inspectors failed to stop the abuses.

The entire State system, from the Garda to the Government, turned a blind eye. It is a testament to the courage and the fortitude of the victims of these institutions, three of whom I met on Monday morning, that they did not give up the fight for justice for themselves, and that finally after many years of complicity and turning a blind eye the State and the religious institutions accepted that they had wronged those who had been placed in their care. The Bill before us is the continuation of the process by which the State seeks to make amends for the abuse and the suffering it facilitated being inflicted upon a particularly vulnerable set of children.

Having known the Minister for many years, I know that the victims of this abuse will get nothing less than the highest priority when it comes to this Bill. However, I wish to bring a number of issues to his attention. Given the horrific experiences of many of the people held in these institutions, it is critical that those administering the fund must have a sufficient degree of empathy with the victims of abuse. Having spoken to some victims of abuse, I understand that there is room for improvement in this regard. Obviously, there must be safeguards in place, but at the end of the day, it must never be forgotten, in any part of the process, that the State is one of the guilty parties here, and that the victims are carrying very deep wounds and must be dealt with gently. I therefore urge the Minister to make his appointments on this matter with an extra degree of care and consideration for the needs for the victims. It is the least that the State owes them.

I have a concern over the financing of the administration of the fund. Having read the Minister's opening speech on this debate I am somewhat unclear on the issue and would be grateful to get clarification. Victims are very concerned that any funding for the administration of the fund should come from outside sources. It would not be appropriate to fund both the administration and the reimbursements for victims from the same source of funding.

I understand that approximately 400 students who are the children of victims of the abuse have been receiving assistance to complete educational courses. They are nearly finished but may be cut off from funding before they can complete them. I urge the Minister to ensure that those who have already begun a course with the help of the Education Finance Fund can continue to be supported by the fund until they have completed their current course of education.

Former residents, who did not put in claims to the Residential Redress Board, are essentially locked out of any form of redress under the Bill. I appreciate the need for a cut-off point in this regard, but I understand from survivors groups that a substantial number of victims did not go to the redress board and should perhaps be given a second chance. I ask the Minister to clarify whether this is feasible. However, these people should be kept in mind in some way. Just because they did not claim redress from the State does not mean they have not been deeply hurt by the abuse they suffered. Perhaps they were too grievously hurt by their experiences to go through the pain of dragging it up again. Let us keep them in mind.

I wish to raise a related issue. Because I am a member of the Protestant minority, I have been approached by a number of people with connections with Bethany Home. Unfortunately, no redress has been forthcoming from the State in regard to these victims, who suffered the same sort of punishment as the people covered by the Bill. This matter is still a running sore for the victims of Bethany Home, and I ask the Minister to raise this issue with his Government colleagues. I know that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has being making positive sounds in this regard and I hope it will yield positive results. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Derek Leinster, Mr. Niall Meehan and their colleagues in the Bethany Homes Survivors Group, who continue to campaign for justice for all the victims in Protestant institutions. I would appreciate if the Minister could bring that back to Cabinet.

Deputy Seán Kenny

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill and I welcome the Minister's presence in the House. The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill provides for the establishment of a fund to support the needs of survivors of residential institutional child abuse. Some 15,000 former residents will be eligible to apply for support from the fund and every effort is being made to minimise the administration involved. Some former residents have advocated a simpler distribution of the available money.

Following the publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, the congregations, which managed the residential institutions and were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement, were called upon to provide further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The Government agreed to proceed with this legislation to establish a Residential Institutions Statutory Fund, to support the victims of residential institutional abuse, as endorsed by Dáil Éireann. The legislation has been prepared following a public consultation process, which included consultations with groups representing survivors of residential institutional child abuse, the religious congregations and other interested parties.

Those who received an award from the redress board or an award or settlement in court proceedings and who would otherwise have received an award from the redress board will be eligible to apply for assistance from the fund. In response to applications from eligible former residents, the fund can make arrangements for the provision of approved services and may pay grants to assist former residents to avail of approved services.

The Education Finance Board, which was established on a statutory basis in 2006 and is funded via the €12.7 million contribution provided by the religious congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement and is specifically earmarked for educational support for former residents and their families, has almost completed the performance of its functions. The EFB will be dissolved and its staff will transfer to the statutory fund, which will assume its functions regarding the remaining moneys available to it. I agree with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, that the fund should target resources at services to support former residents' needs, such as counselling, psychological support services, mental health services, health and personal social services, educational services and housing services. The former residents need help, and the fund exists for the purpose of helping them.

The establishment of the fund follows extensive consultations with survivors of residential abuse and a public consultation process. I met some of the survivors groups in the House in the past few days. I have also met them in my constituency when they visited me, as they did other Deputies, to discuss the situation. Seven individuals will operate the fund and it will be overseen by a chief executive answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts. It will fall within the scope of the Ombudsman and freedom of information legislation.

As responsibility for information for survivors will also be taken on by the fund, funding of survivor groups by the Department of Education and Skills will cease. It is important that this transfer of responsibilities is handled in the correct way, with no chance of mistakes or of elements of these responsibilities falling through cracks during the transfer. The fund will have the power to hold and dispose of land or an interest in land, and may acquire, hold and dispose of any other property. Two of its members will be former residents of institutions, which I welcome. The insight and experience of those who were abused in the institutions is essential. While the Residential Institutions Redress Board provides financial compensation to those who suffered abuse while resident in the institutions, the new statutory fund will focus on meeting specified needs that many survivors have as they struggle with the effects of abuse that may have taken place many years ago.

The fund will be financed from the cash contributions, of up to €110 million, offered by the religious congregations. To date, contributions of approximately €20 million have been received from the congregations towards the fund. These and the remaining contributions to be received will be invested in an investment account to be established by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. The fund will take over the functions of the Education Finance Board for abuse survivors, which will be dissolved. I believe that the costs of the response to residential abuse should be shared on a 50:50 basis, between the taxpayer and those responsible for managing the institutions where the abuse took place. I understand that efforts are continuing to pursue the 50:50 division with the management bodies involved and that the transfer of school infrastructure to the State for the benefit of the taxpayer has been proposed as a mechanism to allow those involved the opportunity to shoulder their share of the costs.

It is my hope that this new fund will provide ongoing support to those who suffered as children in residential care in the State. We have let these people down in the past and we cannot be allowed to fail them again. I am anxious that this legislation be passed and implemented as soon as possible.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill legislates for the provision of support for some of our most vulnerable citizens who, under the State-run institutions, suffered appalling mental, physical and sexual abuse. It left a harrowing legacy where lives were blighted and ruined, and the scars of the sadistic cruelty inflicted have never healed. The failure of successive Governments to protect the most vulnerable children and hold the abusers to account further compounded this dark and shameful period in Irish history.`

The cover-up of the religious orders and the State's refusal to acknowledge the extent of the cruelty being inflicted within institutions that were supposed to be a safe haven for children have had far-reaching implications. The Ryan report laid bare the scale of the systematic and widespread institutional abuse that had blighted so many lives over a number of decades. What it revealed and the conclusions it came to shocked a nation that had become increasingly numbed by scandals that discredited the once unassailable power and authority of the Catholic Church and the religious orders. It was a watershed moment that vindicated the efforts of the courageous survivors of abuse who had campaigned so vigorously for the truth about what had taken place in supposed institutions of care to be revealed.

When I have met and spoken to survivors their constant criticism has been the lack of meaningful consultation with the victims of abuse and the fact that little or no effort has been made to listen to what they had to say. Despite all the rhetoric in support of victims and the spilling of crocodile tears in recognition of their plight, more often than not survivors of abuse have been kept on the margins of the decision making process, with no credence given to what they want from the process of redress. Typically, their views have been ignored or sidelined and their rights as individuals have been denied. As evidence of this, it is clear that a straightforward way of consulting directly with survivors would have been to use the redress board's database which has the details of over 15,000 people who have previously made an application for recompense. This would have been the ideal mechanism for the Government to elicit the views of the people who suffered under the care of the State and to find out from them what they required and in what form. It would have been the ideal way to facilitate their input into shaping this legislation but, as has so often happened in the past, their views have been largely ignored and the decision on their behalf has been made without respect to their opinions or needs. This Bill is intended to provide support for a range of services, including access to housing, education and counselling, yet it does not allow for compensation to be paid directly to individual survivors who wish to receive compensation in the form of a lump sum payment.

I note the Minister's disappointment with the offers made to date by the religious orders and the fact that he continues to pursue a 50:50 division with the management bodies involved. He has suggested transfer of the ownership of the schools' infrastructure as one way of allowing those involved in the process the opportunity to shoulder their share of the cost. It is now incumbent on the Minister to ensure the religious orders and congregations honour their past commitments and pay their financial obligations in full. Their failure to do so to date has resulted in further hurt and anxiety for people who have already experienced too much suffering. It is clear that many of the services for which the Bill provides are already available to survivors, or they should be, as a matter of right. At a minimum, necessary procedures must be put in place so the victims of abuse can have preferential treatment when accessing health care and counselling facilities, as this is the type of enhanced provision that can make a meaningful difference.

Providing supports for children whose parents qualify under the redress Bill should be provided for in the legislation, as access to education can go some way towards enhancing an individual's opportunities and life chances. It is also the case that education plays an important role in helping families break the cycle of inter-generational abuse and can be a platform that enhances the life chances of children whose parents were themselves the victims of abuse.

Part 4 of the Bill dissolves the Education Finance Board and transfers its functions to the residential institutions statutory fund board to distribute the remaining €12.7 million contribution provided by the congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. The Education Finance Board has advised that it expects its funds to be fully allocated on applications received by the end of November 2011 and that it is not therefore in a position to process any applications received after that date. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that anybody who has benefited under the Education Finance Board will have the opportunity to complete their courses and that they will remain fully funded.

A serious flaw in the Bill is, of course, the eligibility criteria, which are currently confined to those who received an award from the redress board or compensation following a court decision or settlement. Former residents of scheduled institutions are also excluded primarily because, as the Minister has already stated, if eligibility were significantly widened, the amounts available to fund services for individuals could be greatly reduced and the effectiveness of the statutory fund placed at risk. He also went on to say that the question of reviewing the eligibility under the statutory fund could be considered following the establishment of the fund in the event of applications not resulting in a significant expenditure of the fund. What this simply means is that money is the deciding factor which will dictate who will be entitled to receive help should they need it. That is not good enough. Limiting access to redress in this way will exclude a significant number of people who for many reasons have been unable to access compensation. One difficulty with the redress fund was how best to communicate its existence to the thousands of survivors who would qualify for help but who, because they were widely dispersed throughout many countries, were unaware of its existence. It also is the case that many victims of abuse, scarred by their past experiences, left institutions with few or no literacy or numeracy skills and subsequently struggled to find gainful employment. Some turned to alcohol and substance abuse and ended up living lives on the margins of society far removed from the source of the communications that would have made them aware of the limited assistance that was being made available to them. Clearly, a newspaper advertising campaign informing people of the redress board that was restricted to a handful of countries could only reach a minority of survivors. It is wrong, therefore, that despite these flaws, the Government has sought to limit the eligibility of people who qualify for the redress fund. There also is a perception among many survivors that a significant amount of money paid through the redress board went to the legal profession to pay for fees or for people sitting on advocacy groups. It is important that every effort is made to ensure that resources made available to victims of abuse go directly to them and to their families.

Even more worrying has been the impact on people who went through the stressful and fraught process of gaining access to compensation, in which old wounds were reopened and the pain of past experiences was relived. From my own family's experience, my first cousin, Danny Ferris, was put into St. Joseph's institution at the age of 14 and a half years.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

For what reason was he put in?

Deputy Martin Ferris

His father was an alcoholic, his mother was dead and he was put into the institution.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I have first-hand experience of visiting him in those institutions and at one stage seeing how his leg was broken but he did not even get hospital treatment. When he was 16 years of age, my mother took him out of the institution and he lived with us for the remainder of his teenage and early life. He has been dead for four years and he never sought compensation or went through any board because of the shame associated with what happened and what was done to him. I am told the abuser lives in Dublin. I do not know the person's name or anything about him and thank God for that. However, I do know that for the rest of his life, my cousin carried a hidden scar in respect of what happened to him and what was done to him. Moreover, I am sure his experience mirrors those of thousands of other people who went through the same situation.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Sensitivity and care must be employed when engaging with anyone attempting to seek assistance under the statutory fund Bill. As has been stated in the past, no one wishes to see any individual deprived of his or her rights and consideration should be given to Deputy Brendan Smith's proposal that the Government incorporate into the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill the residual functions of the redress board. Incorporating such a provision would provide a mechanism in order that the work of the redress board could be activated again should new applicants who meet the criteria arise. This would be one way to safeguard the rights of those who are entitled to redress but who have been unable to access it.

I will conclude by highlighting the plight of women and children who were placed in the Magdalene laundries and in Bethany Home, as well as the shameful refusal of the Government to provide any meaningful assistance to the victims of these institutions. One year after the United Nations Committee against Torture recommendations that the Magdalene survivors receive a formal apology from the State and proper redress, a soon-to-be-published interdepartmental report into the laundry no doubt will tell one what one already knows, namely, the women held in such institutions suffered the most degrading and appalling treatment and deprivation imaginable under the State's watch. As the Justice for Magdalenes group recently reported in testimony gathered from survivors, inmates could not leave the laundries, the doors were locked and the windows were inaccessible. Moreover, if they did try to leave, they were returned by the Garda while others decided not to try to escape because they knew the same fate awaited them. Every single survivor confirmed they were never paid, that no inspections ever were carried out and no Government official ever came to check them out.

The irrefutable evidence of what was inflicted on the Magdalene women led to a statement made in this Chamber in 2010 by the current Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. She rightly stated that former residents of the Magdalene laundries and Bethany Home must be included in the redress scheme. She went on to state, correctly, that these institutions were, to all intents and purposes, places of detention and that residents had been held by the State for often indeterminate periods of confinement. Her justifiable outrage at the then Government's failure to address properly this matter was echoed by another Labour Party Member, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who in 2005 correctly identified the scandal of Bethany Home as a matter of national importance. Likewise, her party colleague, Deputy Costello, called on the Government of the day to include Bethany Home in a redress scheme. To their credit, all three of the aforementioned Labour Party Deputies regularly highlighted this important issue. However, now they are in government and in a position to right this terrible wrong inflicted on the survivors of Magdalene laundries and Bethany Home, will they live up to their previous contributions in this House? By contrast, the campaigns of the survivors of both the Magdalene laundries and Bethany Home have helped to bring irrefutable evidence of State involvement into the public domain. It is time for Fine Gael and Labour Party Ministers to step up to their worthy words by offering up an apology, redress and restitution for these now elderly men and women. The Government's inaction in respect of both these matters is nothing short of shameful to date and until the Government acts on its own words, its members will be no better than those of previous Governments or of those who caused the hurt in the first instance.

Deputy Dan Neville

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill, which provides for the establishment of a statutory fund to support the needs of survivors of child abuse in residential institutions. I note that 1,500 former residents are expected to be eligible to apply for support from the fund and every effort is being made by the Minister, who I welcome to the Chamber today, to minimise the administration involved. The fund should target resources at services to support former residents' needs, such as counselling, psychological support services and mental health services, health and personal social services, educational services and housing services. While the Residential Institutions Redress Board provides financial compensation to those who suffered abuse while resident in the institutions, this Bill provides for a new statutory fund, which will focus on meeting specified needs which many survivors have as they struggle with the effects of abuse that may have taken place many years ago.

Following on from the last speaker's contribution, I wish to deal specifically with the effects of child abuse and the trauma experienced by those who were in institutional care at the time. Studies examining the relationship between childhood trauma, such as that suffered by many people in institutions, and adult suicidal behaviour have reported evidence the two are frequently linked. For example, 12 of the 100 young people who were abused in children's homes in Clwyd, north Wales, have since taken their lives. My contribution is based on consultation meetings with people who experienced industrial child sexual abuse conducted by the National Suicide Research Foundation based in Cork, which examined this issue. This consultation took place in Tralee, Limerick, Waterford, Enniscorthy, Galway and Cork and involved 90 survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Some of the survivors had numerous insights themselves with regard to risk and protective factors for suicidal behaviour among people experiencing institutional abuse. Many refer to alcohol abuse, depression, lack of education, difficulty obtaining employment and social isolation as being risk factors. A frequently recurring theme was the belief instilled in them by those in charge of the institutions that nobody else wanted them and that they would never be successful in life. Much of the abuse took place at night in the institutions and thus many survivors find it very difficult to sleep even now, decades after the abuse.

Protective factors against suicide mentioned by survivors included relationships, children, contact with survivor groups and being able to secure steady employment and obtaining an education after they had left the institution. Survivors who had attempted to take their own lives or who had considered doing so spoke about their situation around this time. The emerging themes included not having support of their partner, feeling depressed or experiencing a sense of hopelessness, being under the influence of alcohol or having commenced counselling, thereby opening up the past. Feeling that there is nobody to talk to who will understand is also frequently mentioned as an issue around the time of suicidal ideation. Those who did not go ahead with their plans to take their own lives frequently referred to their children as being a protective factor. A large number of survivors who participated in consultation meetings had experienced the death of either a friend or a member of family through suicide.

The situation around the time of persons taking their own life sometimes reflected a detachment from the world, where a depressed individual seemed happier in the weeks running up to their suicide than they had been for some time. Redress was a particularly traumatic time for survivors who had not yet attended counselling. The experience of telling one's story for the first time to a panel of strangers with whom one had not built up any rapport and who were only interested in the facts of one's case was a terrible ordeal. Many survivors have experienced mental and physical health difficulties in adult life. Depression, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder were evident. Psychosomatic affects such as migraine and diarrhoea were mentioned by some of the survivors. Survivors are concerned about the apparent over-use of medication as a treatment, in particular by GPs. Many feel that the professionals do not understand their unique situation as survivors of institutional abuse and that greater awareness is necessary.

Transgenerational mental health issues also need to be addressed. There have been some examples among survivors who are anxious for their adult children who are perhaps struggling with addictions or appear to be depressed or suicidal. With no parenting model themselves survivors are often unsure how to deal with these issues or even what services are available for their children and how to access them.

A recurring theme at the consultation meetings was that previously survivors did not speak about the abuse they suffered because they feared they would not be believed. In spite of the extensive media coverage in recent years of cases of abuse in institutions some survivors still have not told their partners what they experienced in childhood. Reasons for not wishing to explain this part of their lives include not wanting to upset the partner with full disclosure of abuse, or being afraid that the partner will be unable to deal with the knowledge and the relationship may suffer in consequence.

Much of the abuse took place in the institutions and thus many survivors find it very difficult to sleep even now, as I stated. For that reason night time is often when they need someone to talk to and the lack of a 24 hour help line, apart from the Samaritans, was mentioned by a number of survivors. Upon leaving the institutions at the age of 16 survivors took various pathways in adult life. Many found the outside world too difficult to cope with, especially when they were used to large self-contained institutions, big dormitories and the strict routine with hundreds of other people around. As a result, a recurring theme was the return to institutional life, for example, by joining the Army.

Survivors recalled the difficulty of adjusting to life outside while trying to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Many went to England as there one could ask for advice about simple things such as taking a bus and excuse one's lack of knowledge by saying one was unfamiliar with the country. Others spoke of trying to understand one had to pay for food in supermarkets or learning to go to bed at night in a room on one's own with no noise, no other people around. Trying to fit in socially on the outside was difficult given the sense of shame of growing up in an institutional school. Survivors explained how they would invent a story to tell their new work colleagues or friends where they grew up and where their families now were. They recalled being on the outside of their circle of friends, lacking in confidence and being careful not to be caught out in their stories.

Relationships were a particularly difficult issue for survivors, given that industrial schools for older children were single-sex. Given the prevalence of sexual abuse in the industrial schools survivors did not have a comprehension of what constituted normal, consensual, sexual behaviour between adults. Furthermore, nuns made a particular point of warning girls to stay away from men, without giving them any actual sex education. For many there is a sad sense of missed opportunities for the relationships they did not get to experience in their younger days. Marital disharmony or separation arose quite frequently in discussions with survivors. For many this related back to when they told their spouses about the experience in the institution. For others it resulted from the pressures of long periods of unemployment or alcohol abuse. In addition, growing up in an institutional environment meant that survivors had a lack of experience in forming lasting relationships and had no model to learn from. Those who had children outlined difficulties in parenting without having had any role models. Some recalled giving their children everything they wanted without establishing boundaries. Others were unsure how to be affectionate with their children in an appropriate manner. Yet others felt their parenting was too regimented because the strict regime of the institution was the only parenting model they had experienced.

Finding employment was difficult for many as they left the institutions with low levels of literacy. Some spoke of being institutionalised in their employment. Frequently, concern was expressed about patients being discharged from psychiatric wards too soon. Although those concerned understand the capacity problem concerning crisis beds they believe the circumstances of some of their fellow survivors should necessitate keeping them in for observation for a longer period. Some of these people have nowhere to go when they are discharged. The Minister highlighted this point in regard to how the housing issue concerns survivors. There was some discussion about the usefulness of a nursing home or halfway house for survivors who have to leave hospital but are not well enough to return to independent living in the community.

I refer in conclusion to a professional person who identified suicidal behaviour among survivors. When she spoke about a female patient of a psychiatrist, she said:

I do not think she will ever tell him [her husband] because when he hears the [television] programmes, he says "look at all those dreadful people lying just to get money", so of course she is never going to. "That never happened", he says, so she will never tell him now. Well, she says she will not. So, all her life this was a piece kept away. Her deepest friends do not know .... and her husband knows nothing.

I would like to speak about the effects of child abuse. It is right that we abhor child abuse. As earlier speakers have said, it is important to understand its effects and its destructive outcomes for children. When child abuse occurs, the victim can develop a variety of distressing feelings, thoughts and behaviours. No child is psychologically prepared to cope with repeated sexual stimulation. Even a two year old who cannot know sexual activity is wrong will develop problems as a result of his or her inability to cope with over-stimulation. A child of five years or older who knows and cares for the abuser will become trapped between affection or loyalty for the person and the sense that sexual activities are terribly wrong. If the child tries to break away from the sexual relationship, the abuser may threaten the child with violence or loss of love. A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, feelings of worthlessness and abnormal or disordered views on sex. The child may become withdrawn or mistrustful of adults. He or she can become suicidal. Children who have been sexually abused sometimes have difficulty relating to other people other than on sexual terms. Some of them become child abusers or prostitutes or experience other serious problems when they reach adulthood.

There are often no obvious physical signs of child sexual abuse. A number of signs can be detected through physical examination by a doctor. Sexually abused children may develop an unusual interest in, or avoidance of, things of a sexual nature. They can experience sleep problems and often have nightmares. They can suffer depression and become withdrawn from friends or family. They may make statements about their bodies being "dirty" or "damaged". They might think there is something wrong with them in the genital area. They may refuse to go to school, or become delinquent and have behavioural problems. They often become secretive. They sometimes display aspects of their sexual molestation in their drawings, games or fantasies. They may be unusually aggressive. The child may be extremely fearful of telling someone, although he or she might talk freely when a special effort has been made to help him or her to feel safe. If a child says he or she has been molested, parents and supporters should try to remain calm and reassure him or her that what happened was not his or her fault. They should seek a medical examination and a psychiatric consultation.

The initial and short-term effects of sexual abuse usually occur within two years of the termination of the abuse. These effects vary depending on the circumstances of the abuse and the child's stage of development. They may include regressive behaviour such as a return to thumb-sucking or bed-wetting, sleep disturbance, eating problems, behavioural or performance problems in school and non-participation in school and social activities. The negative effects of child abuse can affect victims for many years and into adulthood. High levels of anxiety in these adults can result in self-destructive behaviours such as alcoholism, drug abuse, anxiety attacks, situation-specific anxiety disorders, insomnia, depression, attempted suicide and completed suicide. Many victims encounter problems in their adult relationships and adult sexual functioning. Revictimisation is a common phenomenon in people who were abused as children. Research has shown that child sexual abuse victims are more likely to be victims of rape or be involved in physically abusive relationships as adults.

The ill-effects of child abuse are wide-ranging. There is no one set of symptoms or outcomes. Some children report little or no psychological distress from the abuse. These children may be afraid to express their emotions and may be denying their feelings as a coping mechanism. Other children may have sleeper effects - experiencing no harm in the short term but suffering serious problems in later life. In an attempt to assess whether a child can recover from sexual abuse and to better understand the ill-effects of such abuse, psychologists have studied the factors that seem to lessen the impact of such abuse. The factors that affect the amount of harm done to the victim include the age of the child, the duration, frequency and intrusiveness of the abuse, the degree of force used and the relationship with the abuser. Issues such as the child's interpretation of the abuse, whether he or she discloses the abuse and how quickly he or she reports it can also affect the short-term and long-term consequences of the abuse. As I have said, it is very easy and important to abhor child abuse and to establish redress boards to deal with this vital issue. It is just as important to understand the effects and destructive outcomes for children who have suffered child abuse in institutions and elsewhere.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

I would like to share time with Deputy Catherine Murphy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

I would like to acknowledge Deputy Neville's moving speech. He showed great understanding of and compassion for people who have been abused. I am familiar with his work in the area of suicide prevention. I am glad to have been present to listen to his contribution to this debate.

Following the publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, the congregations that managed the residential institutions were called on to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The word "reparation" can be associated with words like "repair" and "reparable" that involve setting things right, making amends, mending and compensating. When the Cloyne report was published, I had to read it in stages because I found it so grim and awful to read what was done and was allowed to be done by the church and the State.

Every country has had its dark moments. For the Jewish nation, it was the Holocaust. For the people of Cambodia, it was the Killing Fields. For the Balkan countries, it was the incidents in places like Srebrenica and Mostar. This country's darkest moment was obviously the Famine, but I suggest that the systematic sexual, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual abuse which was carried out by those in authority in the church, in the State and within families is in second place.

We should not forget that some of the deaths that took place in these institutions have not yet been explained. There is a sense in which those who are abused experience a form of death, in that part of a person dies when he or she is abused. Those in positions of trust who perpetrated this abuse were responsible for vulnerable young people. There are no words to describe that betrayal of trust.

We know what happened, or did not happen, when instances of abuse was reported or mentioned to another person. When action was taken, it was often inappropriate or wrong. It involved moving the perpetrator and failing to call on the authorities along the line to take further action. We know the authorities were sadly lacking at times. There are issues regarding the involvement of the Garda Síochána.

It seems that the welfare of the abuser was the paramount concern at times. I know of a victim who has suggested that there was more of a focus on damage limitation than a genuine wish to help unreservedly.

There is so much hurt, pain, damage and distress, not just for the immediate victim but also for their families and their relationships. I know that some of those abused, in that hurt, pain and despair, turned to alcohol and drugs. We know the additional difficulties and trauma that addiction brings. There are areas, some in my constituency in Dublin Central, where we can see death by suicide or through addiction of young people in recent years having a direct link to family members who had been abused in these institutions.

I have met people who have been abused. What is common is the pain and hurt but how people deal with it varies considerably. Some, as I mentioned, turned to alcohol and drugs. Some left the country and although there was a better life for some of those, many ended up homeless and destitute. Therefore, the services are also needed for those outside Ireland. Others tried to bury the hurt and to keep the lid on. This probably saved some because not everyone is comfortable with the process of opening up and talking about what happened. In that case, the time factor is crucial because the healing process does not have a time limit.

The abuse took place over many decades and the abused heal at different paces so we cannot say the compensation moneys or the services can only be available for a certain time. It is important that counselling and psychotherapy are available when the person who has been abused is ready to avail of them. There is no "one size fits all" solution for victims of abuse.

This was brought home to me very forcibly by a person I met who had been abused and whose reaction was very different. He said he was trying to get on with his life with his family. He was a man of very simple needs and his entertainment was television and radio but when the media coverage happened, his entertainment was lost as he did not want constant reminders of what had happened. He was deprived of being able to turn on the radio and television because, at the time the Cloyne report was published and at other times, it was always there in front of him. We could all say that person needs to be in therapy but forcing somebody into a counselling or psychotherapy situation is not the answer. That man needs to know what is available to him when he is ready and when he chooses.

We have had a public consultation process in which groups representing survivors, religious congregations and others were involved. I want to acknowledge the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide for the establishment of a body to support the needs of former residents and to provide for the making of contributions by certain persons. I also want to acknowledge the principles of equity, consistency and transparency, the provision of approved services and the requirement that those services will be evaluated, which is important.

Section 8 is very clear on the range of approved services, which are all needed. These range from mental health, health, social, education, hospital and housing services and it is stated they would be provided both within and outside the State and that there is provision for further services to be added. Another positive point is the effort to ensure there are standards for those approved services.

I want to consider the process of applying and the criteria around decisions on the applications. For that, the board will take account of the individual circumstances, including personal and financial circumstances. Everybody wants the money used in the best interests of those who were abused so I was disappointed not to see, within those principles, that there would be some emphasis on respecting the dignity of the person applying. I know the board has to be fair but it sounds a very rigorous and intrusive process for vulnerable people. A lot of information is required and I particularly wonder about this when practically all of that information is known already. That section deals with individual personal and financial circumstances, assessing the likely effect of a service on health and general well-being, personal and social development, educational development and living conditions. It then specifies the "supporting evidence that may be required" and, in a rather vague phrase, refers to taking into account any other matter that the board considers is a proper matter to be taken into account.

This set off a few alarm bells because I see this as an onerous process. I can see it being difficult for vulnerable people unless there is a clear commitment to respecting the dignity of the person and that the individual needs are not lost in the layers of bureaucracy. Form-filling is hard enough for people in the whole of their health. Some of these people are so badly hurt that I am afraid individual needs will be lost or that they will not be addressed adequately.

There are concerns from some of the survivors that the application process may be demeaning. Victims of residential abuse should not be made to feel they are coming, cap in hand, almost with a begging bowl, and also with no guarantee of getting the compensation or service they need. No amount of money will ever be adequate compensation for abuse and it can only go some way. While some amounts have been given already, many of the survivors are of an advanced age so it is vital their needs are addressed soon and this is not allowed to drag on. The same can be said in regard to their health and housing needs as it is now they need the services, not in years to come. We must also ask about the records of the victims who have not come forward. Is the Department confident it has records on all those who have been in the institutions?

While this fund is not about making finance available, there are survivors who feel this is wrong. Has the Minister taken into account those survivors, whose signatures he received, who are against the way in which this fund is being administered? They say the details are with the Department and they believe it is preferable that there would be a simple system of dividing money among the survivors. I personally believe a certain amount must be reserved for services. It is sad that it took ten years for the Government to allocate €12.7 million from the education fund under the 2002 indemnity agreements, and I go back to the point about the urgency of these matters.

The children and grandchildren of survivors have been removed from the new fund but they were included by the Education Finance Board. This is where a further set amount to each named person who has been in an institution would be helpful and would be a financial support for children or grandchildren of survivors, whom we know have been affected by what has happened the abused family member - the parent or the grandparents who had been in an institution.

The board has nine members, all appointed by the Minister, four of whom will have been resident in an institution specified in the Schedule. I am stating the obvious when I say these appointments are crucial to the process. Some concerns arise in regard to the board's finances. It should not cost any member of the board money to serve on it but we have so many examples of the expenses culture in this country, and I hope that will not happen with this board. While there are allowances for expenses, they must be relatively modest. With regard to the chief executive's salary, again, we have examples in this country of chief executives on absolutely obscene salaries.

The board will have a staff and certain sections of the Bill cover their remuneration and superannuation. The National Treasury Management Agency will establish an investment account into which the sums will be deposited. Another section states that the agency can advance to the board sums as requested for the purpose of defraying expenditure incurred by the board and advancing other sums to enable the Minister to make a payment to an appeals officer. There will also be liaison officers.

We know the constraints that local authorities are under at present and this will make for additional pressure. While it is necessary, some issues arise. There is a need for limits surrounding all of these aspects because, to me, the money is for those who were abused in the institutions, which is where it has to go. There should be a limit on what goes from the fund towards these salaries and expenses. There is also a committee of experts to be employed by the board and, again, there will be expenses for them.

It is very unfortunate and sad that some survivors see the Bill as a massive job creation scheme, although that should not happen. The survivors have been through a redress board and the Education Finance Board so life should be becoming easier for them, not more difficult. To me, the needs of the survivors are paramount. One survivor group said "We, as survivors, did not get a say as to what way this unwanted fund should be implemented", that "The Government consulted the so-called representative groups, who do not have an authority to speak on our behalf" and that it continued to support them. This issue has to be addressed. Are the groups speaking for all of the survivors or some of the survivors? Are there survivors who are not within these groups or represented by them? Their voices have to be heard.

The apology and the memorial must be handled in a dignified and careful manner and the voices of the survivors must be heard in that regard.

With regard to the Justice for Magdalenes group, I wish to acknowledge their work and the way they went about it. I am aware that their work and that of Professor Smith, Claire McGettrick and Maeve O'Rourke showed a respect for the dignity of individuals who worked in the laundries and provided them with a space to tell their stories. I was very struck by what some of those ladies said, that they want to be believed and to have their voices heard. We must hear them and allow them their dignity. I acknowledge the work of those I have mentioned as an example of how we can do this right. The issue is that progress is very slow on this. Many of these ladies are of advanced age. The Minister may say he does not wish to rush on this and that he wants to do it right. However, the issue has been around a long time and time is very important.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This is not a holistic group. The consultation proved there are a variety of different responses required by the people who suffered abuse and it is for that reason I feel we should provide the maximum flexibility possible. These were people who had a portion or all of their childhood controlled and stolen and who were not allowed any individualism. Therefore, we owe them the ability to tell us what they want and what is right for them as individuals rather than as a group. The State took control of these people's lives and now it is taking control again. Of the nine people to be nominated by the Minister, the majority, five, are people who have not been in this situation, while four have. I wonder why control of this was not given to those survivors.

When discussing these issues, we must remember those people who broke the silence, people like Christine Buckley, for whom I have enormous respect, and the late Mary Raftery. We should never speak about this issue without remembering the service she gave and the debt of gratitude we owe her. Children who were in institutions were shunned and were always considered to have been in the institution for a reason. Some of the reasons were that their parents had died, they had missed school or something more serious. Being in an institution was not regarded as normal and as a result the children felt they had less value as people. This is an attitude that is very difficult to change as people go through life and many of these people have been hugely damaged by it.

I remember attending Goldenbridge for sixth class. Ironically, my mother thought the school I was in was too violent and she sent me to Goldenbridge. There were two schools in Goldenbridge at the time, one internal and the other the regular primary school, which I attended. There were a few "orphans", as they were called, in my class. These were the lucky, bright ones who got the opportunity to attend the regular school. They were the cream of the crop or money had been provided for them. I was aware that those children worked before they came to school and after they finished school each day. I could see the marks on their hands from making the rosary beads, which was the work they did. We did not see into their lives in the institution and they did not see out. All I saw was the few girls in the class with me. Goldenbridge orphanage was an institution on a par with a prison and that is what we are talking about here. What we did not see came out later on and was revealed in the programmes made by Mary Raftery. What went on was horrific.

I lived near Artane as a child, before moving to the wild west of Palmerstown. In Artane people saw the lucky boys being brought out for a walk. They walked two-by-two in their grey jerseys. People crossed to the other side of the street when they saw these boys. They did not talk to people and people did not talk to them. These are the sorts of conditions we are talking about. How can we make people forget this or the abuse that went on? We must listen to these people and must provide the maximum flexibility to them to be individuals, as they were not allowed do that in their childhood. It was stolen from them and they suffered horrific abuse.

This is what concerns me in the case of this Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan has gone into detail with regard to the formality of making an application and so on. What I see happening is that the people who need it most will be the people least able to put themselves through the application process, because it is too hurtful. My main concerns are the lack of flexibility and concern for individuals.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

I call on Deputy Catherine Byrne, who is sharing her time with Deputies Seán Kyne and Bernard Durkan.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I welcome this Bill and welcome the establishment of the statutory fund for victims of abuse in residential institutions. The extent of the abuse of women and children by those people entrusted with their care will forever be a stain on our nation. What these people have lost can never be quantified here. The reports we have seen, the stories we have heard and the many stories still untold represent the most awful betrayal and abuse of women and children in the history of this country. My heart goes out to those victims of abuse, but I know my words are of little comfort because in the past, nobody listened, nobody asked questions and nobody said stop.

What happened can never be allowed to happen again. Those who suffered abuse still live in society and still struggle on a daily basis to deal with simple matters. Over the past couple of days, I read the Justice for Magdalenes report that was issued by Professor James Smith of Boston College and was horrified by some of the stories. While many have told their stories openly, many stories that may be even more horrific have never been told. This process proposes to compensate victims and provide for counselling and whatever else victims may need in the future. This is long overdue.

The Bill is an important step in demonstrating support for victims of residential institutional abuse. The statutory fund will provide victims of abuse in residential institution with access to the help and support they need, through the provision of counselling, health, education, housing and other services. The Bill provides that former residents who received financial compensation from the redress board or who received an award or settlement in court proceedings and who would otherwise have received an award from the redress board will be eligible to apply for assistance from the fund. It is expected that some 15,000 former residents, whether living in Ireland or abroad, will successfully complete the redress process and be eligible to apply for services they need.

The statutory fund of some €110 million will be financed by contributions from the congregations. However, contributions of just €21.05 million have been received to date. I urge the Minister to pursue those who have not so far contributed to this fund and make sure their contribution is given now and not at a later stage.

Last year, the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs was established, and this will be complemented by the new child and family support agency. The new Children First guidelines were published last year and the heads of the Bill to put the guidelines on a statutory basis have recently been published, along with the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012. Preparations for the children's rights referendum are on target. Our primary focus is to protect our children and ensure that the horrendous abuses suffered by so many are a thing of the past. We all have a duty to protect children, whether our own or others, and to act when we know that children are at risk.

The issue of the eligibility for the scheme has been raised, and I urge the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to examine whether all former residents of State institutions could be included, given that some did not manage to engage with the redress scheme for a variety of reasons. I listened to the comments of other Deputies on this subject. I have lived in Inchicore all my life, and when I was growing up, the industrial school in Goldenbridge was only 30 seconds away from my hall door. I was conscious of the fact that there were two types of school in Goldenbridge: one for local children and one for residents of the institution. I will not speak in defence of the Sisters of Mercy because I know there were horrific problems in the institution. However, I believe the Sisters of Mercy, who were surrounded at the time by vulnerable young people living in Keogh Square, contributed to the education and health of many children from Inchicore. As someone who has worked alongside many community organisations, I have seen much respect for the sisters who worked tirelessly to educate children in our community, and still do today. As in every sphere, including politics, a small number of people can affect a system so badly that everyone is labelled.

Deputy Seán Kyne

I welcome the publication of the Bill. The Ryan and Murphy reports investigating abuse, including that which occurred at residential institutions, were shocking in their revelations of systemic abuse of a verbal, physical and sexual nature. For many years, courageous individuals attempted to expose the despicable activities of some people who had been entrusted with the care of thousands of vulnerable children. There were many obstacles to uncovering the truth: a deep unwillingness to act on the part of religious orders, the turning of a blind eye by the State, fear among the media of the ramifications of investigating what were then rumours and, above all, a deferential public seemingly unwilling to ask questions or raise social issues.

Given all this, it is entirely appropriate that the burden of rectifying as far as possible the grave injustices and mistakes of the past should be shared by the State and the churches. Disgracefully, previous Ministers allowed their own deferential views to limit the amount of compensation payable by religious orders, leaving the taxpayer to foot the lion's share of the bill. The revelations in the Ryan and Murphy reports evoked understandable anger from survivors, their families and wider society at the response of religious groups. Some religious orders, clearly shocked and humbled by the revelations, pledged voluntarily to increase their contributions, and the Bill will facilitate this. The legislation is a product of extensive consultation between the State, the religious orders and, most significantly, the survivors of abuse. The fund will be available to an estimated 15,000 former residents who successfully complete the application process to the existing Residential Institutions Redress Board or who separately agree settlements which would have fallen under the remit of the redress board.

The legislation also facilitates the appointment of a board to oversee the fund, and there is no doubt the board will play a significant role in determining its effectiveness, chiefly by ensuring that appropriate services, including mental health, health, education and housing support services, are in place. The board will have at least four members who resided as children in some of the institutions in question. Provision is also made to ensure the board has appropriate expertise in the keeping of accounts, fund disbursal, management and administration, and so forth. I am pleased to see that the chief executive of the board will be accountable to Oireachtas committees and that the Freedom of Information Act and recourse to the Ombudsman will apply. These detailed provisions should provide reassurance that public moneys will be spent efficiently and effectively in an attempt to rectify the serious and disturbing events of the past. It must always be remembered, however, that compensation cannot undo the theft of innocence and the loss of carefree and happy childhoods which were instead characterised by violence, abuse, intimidation and suffering.

I wish I could say I have no concerns regarding the administration of previous funds to recompense survivors, but I cannot. Unsettling matters have been brought to my attention by constituents who are survivors of abuse regarding the conduct of some organisations that were established to provide services to survivors. Serious questions have also been raised by journalists investigating organisations. It must be acknowledged that a great many organisations involved in assisting survivors do an impeccable job to the highest standards, and they must be commended for this. However, at least one organisation, Right of Place, which has offices in Galway in Cork, has had to receive extra financial support from the HSE to remain solvent and, in the very recent past, has been unable to provide satisfactory accounts detailing to whom public funds were allocated. As a result, the HSE rightly requested monthly expenditure and activity reports and quarterly face-to-face meetings with the organisation. This raises the fundamental issue of proper and prudent expenditure of public moneys. The residential institutions statutory fund must demonstrate that legislators have learned from the recent past, just as Irish society has learned from the grave injustices the system facilitated throughout the 20th century. Every cent must be accounted for and every cent must benefit survivors as they attempt to address the problems caused by the traumatic experiences of their childhoods.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, which addresses issues that were rampant in this country for a long time. I compliment all those involved in the reporting of these issues when they were first brought to light. I commend them for their courage and their willingness to stand their ground, in the face of some very stiff opposition, when it would have been easy for them to stand down. Society owes them a great debt of gratitude for their resilience, their commitment and their conviction, and particularly for their actions which benefited this and future generations. It serves as a lesson to us all to remember and contemplate these events so that we can make sure we do not see a repetition of such things in the future.

While many people felt that the manner by which people were placed in certain institutions, for whatever purpose, was not always in accordance with best practice, there were few who spoke out against it at the time. Perhaps in the future some of the people who are currently in the care of the State will be the subject of reviews and examinations in view of standards that may then apply. We must remember that it was not generally recognised that the institutions were not treating their residents in the manner in which they should have. We must also remember that the State has a responsibility to those in its care, for whatever reason they come to be in that care, whether in hospitals, schools, corrective institutions, training areas, prisons or anywhere else. The State has a responsibility to uphold the rights of the individual, which means State institutions must exercise a duty of care at all times. Failure to recognise the rights of individuals will lead to similar cases in the future and the taxpayer may once again be required to come to the rescue of those who have been offended against.

I speak as someone who has met victims of institutional abuse. What these victims had in common was that they could not recall events associated with their past without becoming emotional and tearful. That was a clear indication to me that they had unhappy childhoods as a result of being put in the care of the State. That is a sad reflection on any society because it is no good to claim we were not directly responsible for how we treat those who were vulnerable. Society was responsible and we all stand condemned. Those who were asked to exercise these functions on behalf of society have to accept a particular responsibility. It is true that not everybody committed the same sins or ignored what was happening but, unfortunately, a lot of people who held responsible positions failed to act. To this day, there are exceptions to good practice and even though they may be known to those in authority, issues continue to arise that impinge on the constitutional rights and welfare of individuals. That should not be the case.

Whenever something is brought to the attention of the authorities, they have a duty to ensure any issues arising are investigated thoroughly in order to protect individuals, institutions and taxpayers in the long run. If there were no breaches of good conduct, we would not be debating this Bill. The lesson to be learned is that we must recognise wrongdoing that deprives individuals of their fundamental rights and entitlements at an earlier stage, regardless of what these individuals may have done or who they may have offended. Children and young adults were referred to institutions for venial sins. Certainly the punishment of incarceration and abuse was far in excess of what they deserved. In many cases, unfortunate families and individuals who lived in deprived social and economic circumstances found their way into institutions.

While on the one hand we must recognise the good work done by voluntary and religious orders and groups, on the other a lot happened to besmirch the good name of both State and institutions. We are now attempting to repay individuals for the physical and psychological damage that was done to them. Similar events occurred in other jurisdictions. These issues have received enough publicity over the years for us to realise the need to intervene at an early stage. We should not do this in a spiteful or mean way but on health and safety grounds. We have learned lessons but we have more to learn and I hope we do not pay the cost for further lessons in years to come.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012. Before I speak on the details of the Bill I express my solidarity with and understanding of the plight of all victims and survivors of sexual and other abuse. Their suffering can never be forgotten but we will never be able to compensate them for the loss of their childhood. If this House wants to be serious, we must put compassion, truth and justice at the top of our agenda. Failure to act in this manner would be another crime against the survivors of abuse. Good practice, quality child safety provisions and top-class legislation must be part of the solution. Vigilance is also a part of the child protection agenda to ensure this abuse is not repeated.

I commend the survivors on the courage and dignity they have shown but let us not forget the victims who were left adrift because they were unable to speak out. Children with intellectual disabilities are the forgotten victims because they did not have the mental capacity or wherewithal to come out of the dark tunnel of abuse. I urge the Minister to be creative and sensible in dealing with this issue.

Following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009, the congregations which managed the residential institutions and which were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement were asked to provide further contributions by way of reparation. The Government agreed to proceed with legislation establishing a residential institution statutory fund in order to support the victims of abuse. It is important to note that the decision received cross-party support in the Dáil. This Bill was prepared following a process of public consultation with groups representing the survivors of residential institution child abuse, religious congregations and other interested parties. The fund will be financed by the cash portion of the offers from the congregations, which totals approximately €110 million. To date, contributions of €21.5 million have been received for the statutory fund. These, and the remaining contributions to be received, will be invested in an investment account to be established by the NTMA. Those who received an award from the redress board or an award or settlement in court proceedings, and those who have otherwise received an award from the redress board, will be eligible to apply for assistance to the fund. I welcome that. It is likely that some 15,000 former residents will successfully complete the redress process. In response to applications from eligible residents, the fund can make arrangements for the provision of improved services and may pay grants to assist former residents to avail of approved services.

Looking beyond the details of the legislation, the Education Finance Board was established on a statutory basis in 2006 and is funded through a contribution from the religious congregations of €12.7 million under the 2000 indemnity agreement. It is specifically earmarked for educational support for former residents and their families. It has almost completed the performance of its functions. The Education Finance Board will be dissolved and its staff will transfer to the statutory fund, which will assume its functions in respect of the remaining moneys available. That is the background to the legislation.

I welcome Mr. Paddy Doyle to the Visitors Gallery. He is a long time campaigner for people in institutions and on the broader issue of disability. I met Paddy when my daughter was born. She has an intellectual disability and he was one of the first people to influence me about disability rights and civil rights for people with disabilities. I thank him for his work on this issue.

When talking about the rights of children who came out of these institutions, we must remember they were the invisible children for many years. Children who find themselves in tough situations are often not afforded the care and protection they deserve. Historically, the State has shirked its responsibility for vulnerable children, allowing organisations like the church to fill gaps in services. The Kilkenny incest investigation in 1993 was the first report to outline the gaps in Irish law causing grave problems for children. Many subsequent reports regarding children, such as the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy reports, reiterated these concerns. There has been much outcry but, unfortunately, little concrete action has been delivered. We must watch this in respect of further debate in the House and the children who have suffered abuse.

Over a decade after the publication of the Children First national guidelines, we do not have enforceable child protection law in Ireland. The vetting of individuals working with children remains voluntary and the law continues to discriminate against certain children on the basis of the marriage status of their parents. I am pleased the Minister is in the House. We should be radical and creative. Things that were done in the past are often positive. It is not just a case of having so many points in the leaving certificate if one wants to work in the education service. People also need other skills. Many years ago, when applying for teacher training colleges, people had to undergo an in-depth interview as well as having academic qualifications. When I turned up at St. Patrick's College, psychologists, others involved in education and those with an interest in children were in place and all students were vetted after the call to training. We were all given a hard interview.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

How did Deputy McGrath get through?

Deputy Finian McGrath

It was my skill and determination, I hope. I always remember that interview because they were selecting people who were suitable to work with children. The interview was important as well as academic qualifications.

According to a HSE report, one child in ten in foster care has no allocated social worker. Last year, 120 children with mental health difficulties were admitted to adult psychiatric units. Since 2000, 500 children have disappeared from State care and 90% of those have never been found. We must monitor disadvantaged children in particular. Children remain virtually invisible in the Irish Constitution. They continue to be seen and not heard, even though the ISPCC has been vocal in its call for reform as far back as 1989. Up to 2,000 children remain in legal limbo because the Constitution makes it impossible for them to be adopted into long-term foster families, even after years of little or no contact with their birth parents. There are proposals on the table to deal with the issue and I will support them when they come on the pitch.

If we want to lay the ghost of past failures to rest and learn from the mistakes highlighted in the Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports, children need to be listened to and provided with a safe environment in which to grow up. I commend and thank the foster parents of this country for their magnificent work. The vast majority do an excellent job, provide safety for children and a public service for many families. They also prevent children getting into difficulty later in life by providing stability in the home. I thank all foster parents in the country on behalf of all Oireachtas Members. They do an excellent job but that does not mean we do not have to be vigilant in respect of that issue.

There is a sense in Ireland that something is not right with the system dealing with our children. A series of traumatic headlines and reports have driven home the message that the State and society has been guilty of turning its back on children in this country. We must face reality. The general acknowledgement is accompanied by a sense of confusion about the issues at play. People are immediately suspicious of overly legalistic language and there is a general sense that the sins of the past are in the past. This reflects a worrying trend that the people of Ireland do not recognise children's rights as an immediate priority in light of the current economic crisis.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

They will have the chance when we hold a referendum.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Yes, and I am part of all-party support for the referendum because it is important.

Campaigners for children have been met with genuine surprise when we tell people that child protection guidelines have not been put on a statutory footing. Inequality between children of married and unmarried children provokes surprise and a strong reaction. There is a fear that more rights for children means fewer rights for parents, reflecting the public's impression of rights as a zero-sum game. The Irish people also have an emotional connection to the Irish Constitution. Urgent and compelling reasons must be provided to change thestatus quo, which is why we need an open, honest and positive debate. The Irish public are very sophisticated and will make up their mind based on the evidence. They deal with the issues and the facts and then vote.

Historically, Ireland has a weak position on the rights of children. Many people say Ireland, the State and the church has failed these children. For too long, the voices of our children have been silenced.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Will Deputy Finian McGrath be clear in his support for the referendum? Will he come out early in favour of it, unlike the last referendum?

Deputy Finian McGrath

I have already met the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and she is well aware of my position. I also met a cross-party group and many children's organisations. I will say "Yes" if it is sensible; otherwise, I will say "No" and I will always challenge something if I have concerns about it.

Urgent problems face children in this country. The State must respond in a proportionate manner when vulnerable children are at risk. The necessary resources are not being delivered. I understand the resource issue but we must be on the ball and positive where vulnerable children are at risk. Irish law continues to treat families with married parents differently to parents who are cohabiting or single. There are serious knock-on effects for children. There are gaps in the legal system and, because of legal loopholes, it is almost impossible to adopt children placed in State care if they were born to a married couple. Up to 2,000 children live in a state of limbo, unable to be adopted by their long-term foster parents. I will be supporting the legislation.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Limbo got the heave-ho in Vatican II.

Deputy Finian McGrath

It is still around and still on the agenda. Regarding constitutional loopholes, the Constitution is virtually silent on the rights of the child outside the traditional family unit, which has a negative impact on the welfare of vulnerable children. I raise these issues because we need to discuss them today and because they are relevant to the broader debate on this issue. There are concrete solutions to deal with the problems that arise. As an Independent Member, I not only challenge but also put forward solutions, as I have mentioned.

The changes recommended in the Ryan report implementation plan must be made to ensure the litany of abuse visited on our children can never recur. After-supports for children leaving the care system must be provided. We must deal with this important issue. If children who leave the care system do not have supports, they will end up in more trouble and difficulties.

The visibility of children in the Constitution must be increased. Legislation must be put in place to standardise good practice in child protection work, and the Children First guidelines must be given legal force. I emphasise the need for good practice. I know from experience that there are excellent examples thereof. That said, we need to ensure excellent services are provided to all children. Some service providers on the front line claim there has been a change over the past ten or 15 years. I note from my experience of intellectual disabilities services that many young care workers are involved with IT, independent living and personal development, but they are also top of the class with regard to child protection and safety. Prosper Fingal service in Swords is excellent and there are other such services doing an excellent job.

The Government must offer leadership and commit to reforming the child protection and welfare systems. If it does so, it will get my support. If it drags his feet, it will be challenged.

Section 8 stipulates the board can determine the approved services to be provided from the following classes of services - mental health services relating to the care and treatment of a person suffering from a mental illness or a mental disorder, counselling services and psychological support services; and health and personal social services, including general practitioner, hospital treatment, pharmacy and nursing services and services to assist in the maintenance at home of a former resident who is sick or infirm. These provisions are important because we must provide supports for the 15,000 survivors. Section 8 also refers to educational services and housing support services, including for the adaptation or improvement of real property but not including financial aid for the purchase, mortgage or charge of real property.

On the issue of protecting children, we need a rights-based approach to monitoring child and youth well-being. Understanding the gap between child and youth policy development and implementation is required. We need to rethink the culture of youth justice in respect of research, rights and reflections on practice. We must consider supporting educational achievement in areas of social deprivation, supporting the mental health of children and youth in respect of prevention in mental health services, and securing youth civic engagement. There are many ideas to deal with this issue.

We must ensure that the former residents of institutions are afforded the maximum support in the services they receive from day to day. Society and the State owe them this because a grave injustice was done to them.

Section 14 deals with the functions of the chief executive. According to the explanatory memorandum, it provides:

[...] that the chief executive shall manage and control generally the administration of the Board and perform other functions determined by the Board; that the chief executive is accountable to the Board and may make proposals to the Board; shall provide such information to the Board as the Board require and also provides for the delegation by the chief executive of any of his or her functions to a staff member subject to the approval of the Board. Provision is included for the designation of a staff member, with their agreement, to perform the functions of the chief executive in the absence of the chief executive.

Section 15 deals with accountability. There ought to be clear accountability. Accountability of the chief executive to the Committee of Public Accounts is an important standard provision. Accountability may be routine for many but accountability to the Committee of Public Accounts on this issue is to ensure that any money spent will be spent in a sensible way.

The agenda must involve truth, justice, compassion and support, which are important.

I welcome section 19 on the annual report and information.

I welcome the debate. I urge all involved, regardless of political party or their independence, to be supportive. I urge Members to support the rights of children, the referendum and any proposals that will improve the rights of children.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

I am sharing time with Deputies Fitzpatrick, Anne Ferris and Feighan.

I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. The Bill aims to provide for the establishment of a statutory fund to support the survivors of institutional child abuse. The Bill is necessitated by the long-standing failure of the State to take proper care of its most vulnerable citizens. For decades, the well-being of children deemed to require care was delegated to religious institutions. The statutory fund, which is the subject of the Bill, will be financed by the contributions from religious congregations. This fund is but one element of the State's response to the litany of horrific abuses exposed in recent years. The first and most important element of the response is to put in place a structure to ensure best practice is followed in every setting where children are found to ensure their safety and well-being. Abuse survivors will agree with me that is the first step in any form of redress. I agree great strides have been made in that respect across State institutions in recent years, but a huge volume of work remains to be done.

The second step in achieving redress involves ascertaining the damage done, if the depth and extent of such damage can ever be properly assessed. To this end, over 14,000 awards have been made to abuse survivors.

The third element of address involves this Bill by way of taking care of the longer-term needs of the survivors. To this end, the statutory fund provided for in the Bill is only available to those who receive an award from the Residential Institutions Redress Board. However, unlike that board, the statutory fund will not make financial awards to former residents; instead, it will seek to provide approved services or grants to allow people to avail of such services.

Many Members on all sides of the House have received representations from former residents of residential institutions now located overseas. It is important that their voices be heard also. It is no wonder that many former residents of institutions left Ireland's shores as soon as they possibly could given the treatment meted out unfairly to them at the hands of those in the Government appointed to look after them. Thus, it is especially important that such people be taken care of through services they will need in the coming years.

The making available of educational services to both former residents and their children was an important role of the Education Finance Board. Proper education can never take place in an environment full of fear. For people whose place of education was also the scene of their abuse, there could never be a love of education. Increasingly, a lack of education proves to be a barrier to well-paying jobs. It was imperative that the cycle of poverty was broken. Educating former residents and their children was a key tool in tackling a monstrous wrong. However, in creating the present fund, some survivors have expressed the belief that the fund available should be confined to former residents. Thus, it was decided that only former residents would be able to avail of the statutory fund. Disenchantment was expressed by some correspondents in regard to groups representing survivors of abuse. They cited a lack of accountability and a lack of a mandate for such groups. In 2011, the Department funded five groups representing survivors in Ireland and three in the United Kingdom. Last year, the Department of Education and Skills spent over €42,000 funding groups in Ireland and over €227,000 funding groups in the United Kingdom.

The wrong done to the children in question can never be righted. The fear, dread and foreboding of their childhoods can never be eroded. Their negative memories can never be replaced with positive ones, and the trust, so utterly shattered for them, can never be rebuilt. However, exposing the wrongs done to them in the State-run institutions or those run by religious orders appointed by the State was only ever a first step in telling the horrific stories. The longer-term care of the former residents is the focus of this Bill. The services offered through the statutory fund will prove invaluable to the 15,000 former residents of the Irish institutions, wherever in the world they may find themselves.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill, which provides for a statutory fund to support the survivors of residential institution child abuse. This Bill establishes a residential institution statutory fund board, which will oversee applications for assistance and make arrangements for the provision of approved services or grants to former residents. The fund will be entirely financed by contributions from religious congregations. Those who receive an award from the Residential Institutions Redress Board will be eligible for the funds, as will those who receive equivalent court settlements.

The Bill also provides for the dissolution of the Education Finance Board and the transfer of its functions to the residential institutions statutory fund board. The fund will be entirely financed from the cash contributions of up to €110 million offered by the religious congregations who were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement. They agreed to further contributions following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009.

To date, contributions of over €21 million have been received from the congregations to the fund. The fund's aim is to support the needs of survivors of the residential institution child abuse, as well as providing for a range of health, welfare and other services. The fund will not make financial awards but the statutory fund board will arrange for the provision of a range of approved services. The latter will include mental health, health and personal social services, GP and hospital treatment, nursing, education and housing supports for adapting or improving properties. Housing support services do not include financial aid to buy a property.

The board will comprise nine members appointed by the Minister and there will be an equitable gender balance in so far as that is practical. Four of the members will be former child residents of the institutions specified in the schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. Among the other five board members, the Minister must ensure that some have expertise in or knowledge of keeping financial accounts and disbursement of funds, management and administration of an organisation, and provision of approved services.

Section 32 provides for the dissolution of the Education Finance Board, while section 33 provides for the transfer of its functions, properties and employees to the new board. The board's functions include: paying grants to former residents of the institutions and their relatives; assisting them to avail of educational services; providing information on education services, for which grants are payable; and determining and publishing criteria for the payment of such grants.

Deputy Anne Ferris

While I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill, the history leading to it is one that I wish had never occurred. It is a history of abuse, which was systemic, endemic and covered up. Many thousands of men and women, who were boys and girls then, suffered at the hands of a church and State that clearly did not give a damn about their welfare.

They had a responsibility to them, a duty of care, which was often ignored or discharged corruptly. The church and State still have a responsibility to them, which is the reason for the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill. The Bill is welcome and offers a much needed fund to support the education, health, housing and welfare needs of survivors of residential child abuse.

The cost of responding to this abuse is now estimated to exceed €1.36 billion.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It is €1.5 billion.

Deputy Anne Ferris

So it is even more. I certainly believe that this should be shared on a 50-50 basis between church and State. I was surprised by the outcome of the original indemnity deal negotiated in 2002. There is still some mystery as to why the church was limited to providing €128 million in cash and property, especially when it would seem that the Department of Finance had suggested otherwise.

The most important outcome of this Bill is that victims will receive any and all assistance that they need. It is incumbent on me to say, however, that those who were at fault should bear full responsibility for their actions. Certainly, the original indemnity deal could in no way contribute fully to this responsibility.

To this end, I support the Minister, Deputy Quinn's calls for further substantial contributions as a way of making reparations that are sorely needed. The Minster has called for the school infrastructure that the congregations possess to be transferred to the State at no cost. I would endorse this call as a helpful approach as it would allow a further shouldering of the costs while permitting schools to operate under the ethos they choose.

It has been reported that 17 religious orders have an asset base of around €2.6 billion and therefore the feasibility of offering more to the overall fund is not beyond their means at all. The end result of this process must be that victims' needs are adequately met. It is also important that mechanisms are put in place that will prevent something like this from recurring.

For that reason, I also welcome the Government's commitment to place the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis. That measure, along with the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012, will also help in this regard.

There is something very wrong at the heart of a church, of which I am a member, that would allow this abuse to happen. It is clear from report after report that the violence suffered by children was horrific and was made worse by being covered up for so many years.

There is also something wrong on wider issues concerning many of the church's teachings, its dogma and rhetoric. They appear to be sadly at odds with what the general public feeling. An interesting poll was taken on behalf of the Association of Catholic Priests, which showed that three quarters of the population believe the church's teaching on sexuality has no relevance to them. The poll also demonstrated that a large majority thought priests ought to be allowed to marry, and that women priests should be ordained - God forbid.

The poll also showed strong disagreement with the church's teaching on homosexuality. All of this demonstrates a wide disconnect with the people but I wonder, and worry, whether this is properly recognised.

I commend the survivors who bravely came forward to highlight the abuse they experienced. I would like to mention Christine Buckley in particular. I was a pupil at Goldenbridge and while I was lucky not to have experienced abuse, hearing the awful stories that came out of that institution really brought the issue of abuse home to me. It is very brave of her, and all the others who came forward, to bring light on a dark chapter of our history.

I am glad the Government is taking some of the necessary steps to do something about addressing past wrongs. There is still a way to go, however, and more work is required to ensure that some measure of justice is achieved for all those who have suffered.

Deputy Frank Feighan

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister, Deputy Quinn, for bringing it before the House. When the Ryan report was published it met with a huge outcry over how this could have happened. It happened because church and State acted in collusion to brush all these unfortunate incidents under the carpet. The church should never have been invited in to run our State, and the State should never have been tied hand-in-hand with the church. It had a corrosive effect on the State and on the Catholic church, of which I am a member. In the past ten or 15 years, both church and State have gone their own ways, which is beneficial for both. The church has moved towards a more liberal attitude in the past 15 or 20 years, and I welcome that.

The events the Bill seeks to deal with should never have happened, however. The State neglected some 15,000 people who were also neglected by the church which ran these facilities for the State. I know from those who attend my constituency clinics that they are angry and feel let down. Deputy Connaughton rightly pointed out that the minute they were able to leave these institutions they took the boat to get away from this country, which turned its back on them.

When the Ryan report was published, for once, we could not blame the British. This was of our own making. The situation was an Irish solution to an Irish problem. We called ourselves Christian and caring. We did not care for the vulnerable young people in these institutions. There were so many tiers in our society then, with people either belonging to a particular political party, group or the church. We must now ensure that everyone is equal and is given the same opportunities.

The €128 million deal agreed was not in the interests of this State. I believe the State got a very raw deal and that the church should come up with more funding. I believe it will do so. I am not here to criticise the church, which has done much good work down through the years. Unfortunately, however, there was no vetting procedure in place therein, which allowed people with no interest in Christianity to infiltrate its ranks and undermine young innocent children. We must now ensure that systems are put in place to ensure this does not happen again.

The fund must provide for counselling, mental health, education and housing services. I am glad that the Bill provides that further services can be prescribed because despite that everything has been done to contact those involved, there are still people living outside of this country who do not know to what they are entitled and who have not availed of these services. I welcome that it has been provided in the Bill that further services can be prescribed.

It is important we ensure that the fund is spent on front line services rather than on administration. I welcome the Bill. I believe the Ryan report was the line in the sand in terms of how this State deals with this abuse. We have grown up and are a lot more open. Unfortunately, however, the 15,000 people who endured this abuse are still angry, and rightly so.

Report on following remarks available at

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/committee_on_procedure_dail_eireann/reports/2012/2012-11-01_utterances-re-mr-michael-o-brien_en.pdf

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I commend the Minister and Government on bringing forward this Bill at this time. The Government has received much criticism in regard to the publication of Bills. However, I welcome that we are today discussing this long promised and badly needed legislation. While this issue has been the focus of many people, there are many who were shocked, alarmed and concerned about the findings of the Ryan report, which it has been mentioned cost €1.5 million. However, cost should not at this stage be a factor. No money will ever compensate for the horrible atrocities and barbarities perpetrated on those involved. Regardless of how slight the abuse, it should never have happened. Ireland was a different place at that time. It is easy to be wise after the event. However, I do not condone that abuse in any shape or form.

Deputy Finian McGrath spoke earlier about the people with intellectual disabilities who knew no better because of their profound difficulties. Those who were institutionalised in educational facilities at least knew, regardless of the type of education they were receiving, what was right and what was wrong. I, too, would welcome implementation of the Children First guidelines. I believe they will be a game-changer.

There has been much reference to previous efforts in terms of negotiations with the church, of which I will not be critical. The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012 is being introduced in the context of over a decade of different State responses to the issues of abuse in residential institutions. It provides for the establishment of a fund to support the victims of abuse in residential institutions. The fund is to be financed by contributions agreed with the religious congregations, which is important. The policy aim of the fund, which will be administered by the residential institutions statutory fund board, is to support the education, health and welfare needs of survivors of residential child abuse. That is vital. We can never lose sight of that. I know that the Minister is keen to ensure we do not. As I stated earlier, money will do no good if it is not channelled in the right way.

I welcome also that people will be assessed so as to determine what service is appropriate to them, that these services will be approved services and that grants will be paid to former residents of this State so that they may avail of an approved service. We must be very careful and ensure these services are approved services, ones which will benefit the unfortunate victims and ensure the best value for the State. I am not being crude in terms of saying we must ensure best value for the State but it is important we do not only throw money at this problem, as has been done in the past. Through my office, I have been involved with at least ten people who suffered abuse. While they received some financial redress, it was no good to them. It simply went like snow off a ditch. They were given no meaningful counselling. We must ensure that this funding is channelled to the appropriate places and that appropriate training is provided.

As I stated earlier, people end up in many different situations. People in every walk of life change their minds. I was accused of doing so in this House this morning. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a particular situation in Clonmel, where some of the Rosminian Brothers were found guilty of some heinous crimes. The brothers also did much good.

The people of Clonmel are confused. A high profile gentleman - I will not mention any names - a former resident of a Rosminian institution and Mayor of Clonmel, once held a civic reception for the Rosminians. He also praised them at many public events in respect of the treatment he received in that institution. He gave them the highest accolade a town could give, in terms of giving them a civic reception, and was supported by the council in doing so. He stated time and again at a number of public events how good they were and how he would not have become an urban town councillor or Mayor but for the Rosminian Brothers in Ferryhouse. Everyone believed him and accepted that. We all know that the Rosminian Brothers have done great work. However, this man, who once attacked local media people for printing an article about charges being brought against some of the Rosminian Brothers, later had a change of mind - I accept everyone has the right to do so - and has now become one of the leading advocates on this issue. He has gained national notoriety on television - I understand he was on television last night - in this regard. It is bizarre that he has made a complete turnaround and is now attacking the same people to whom he, when Mayor of Clonmel, gave a civic reception on behalf of the town.

An Ceann Comhairle

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy, but I must inform him that regardless of whether he names a person, where such a person becomes clearly identifiable, it is dangerous to be making critical remarks against that person when he or she is not present to respond to them. The Deputy needs to be careful.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Go raibh maith agat. I will try to be cúramach. Some of these people do outstanding work. Christine Buckley and others have been mentioned. It is bad enough that awful crimes were perpetrated but if any seeds of doubt are shown by these survivors and their organisations, and some of them have been very disappointed, it can throw a bad light on the situation so we must be careful because we cannot have this.

Survivors have come to my office to say they were very unhappy with what unfolded and how locally the money was channelled through a particular office. We must be careful. The heinous crimes committed were bad enough and we cannot have the State fund being abused. I am pleased that on this occasion it will be channelled through the Department of Education and Skills for counselling and other services required not only for the victims but also their families. I have to put on the record that people in Clonmel and South Tipperary are confused and I am also confused. People can change their minds but there is no room for double standards, a total change of heart or jumping on the bandwagon. This cannot be accepted. I know it is not by the vast majority but unfortunately I had to say what I did with regard to this case.

I commend the survivors like Christine Buckley who have been champions and brought these cases to the fore. They do great work and this work should not be diminished in any way. They have also done great work in encouraging other victims to come forward and tell their stories and gain what hope and future they can for themselves and use the support services to be provided by the fund. Other survivors have carried it silently for decades and will probably continue to do so. Many of them are abroad, which is sad. It is easy to be wise after the event and people live with this hell every hour of their lives.

I wish to mention a family very close to me whom I know well who provided foster care before it was popular and remunerated. They worked with approximately 28 different children, some with whom I socialise with now. They have been transformed. They came from the most awful cases and lived with this family who did tremendous work. I am dealing with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, because not only did the family not get a shilling from the State for taking the children, one of whom did £25,000 worth of damage to the house in one night in a psychotic incident because of what had happened that child, they also cannot receive a pension because they have neither the credit nor the stamps. This case must be examined. The 28 human beings they cared for have gone on to get married and have led all types of lives. I could see the transformation in them. I did not know the background at the time but it is wonderful to think where they are now. I am sure there are many such families who also did not receive any payment because they did what they did out of human interest, kindness, compassion and a desire to help those less fortunate.

Children ended up in institutions for many reasons such as accidents, suicide, poverty or criminality. State-supported institutions contacted this family to take various children because it was known the family could deal with them in a particular specialised manner in a home setting and friendly therapeutic environment. I am not diminishing in any way the fund of €1.5 billion but some cognisance must be given to these families. I have spoken about one particular family but there are probably a number of others who gave of their time voluntarily and worked to make wonderful men and women of the people who now take part in life as near to normally as they can. They still need a little support after the traumatic events they went through. We cannot look at this coldly. We must be able to look after the families who cherished these people and gave them a life. I am not looking for anything magical, I am looking for recognition of the valuable time they spent. One cannot place a monetary value on it but some support should be in place for them.

I thank the members of religious orders, particularly those in education. A small number of politicians have damaged the reputation of people in the House. People across the board have been found guilty of awful activities and besmirched the good name of many and varied institutions, such as FÁS. The religious orders did outstanding work. At this point I am trying to support myself. I am on a voluntary board limited by guarantee to establish an adolescent drug treatment centre and we are negotiating with a religious institution on the use of the most spectacular building, which I often visited and in which I often had tea. We are trying to get a voluntary contribution from the State. This morning a situation in Sligo was discussed. I do not know anything about it but the Minister had to respond on it. Facilities exist and good work was done. I was involved with Sister Veronica in establishing the Aislinn project in Ballyragget and good work was done there. One could not get better people to head up an organisation than religious sisters or brothers because they have no other ties or demands and are normally well-educated. They are driven by the ideals of a religious background, compassion and humanity to work on such a project. We cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater and attack them all, because they have done tremendous work.

I remember the first time I saw the Artane Boys Band march at a match. They put on a great show at various all-Ireland finals. I am 53 years of age and little did any of us believe that what was happening behind those walls could have happened. One has a public image and a public face. We have a different Ireland now. It is easy to be wise in hindsight. We now have Garda vetting. I am involved in child care through a community group. I do not knock the Garda Síochána, but the vetting system is too cumbersome and slow. It is nothing like it used to be. Previously Garda vetting involved a phone call to the local garda who knew every family in the parish and 99% of the time the garda was right. Now in County Tipperary the service is centralised in Thurles and the gardaí do not have a clue who they are talking about. Often I wonder whether it is worth the paper it is written on. I am not being callous or cold, I am stating it is difficult to give a reference and we must be very careful it is fit for purpose. We cannot make these mistakes again.

We see cases all the time. Recently I was shocked to learn of a case in my home county. I could not believe it. I knew the person, and worked and socialised with him. It was shocking. I do not know what desires and bizarre thoughts are in the minds of those who commit these heinous crimes. People can be totally taken in and not even suspect. It is a very sad situation. It will always be with us so we must be mindful of it. However, we cannot attack the institutions because while awful things happened much good was done too. The education system in the country would be far poorer were it not for the excellent work and contributions of the sisters and brothers throughout the country. I have sat on boards with them. I have seen religious and lay schools amalgamated and the contribution made by the members of religious orders. I have sat on interview boards and done everything one can think of with religious people and their contribution has been immense. They feel hugely let down by the actions of a minority. We must always remember this and be conscious of it.

Now that they are being removed we can see the cost of providing education. It is unbearable and we cannot do it. Where would we have been as a fledging State but for their work and how they brought education to people through night classes? I do not knock the VECs which also did this. We are not talking about that today - we are talking about the situation in the education system, which we can never forget. I will never forget it and it cannot be said enough here. Too many people are too quick to denounce everything else that went on.

I ask the Minister to be very cautious when setting up the board. I know that he will rightly appoint four of the survivors. In light of my earlier remarks, he needs to be certain that the people he appoints are there for the right motives. While 99.9% of them are, I felt obliged to say what I said. I will not say much more, a Cheann Comhairle, because I do not want to identify people here. However, it does not sit easily with me or with many of my constituents that a certain individual may be portraying a double life.

The Bill has been well researched and documented. Money will be channelled to the places it should go. Since 2001 the Department of Education and Skills has spent €8 million to support the provision of information and referral services by support groups for former residents. As with many other areas in life, money can naturally get gobbled up in setting up groups. However, in the delivery of the service the victim cannot be sidelined in any way at any time. The victim is paramount and we must ensure that every cent spent goes into the proper services.

Case conferences about children or other people often involve 15 officials of different ranking sitting around a table. While many or all of them are there for good reasons and doing their best, it is impossible to do anything in such a situation. I have sat on boards with 15 or 20 people and it is impossible for a survivor to have to face such a stressful situation. Regardless of their present situation, they may have suffered over the long term. While they may have an advocate with them, nonetheless it is too bureaucratic with too many people involved. It should be kept slim and trim with the right people with the vision, passion and understanding, and it needs to be dealt with as sensitively as possible. We cannot have scope for the heavy hand of the State or any institution dealing insensitively. An inappropriate word or a syllable could be enough to frighten the person sitting across the table and make him or her feel bullied, threatened or intimidated. We must remember they have been through horrific attacks on their being and they have been nurtured to come out of it. Christine Buckley and others are doing great work in getting them out there.

We must be awfully careful that the money is channelled in the right way and that every cent is spent to restore them their dignity, humanity, individualism and their good name so that they can be helped to live the best life they can. We also need to try to reach out to those who have gone abroad and gone into hiding in some cases, which is the most difficult of all. I wish the Minister well and commend the Bill to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Terence Flanagan, who, I understand, is sharing time with Deputies Breen, Corcoran Kennedy and John Paul Phelan.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

I welcome the Bill and I thank the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, for his hard work in ensuring the Bill was brought before the House as quickly as possible. The Government obviously recognises the significance and importance of the issue and it has been determined to move to establish this fund as a priority. The previous Government should be commended on its work with the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2000. Like everybody, I was appalled and shocked with the findings of the Ryan report published in 2009 and with the other reports into this matter. It is absolutely shocking that widespread child abuse took place in residential institutions, which should have been safe places for children, especially given that these events did not occur too long ago.

Nothing will take away from the distress and damage caused to the residents of these institutions when they were children. However, I am encouraged by the many steps the Government has taken to address the issue and to ensure the rights of children are protected in future. The referendum on children's rights will take place later in the year. Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 took place in the Seanad on Tuesday. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs, headed by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, was established last year with the sole purpose of dealing with policy issues that affect children showing that the Government is fully dedicated to address this situation. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, recently published the heads of the children first Bill, which is an important first step. Children are certainly in the focus of the Government.

Some 15,000 people will be eligible for support from the statutory fund to be established by the Bill. Obviously it is vital that the application process is as simple and quick as possible so that survivors do not have to endure any more pain or experience delays in getting support. The fund will support services, including mental health services such as counselling and psychological support, educational services, housing services and personal social services as opposed to providing funds directly to former residents. The fund will be administered by nine board members, four of whom will be survivors of residential institutions, which has been welcomed by the former residents. Having shared the same appalling experiences they will be able to give invaluable input into how the fund will operate.

More than €21 million has already been received from religious congregations for the fund, with €110 million needed to fully support the services for the 15,000 eligible people. Eligibility to apply to the fund will be confined to those who have received an award under the Residential Institutions Redress Board or those who would otherwise have received an award but received a court settlement. It is clear the Government does not wish to bankrupt any religious congregations, but it is important that each congregation contributes to the fund to help the survivors of abuse to have access to proper support services.

It is tragic that sufferers were not listened to in the past and that many, who were abused, had to hide the truth from their family members. It is also tragic that abuse was commonplace in many religious residential institutions and was allowed to continue for many years without anybody intervening to prevent it. It is important that the costs are equally divided because the State also has a case to answer. I welcome the establishment of the fund which will provide essential support services for the survivors.

Deputy Pat Breen

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important debate. The Bill provides for the establishment of a statutory fund to support the needs of former residents of residential institutions, which was endorsed unanimously by the House following the publication of the Ryan report. The distribution of this fund gives statutory recognition to the victims of abuse in our residential institutions and makes provision for counselling, health, education, housing and other services which are necessary to support victims. I am also very conscious of the victims and am very aware that on every occasion on which this issue has been debated in this House and elsewhere, including on the airwaves, the victims have to relive the horror and suffering they endured throughout the years, which can be very painful for them. Any words of mine are wholly inadequate to express the suffering of victims, many of whom I meet regularly in my constituency office in Ennis.

There is a diversity of opinion among victims about the establishment of this fund. Some victims believe that money from the fund should be allocated directly to them. However, the Department of Education and Skills consulted widely with survivors' groups and individual victims, including survivors' groups and victims who are now living in the UK. The Minister for Education and Skills has explained his reason for the approach taken in the Bill. From the responses received during the consultation process, a number of needs were identified which this fund should address, including the importance of a holistic approach in counselling services, so physiotherapy and family support services are made available as part of those services; a proposal that home care packages should be made available for victims so survivors can avoid the need to be placed in institutional care in their older years; and the importance of providing adequate funding for the provision of health care services, including dental care, particularly in circumstances where such services are not covered by the provision of a medical card.

It was clear that the survivors' groups are anxious that this fund be managed in an effective manner and I welcome the fact that four of the nine members of the fund's board will be former residents. This gives victims confidence that the board will oversee the applications for support in an effective and fair manner. The Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Ryan report and I commend the Minister for Education and Skills on bringing this legislation before the House. It is an important step in supporting victims who suffered abuse in our institutions. Lessons must be learned from the past. That is the reason the Government has established the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Senator Martin McAleese to establish the facts and clarify the State's involvement with the ten Magdalene laundries that existed in Ireland between 1992 and 1996. The work is very important. The committee has already met and heard individual testimonies from many of the victims. I will be interested to see its findings when its work is completed. I commend Senator McAleese on the work he is doing on this.

When one meets with survivors of abuse, each of them will tells one that they tried to tell the story of what was happening, but nobody listened. For too long, people stood by and let abuse happen. For that reason it is essential that our child protection guidelines are put on a statutory basis. I welcome the Government's plans to introduce a raft of legislative measures which will place children's rights and child protection guidelines on a statutory footing. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs recently published the heads of the Children First Bill, which is a key step. Separate legislation will be published which will make it a criminal offence for a person to fail to disclose abuse. In addition, the children referendum will strengthen children's rights in our Constitution.

Change and reform which had been promised to protect our vulnerable children has been delayed for far too long or has not been delivered. As a Government Deputy, I am glad that this Government is acting in support of victims. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I welcome this Bill which provides for the establishment of the residential institutions statutory fund that was proposed following the publication of the Ryan report. The findings of that report exposed in all its awfulness the different types of abuse meted out to our young children by people in positions of power and trust in this State. The physical, emotional and psychological abuse doled out in these institutions was matched by authorities that were complicit in both ignoring and condoning the horrors being experienced by vulnerable children and teenagers in the name of reformation of one kind or another. Society, the Government and religious orders failed them.

We must never forget this traumatic period in our history when, as a young democracy, we placed little value on our children and young people's well-being. Violence and coercion appear to have been seen as the only ways to build good character and values. Adults in positions of trust, wielding such power and aggression over young people, did not live up to the Christian values they purported to espouse. We must never allow such horrors to recur. Where people deviate into such behaviour we, as a society, must act swiftly to ensure that the full rigours of the law are used against such individuals to send a clear message that our young people are valued and deserve every opportunity to live safely in this Republic.

Establishing a fund for the victims and their families is a means for them to be compensated but it can never truly compensate them for a lost childhood, full of pain and horror. A fund that will give them access to services and educational opportunities is but one step for our society to try to recognise and abhor what happened to the victims. The ongoing trauma prevented many of them from living an emotionally secure life and the subsequent fall-out for their families cannot be underestimated. In this context I ask that the fund be accessible to all people who can prove that there were past residents of these institutions. It appears unfair that only the people who have already accessed the redress board or the courts are allowed to apply to the proposed fund. There might have been genuine reasons for not coming forward until now, and we are now proposing to compound the neglect of these victims through this exclusion. That is wrong.

Access to education is the best way out of poverty. The existing education fund was a successful way for families of victims to obtain educational grants. This access should continue under the statutory fund for families of all the former residents as well as for the former residents. I also ask that the fund be left open to philanthropic donations, which would ensure the fund would be sufficient to cover these needs, rather than just relying on the contributions of the religious orders and the Government, which will be a finite sum.

There is still further work to be done. While I welcome this Bill, we must also address the circumstances of the victims of the Magdalene laundries and the Bethany Homes, something which should be done sooner rather than later. Services must be provided to address the needs of victims, who must be at the centre of all our actions.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill and put my opinions on the record. I support the legislation as proposed. I have not had the opportunity, either in this House or in the Seanad, over the past number of years to speak on the issue of children's rights and the litany of abuses of those rights which we discovered in this country over the past ten to 15 years. I will take this opportunity to add my voice to those who have spoken on the Ryan report and its findings in May 2009 and on other reports which have outlined widespread abuse over many years in different parts of the country. In fact, I do not believe any part of the country has been exempt from some of the tales of horror that have been revealed.

It is part of the first step in helping the victims that we uncover what happened and acknowledge the grave horrors inflicted upon them in a number of residential homes throughout the country. It is an important first step. It is difficult for people who are not trained in this area, of whom I am one, to get their mind around how an adult would inflict this torture on a child. Very few crimes are more horrific than the removal of the innocence of a child. I am lucky that I grew up in a close-knit family environment and that, like my siblings, I did not end up having to be committed to a residential institution.

It is important to recall that many people who ended up in these residential homes in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s did so under rather dubious circumstances. The people who were committing them to these homes and the advice that was given and taken on board as to which families and children should be taken into care were dubious, to say the least. I am familiar with a family in my community that was split up in the 1950s. I knew one of the siblings who, sadly, is now deceased. He was very traumatised for the rest of his life as a result of what he endured in one of our residential homes. Moreover, I am sure others among his siblings could have suffered a similar fate. It is important to point out that not all the experts on whose advice people were committed to such residential institutions were clergy, as many were not. It also is important to emphasise the abuses that took place were not all perpetrated by members of religious orders. There was a complete abdication by the State of its role in looking after children who needed residential care and this simply was unacceptable.

I join previous speakers in commending the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Government on their efforts in producing legislation. I note the publication of the heads of the children first Bill and the Minister's determination to make progress in respect of the children's rights referendum to enshrine specifically the rights of children into the Constitution. However, legislation and rights enshrined in the Constitution are only part of what must happen. It really is a question of how these rights will be enforced on the ground and of ensuring a sufficient mechanism exists for such rights to be upheld into the future. That will be the difficult part of what must be done by the Government, particularly at a time when budgets are not exactly full across the board. However, one cannot scrimp on protecting the rights of children. If one is to learn anything from what happened for generations in Ireland, it is that one must pull out all the stops with regard to protecting children into the future. I support the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, in that regard, as well as the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, who is present in the Chamber and who is responsible for the legislation under discussion. It is a welcome step in the right direction. While funding of this redress board is essential, victims also need other services, particularly in the health area and in education. I join Deputies Breen and Corcoran Kennedy in asking that those particular avenues for funding will be available for victims into the future.

Deputy Clare Daly

This discussion is hugely important. The provisions of the Bill provide for the establishment of a statutory fund to support the needs of former residents of residential institutions and if Members are to do justice to these victims, they should listen to them. However, huge numbers of such victims have stated they are not satisfied the Bill's provisions meet their needs. There could be agreement throughout the House that what happened in these institutions was one of the most disgraceful episodes in Irish history and that those who were subjected to abuse in institutions deserve Members' support and some form of redress, even though one cannot undo the wrong that was done to them. However, I do not believe the Bill does this.

The Minister has stated he has engaged in extensive consultation with many of the groups of survivors of residential abuse but I simply do not buy this in respect of the consultation. While I agree the Minister has met such groups, questions have been raised as to how representative they are of the thousands of victims of abuse. Moreover, a number of the aforementioned groups are on record as stating they are not happy with the method the Minister has chosen to deal with this issue. As for the level of consultation engaged in, the number of e-mails I have received personally in respect of raising objections to this Bill probably is greater than the number of people who were consulted about this Bill. I acknowledge the Minister is looking at me in disbelief but that is a fact. All of us, as Members of Parliament, have received horrific correspondence from victims who are not happy with the method that has been proposed. Questions have been raised about a number of the organisations that were consulted. Moreover, a number of the aforementioned organisations are on record as stating they do not believe the establishment of the fund in this way is the best way forward. The belief that a fund should benefit the survivors, rather than creating a quango or an administrative bureaucracy to use up the money that then does not get to the victims, has been raised and I do not believe this has been addressed adequately.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

The Deputy should engage in the Committee Stage debate, when we will go through the Bill line by line.

Deputy Clare Daly

My group will be absolutely living in the Committee Stage debate and I assure the Minister my group already has drafted a number of amendments.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

I welcome that.

Deputy Clare Daly

Moreover, we also will pressing for a vote here today and there is no problem-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

If the Deputy has better proposals, I will listen to them.

Deputy Clare Daly

Absolutely. I am glad to hear that, because the Minister will be kept in the committee room with that debate.

Members have an obligation and responsibility to the people in this situation. The stories we have heard, the correspondence we have come across and the testimony of the people we have met are truly horrific. It is no understatement to state there are many individuals who have deep scars as a result of what happened to them. I refer to people who were subjected to hard labour or who were battered, tortured, starved and neglected, to people who lost their identity and roots, to people who died in such institutions never to have received redress and to people who still suffer. This must be our starting point in this scenario. It has been raised that many-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Deputy, that is the starting point of all of us.

Deputy Clare Daly

I do not know why the Minister sees the need to keep interrupting me. He did not seem to do that with anyone else. Did I say-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Actually I did but the Deputy was not present.

An Ceann Comhairle

Through the Chair, please.

Deputy Clare Daly

Okay. But did I say the Minister did not think that? While I am not questioning the Minister's motivation in this regard, as he appears to be incredibly defensive-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

No, I am not.

Deputy Clare Daly

----- perhaps I will begin to question it. However I had not questioned it before now.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

It is the Deputy's use of the possessive pronoun.

Deputy Clare Daly

I will put on record the deep concern to which I referred at the outset and that everyone feels with regard to this situation. Many victims outside of Ireland have gone on record to state they are the ones who are living away, lost, lonely, in poor health and who have been left out of the equation. Moreover, they still consider themselves to be left out of the equation and this must be addressed. I wish to read into the record one particular story I received. It does not constitute personal abuse of the Minister and does not even mention him but it gives someone's story and puts it on the record. Such people have the right to have their voices heard. This individual stated:

I am a survivor of sixteen years of brutal abuse in Tullamore Ireland. ... My abuse was starvation, broken bones and we were forced out to steal for our mother. For sixteen years the Midland health board watched on and took notes of our abuse but [did] nothing. I was in hospital for most of my young life with malnutrition and broken bones ... At the age of eleven I was put into care in Galway and then on to Lusk in Dublin. While I was in these schools, I was molested by a Christian brother and by a fellow inmate. I suffer severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I have now been put on disability because I have a hard time living with my [post-traumatic stress disorder]. Abuse has destroyed my life and is with me 24/7.

He went on to outline his circumstances but then concluded by stating:

This Statutory fund has nothing [to offer me]. ... This is no good to those [of us] who have been left disabled or who are too old. Irish victim support groups have refused to help victims who live outside Ireland. I do not think that these groups should receive [money]...

He pointed out that voices like his needed to be heard.

Many survivors take the view that the creation of a statutory Act to regulate the use of €110 million, painfully recovered from Catholic orders, is another bureaucratic nightmare and there are simpler ways of dealing with this. It has taken ten years to disburse the €12.7 million from the education fund. Moreover, I understand that yesterday, the Minister or officials from his Department had meetings with some of the groups involved that sought changes to this legislation. These changes are based on the fact that the youngest victims are now 60 years of age and are not getting any younger and many of them are significantly older. Consequently, the longer one delays and the more bureaucratic one is, the less access those people, who everyone claims to wish to support, will have to resources. At the meeting yesterday, I understand it was not admitted by either the Minister or representatives of his Department that it would take at least two years to set up this fund after which the application process would begin to kick in, a long and cumbersome process that would deny access to many of the victims.

What they sought instead, perfectly legitimately in my view, is that the funds be divided up and distributed directly to those who need them.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

For the Deputy's information, there is no record of that meeting.

Deputy Clare Daly

I will check who was there.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

The Deputy might find out who they met.

Deputy Clare Daly

We certainly will. One of the victims who attended that meeting made a very good analogy, stating that what they were talking about was moneys being set up into funds which people can access for education, welfare, health, whatever. This victim has a son who has autism. He has been trying for two years to get a special wheelchair for his son but the HSE has not conceded to his request in any way. He made the very valid point that if the moneys were paid directly to him he would avoid a great deal of wastage of public servants' time and could buy the wheelchair himself, which would meet his son's needs. I believe the clergy also made the point that victims should have direct access to the funds. There is a danger, a legitimate one in my view, that this money will be used to support quangos or groups in administration rather than going to the actual victims. It is not in any way an unreasonable demand.

Another problem with the legislation is that it excludes the children and family members of abuse victims from accessing the funds, a mechanism which was available in the schemes previously. The point has been made, and is well backed up by research, that the only way of breaking the cycle is through access to education and proper family support, etc. Excluding children and families is not in any way doing justice to these people.

There are enormous problems with the Bill. We are already working on multiple amendments but it would be much preferable if the Bill was rejected at this Stage because-----

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

Would that not have the effect of causing a long delay?

Deputy Clare Daly

It would, but sadly that is a consequence of the fact the Minister has not listened to the victims as sufficiently as he should. Given that the Government has the majority it has there is no doubt the Bill will go to Committee Stage but we will certainly keep the Minister busy with multiple amendments in that regard. Ultimately, we are talking about a population of thousands but, sadly, it is a diminishing one because of the age of the people involved. There is no doubt that not only these people but their families also have been scarred for life because of what was done to them. There must be redress and justice for them. We can never undo the wrong that was done but can at least acknowledge it and try to put some form of redress in place.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn)

I will come back to some of the points that were made. First, I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. As has been discussed, the Bill's primary purpose is to establish a statutory fund to support the needs of survivors, in keeping with the all-party motion which was unanimously agreed by the House in the aftermath of the Ryan report.

The general support for the Bill is welcome. I noted the many concerns expressed by many Deputies. On the issue of eligibility, some Deputies called for access to be broadened to include all former residents, relatives of victims and former residents of the Magdalen laundries and the Bethany Home. As a maximum of €110 million will be available for the fund, to assist some 15,000 potential beneficiaries, in my view the optimal approach is to proceed on the basis we already proposed. The question of review and eligibility can be considered after the fund is established, in the event there has not been a significant expenditure of the fund. Extensive efforts were made to facilitate claims to the redress board and those former residents who did not apply to the board can avail of the counselling and family tracing services available.

I can clarify for Deputy Brendan Smith, who is present in the House, that those who gave evidence to the commission on child abuse will be eligible to apply where they have received awards from the redress board. I can also clarify for Deputy Mary Lou McDonald that eligibility is not confined to those living in Ireland. Former residents who received redress board awards will be eligible to apply for assistance, irrespective of where they live. This is an important point, as some 40%, or just under half the number of applicants to the redress board, now live outside the State.

To date, €21.05 million of the €110 million in cash contributions committed by congregations has been received. A number of congregations have confirmed that their contributions will be received on the establishment of the fund. I have written to the remaining congregations requesting confirmation of the timescales for the receipt of their contributions. I expect to be in a position to confirm the arrangements when the Bill has been considered in committee. Like other Deputies, I urge the congregations to fulfil their commitments and respond in a generous spirit.

Having regard to the financial situation facing the country and the burden already borne by taxpayers, the Exchequer is not in a position to top up the fund, as proposed by some Deputies. Some Deputies raised demands from some survivors for the available money to be distributed on a simpleper capita basis while others referred to the possibility of a pro rata distribution based on the redress board awards. The purpose of the fund, however, is not, and never was, a form of additional compensation. That issue has been dealt with by the redress board. It is, as advocated in the original motion passed by all parties in this House, intended for the support of victims.

Eligible former residents will have a range of needs, with some likely to require more significant interventions than others. The approach set out in the Bill is intended to support those needs. I have consulted with very many people, including many of the victims who are represented by different individual groups and other bodies, as well as those unrepresented by anybody but themselves. The nature of the victimisation they endured is such that it was never possible, and was never going to be the case, that there would be a coherent or cohesive representative body.

The current economic climate precludes the use of Exchequer funds to meet administration costs. Every effort has been made to contain the administration overhead and I am confident that the administration costs will be kept to a minimum while we ensure the fund has the capacity to function effectively. I point out to Deputy Daly there must be some mechanism for the distribution of funds but that does not mean it has to be some kind of bloated inefficient quango. I assure the Deputy it will not be such a body. I noted the concerns expressed regarding the need to ensure simple and accessible procedures and agree these should be pursued while acknowledging the need for the fund to confirm the legitimacy of its expenditure. The essential function of the fund will be to use its resources to provide services and support the needs of eligible former residents. The Bill places an onus on it to secure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of its resources. The fund will have regard to the existence of publicly available services. This is to ensure that it is not used in place of existing State-funded services but rather that it can supplement existing services for the benefit of survivors.

In addition to the points that were prepared after the initial debate that took place in the House some weeks ago, I listened with interest to the many contributions that were made in the House by various Deputies. I cannot recall a Second Stage debate that has had so many contributions in this area, during my time with responsibility for it. I know that victims have been in contact with many Deputies, on all sides of the House. Before I came into this position, in the previous Dáil and the one before that, I was in contact with many victims and received their representations.

I believe the full revelations of the Ryan report were devastating to a point far beyond that we already knew, or thought we knew. When I responded on behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party in opposition I was a strong supporter for the erection of a memorial to those victims. That caused some discussion and debate among some of the victims and I now wish to respond to that. This atrocity that occurred on this island, in our name, in an independent state, was something we did to ourselves. It was not the fault of the British nor the function of some colonial exploitation. It was not the foreign invader. It was us, who did it to us. For future generations, including the one now in the Visitors Gallery, who have no idea what this country was like in those days, we need to be able to say, for generation after generation, "We did this to ourselves. We are capable and were capable in the past of doing such things to ourselves". The memorial, therefore, should be a constant reminder that we must never let it happen again. I believe the victims need a place where they can explain to their children, grandchildren and extended families that they could not live full lives because of the damage that was done to them. We have heard tale after tale and story after story about the effects of abuse on people during their adult lives. In some cases, people have not been able to articulate what was done to them. As a consequence of that, the life experiences of their children and grandchildren have been irreparably damaged, distorted and deprived of the potential they would otherwise have had. That is the significance and the importance of the memorial. I know the memorial committee met this week. I am not sure what its decision will be. I assure those who are listening to this Second Stage debate and those who will read my concluding reply that the memorial, above and beyond any shape or form it will take, will be an important and significant piece of communication.

I wish to respond to the comments of a number of Deputies, including Deputy Clare Daly, whom I interrupted in order to add to the debate. I believe this is a place where we should talk to each other and listen to each other, even on Second Stage. The State has distributed the guts of €1.5 billion to 15,000 victims of abuse who came forward. The deal that was done with the church by Dr. Woods on behalf of the Bertie Ahern Government was frankly outrageous. When I have spoken with the religious congregations, I have consistently argued that there is a responsibility on them to agree that the costs should be shared 50:50. I have asked all 17 or 18 of them whether they accept that argument. At the outset of this process, it was impossible to measure what the likely cost would be. The figure I have mentioned significantly exceeded all of our expectations.

We know that some people chose not to apply for redress, for a variety of reasons. Some people did not want their families to know, did not want to go back there or did not want to ask for money. We extended the length of time for which the window for applications was open. The relevant period was much longer than was originally anticipated. After we introduced legislation this time last year to impose a closing date on that window, we received approximately 1,500 additional applications before the closing date in the autumn of last year. I am not sure how many of those applications will be processed to their completion. Additional information is usually requested to verify and confirm that the person who made the initial application is entitled to compensation. We simply do not know. I have been told by the chairman of the board, former justice Esmond Smyth, that it will probably take approximately 15 months to process the last tranche of applications that arrived in the autumn of 2011. The sum of money that is involved is frankly enormous.

Some of the religious congregations - we have not completed our negotiations with all of them - have said they have no more money to give. According to the congregations, the figures mentioned in the recentThe Irish Times series in advance of the Eucharistic Congress, which is taking place as we speak, were based on property valuations rather than on assets and cash deposits. Obviously, those properties have lost their value considerably in recent times. I assure the House that I am continuing to pursue the 50:50 proposal with those congregations. I will repeat in this House what I have said to them as the Minister responsible. I am aware that the religious congregation are ageing communities. Many of them have retired from the active lives they engaged in when they provided services for this country in the education and health fields. They have to care for their own rapidly ageing communities. They do not have children or grandchildren of their own. They just have themselves. As anyone who has a relative in full-time care will know, care is very expensive.

My Government colleagues and I have absolutely no desire to bankrupt these communities. They have given this country great service. The vast majority of that service was positive and constructive. As a former student of the Holy Ghost Fathers, I am one of those who benefited from that service. I salute the contribution they have made. Having said that, they are way shy of contributing the 50:50 share I have mentioned. I have said to them that neither Fine Gael nor the Labour Party wants to damage, smear or besmirch the contributions they have made to our society. We have paid €1.5 billion in cash, however. This country is currently in a programme, having lost its economic sovereignty. There has to be some tangible response from the congregations that were responsible, along with the State, for what happened. We have paid more than 50%. I am asking the communities in question to give us at no cost - not even legal transaction costs - the title deeds of the educational and medical infrastructure they own.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

Hear, hear.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn

That would bring us very close to a 50:50 deal. In the area of education, I have responsibility for this country's 3,200 primary schools, some 92% of which are under the patronage of the Catholic Church, and 728 post-primary schools. Many of our school buildings are located on the grounds of religious orders and are partially if not totally owned by the patron in question. They were financed from the contributions of the members of the parish or more recently funded by grants from the State. The most recent set of schools are all owned by the State and leased out to the operating patrons. I have said to the religious congregations that the only reason we want the full freehold ownership - the ultimate founding title deed - of the school infrastructure is that it would allow us to ensure those schools are not sold off into the private sector. I have assured them that for the duration each building remains to be used as a school, it will be used under the existing patronage of the patron and with the ethos of that patron, until such time as they voluntarily choose to change it. This is not confiscation. It is a way of enabling them to make their 50:50 contribution without disrupting the delivery of the service for which those buildings are currently used.

I have not had similar discussions of the same extent or detail with the religious congregations that own large hospitals around the country. Not all of our hospitals are so owned. However, the same principles would prevail for my purposes and those of this debate. I think this will be seen in years to come as the settlement that was made by the religious congregations which, at the behest of the State, abused their power. The State abused or neglected its own power to properly monitor what the congregations were doing. We are all guilty in this respect. It is not the case that "them over there" perpetrated this abuse against the most vulnerable people in society. It was us. Our predecessors in this Chamber refused to raise the questions that many of them heard. Indeed, many people in society saw what was happening and chose not to say anything about it. We have to learn a lesson from the past.

The €110 million fund that will be assembled will be used to deal with the consequences of the abuse that occurred. It will not be used to compensate for the abuse that occurred. That process has already taken place and was availed of by the 15,000 people who chose to apply. I would like to address a question that was asked in that regard. We have heard examples of the cases of people who, for some reason, chose not to apply even though the window was open for many years. That was the choice they made. It has been suggested that those people and others, such as those from the Magdalenes and Bethany House, should also be included in this round of monetary compensation. It was suggested the money should go straight to the victims, not for counselling and for related services and purposes. To divide 15,000 into €110 million will produce a very small sum of money relative to the 15,000 that went into €1.5 billion. There are residual needs out there that need to be met.

We have chosen to avoid the extraordinarily bureaucratic quango-type operation that would come into existence if we were to open up eligibility to everyone and anyone again. Quite frankly, the time taken to process such an open-ended set of applications would be enormous. That is why, reluctantly but necessarily, to respond exactly to the sentiments that were expressed by Deputy Clare Daly, and not to have an open-ended, long, tortuous, bureaucratic quango come into existence, we have decided pragmatically, in the full knowledge of the decision we were making, that we would use the database of the 15,000 people who have already been given awards. That is the database that is already there - we know what it is. To start again, given their age and given the period when the abuse took place, would have taken an enormous amount of time in terms of processing and verifying that information.

I know that answer does not satisfy the requests and demands made by some people but I am giving it here, on the floor of the House on the conclusion of the Second Stage debate, to fellow Deputies so that they understand it. While they may not agree with it, I am giving the logic and the rationale behind it.

In conclusion, I say to the Members of this House and the other House that we will engage in a Committee Stage debate. I am open to constructive proposals and amendments that make sense, are practical and can be implemented. At the end of the day, the people to whom we are addressing the proceeds of this fund and related matters are fellow citizens whom we collectively in this State, or our parents and grandparents collectively in this State, allowed to be abused under our watch, in this Republic.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 96; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Keating, Derek.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lyons, John.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mathews, Peter.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McEntee, Shane.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Nulty, Patrick.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• O’Donnell, Kieran.
• O’Donovan, Patrick.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanton, David.
• Timmins, Billy.
• Troy, Robert.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.
• White, Alex.

Níl

• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Collins, Joan.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Halligan, John.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Lyons and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Brian Stanley and Catherine Murphy.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure before Deputies go off to the four corners of Ireland they will join with me in wishing the Irish team every success this evening.