Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 2012

Vol. 773 No. 1

Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 10, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"(8) (a) The Board shall make provision for the setting up of an assessment panel consisting of four members of the Board, including the participation of the Chairperson, to examine applications to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund, made by residents of former scheduled institutions who did not make an application under the Act of 2002 or who will have had a court determination made in an action arising out of their residency within a scheduled institution.

(b) The above assessment panel shall have the power to recommend to the Board the inclusion of former residents of scheduled institutions who qualify under section 7(1) of the Act of 2002, to make awards in accordance with this Act which are fair and reasonable having regard to the unique circumstances of each applicant.”.

This amendment was linked to the earlier debate on eligibility. It arose from discussions on Committee Stage with the Minister. Given that the redress doard is closed, he was asked how he would deal with it. As bureaucracy was mentioned, this is one way of deal with the matter. The Minister referred earlier to the review in two years time and perhaps this could be helpful in that regard. If he does not consider it helpful, I presume he will vote it down. The amendment refers to the function of the board, four of whose members with the chairman, will be empowered to make an assessment.

One of the reasons given for not widening the eligibility criteria was that there were concerns that people who unsuccessfully applied through the redress scheme could re-apply for assistance from the statutory fund. However, the wording of the amendment clearly states that the panel will only examine applications from people who have not applied to the redress board. Anyone else who was turned down after applying to the board would therefore be ineligible.

The amendment is an attempt to deal with the fact that we voted down the widening of eligibility. I presume the Minister will say it is null and void but this is where the amendments arose from.

I have serious concerns regarding Deputy Seán Crowe's proposals as set down in amendments Nos. 9 and 18, that an assessment panel comprising four members of the statutory fund board be established to examine applications from persons who did not make an application to the redress board, or who will have a court determination made in an action arising from their residency in a scheduled institution. Recipients of court awards will of course be eligible to apply for the fund under the provisions of the Bill. Because this is Report Stage, I was not able to make that interjection when the Deputy was speaking before. If they have established their bona fides though the award of a court decision, that qualifies them in the same way as somebody who has gone through the process.

While I do not wish to go over the ground that we have covered earlier in terms of eligibility, I must reiterate my concerns about any proposal to widen eligibility for the reasons stated. There is a finite amount of money available and any extension of eligibility will mean that this money will be used for a greater pool of potential applicants, thus in effect reducing its own effectiveness.

The redress board is the State's vehicle for making awards to those who suffered abuse in residential institutions. That board has made awards that were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. With respect, I stress again the different role intended for the new board. As I said, it should not get involved in adjudicating on whether or not abuse took place. To allow it to do that would severely compromise its key objective which is to meet the needs of former residents who have been through that entire redress process. Regrettably, I cannot accept the amendments.

We have gone back and forth on this matter. We discussed eligibility earlier and I firmly believe that we should not block people who clearly went through horrific times in these institutions. We should not close down the criteria or block them off. On that basis, this amendment is an attempt to deal with the issue. On Committee Stage, the Minister said such a process would be cumbersome, over-bureaucratic and a logistical nightmare. This amendment is an attempt to deal with the points he made by simply allowing the board to make an assessment. It is different in that one does not need 100% proof on it. If there is a view that this happened in all probability then the board can make an assessment that such people are entitled to apply for the fund. We may not be talking about huge numbers, but we should not close the door to the individuals concerned. It was on that basis that I tabled this amendment as a genuine attempt to deal with the matter.

The Minister says he is concerned about the amendments but he did not substantiate his concern, other than to say that it was akin to the earlier debate. I do not accept that. In some ways, this amendment restricts or qualifies the numbers involved by putting in place a procedure which would regulate the numbers seeking redress, in that it would be up to the board to assess them. The amendment must be taken in the context of the decisive and important debate we had earlier about inclusion. We are talking about a very small number and the fact that they would have to go through this system would make the number even smaller. I do not see anything of huge concern about it at all.

We have had the same argument reiterated that the pot of money is fixed and this would eat into it. However, by having such a mechanism it is not a free-for-all, it is a procedure that would in a certain sense control the numbers and cut across that. The whole purpose of the fund is to meet people's needs. They definitely have a need but because of various experiences in their lives they were excluded from seeking redress before now, or may have chosen not to do so owing to the horrendous experiences that other people had. I agree with the points being made by Deputy Seán Crowe that this will regulate matters. It is worthy in the sense that it is a half-way house and should be considered as a step towards more inclusion without provoking a free for all.

As both Deputies have said, we have had a long discussion on this point. At what stage do we bring this process to a close? I believe we are getting close to that point. I fully respect the bona fides and good intentions both of Deputy Crowe and Deputy Daly in this regard, but €1.4 billion has been spent. We are trying to move on to the next stage now in order to deal with the existing requirements of those who have come through the process. I remind Deputies that the process was kept open for much longer than originally intended to ensure that people who wanted to make representations to apply were able to do so. I do not believe we can leave that open indefinitely. The effect of the amendment would be to leave that door permanently open.

As regards the operation of this legislation, I repeat that I am prepared within two years from now, having monitored the way it is going, to report back to this House and give some form of review to see how it is working. I will not tie myself down at this point but my commitment to the House is on the record. In two years' time, in the late summer of 2014, we will have a look at where we are and make some kind of progress report by way of a review. Let us not prejudge either the format of that review or its outcome, but I am pretty clear that I will formally come back to the matter in two years.

We have had the discussion. By broadening the eligibility criteria we would be helping people who have been excluded from society and damaged by the State. That is why I am pressing the amendment and seeking changes in the eligibility clause.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, line 32, after "service" to insert the following:

", which shall be made available to the children and grandchildren of all former residents entitled to apply to obtain assistance from the Fund to advance their educational skills and employment opportunities".

This proposal was discussed for a fair amount of time on Committee Stage. It is one of the aspects that has drawn most attention in terms of submissions from some of the groups. While there may not be unanimity in that regard, there is an overwhelming desire among most of the survivors that access to the educational fund would be made available to the children and grandchildren of former residents in order for them to advance their educational skills and employment opportunities.

Everyone knows a distinction is being made with this fund, whereas the proposed provision existed previously. We must reiterate some key points. The experience of the last fund tells us that a minority of victims used it. One quarter of applicants were victims and former residents, half of those who received the grant were children and the remaining quarter were grandchildren. The key point is to deal with the transgenerational effects of abuse. The children and grandchildren of abuse victims have also paid a price. It is well established that access to education and training is the route out of poverty. It is a route for breaking the cycle. It has been a positive part of the existing fund and there is a desire for it to be maintained and carried on. I will not read out the many letters we received from people saying that education is no good to those too old to avail of it. They want their children and grandchildren looked after instead. Some of the measures put forward were to introduce an exception in the legislation to allow family members to access the fund or keep the existing trust open.

The amendment extends the provision to include family members for all of the reasons articulated. In order to have a meaningful input in terms of education, those generations will see more of it than the victims because of their age profile. It is a key service and one people should have access to. The appropriate age group is the children and grandchildren.

In one sense this is controversial because some survivors agree with the approach while others do not. From discussions, it is clear that there was no coming together on the issue. We tabled the amendment on the basis that many people talk about their age and the educational aspects of the Bill were not much use to them at this stage in their lives. They would like to see their children and grandchildren having access to it. People talk about breaking the intergenerational cycle of what they went through. In many cases, they felt the effects continued into their family life and they are trying to make amends. They want to see the opportunities they missed out on going to their children and grandchildren and feel this is one way of allowing the children or grandchildren the opportunity the parents did not have due to circumstances. On that basis, we tabled the amendment.

When the matter was being discussed on Committee Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, referred to the statutory schemes to ensure access to education. There are clear income thresholds in respect of eligibility of children and grandchildren of former residents. I wanted to be inclusive of all people, regardless of income at this stage or income from redress, which should not be taken into account. Mainly, I want to provide support in respect of the Bill.

It is clear that budget constraints are the main reason children and grandchildren of survivors have been denied access to the statutory fund. Ensuring supports for children whose parents qualify under the redress scheme should be a measure provided for in the legislation because access to education can go some way to enhancing an individual's opportunities and life chances. The survivors want to give their children or grandchildren an opportunity.

I talked to one man whose son was in jail. His son went through a lot and had an addiction. He put that down to his lack of parenting skills and how he treated his son. He talked about being bullied in the institution and being a bully as a parent. At this stage, he was a grandparent and wanted to make redress to his son. He asked what he could do and felt this was one of the ways he could provide an opportunity to his son. He hoped his son could take up the opportunity, which is why he approached me. Others totally disagreed with that idea and did not believe the fund should be for grandchildren. Some people to whom I spoke did not have children or grandchildren and were in favour of a lump sum. We all accept that education plays an important role in helping families break the cycle of intergenerational abuse and can be a platform that enhances the life chances of children. On that basis, individuals approached us so that the legislation could provide additional support or a chance to their children.

Amendment No. 5, in my name, was similar. On Committee Stage, we discussed the value of ensuring every incentive is given to family members to continue higher and further education. Any support system for extra help that can be made available through this fund should be continued. We had conflicting views in representations made to us but any assistance given towards education is of the utmost importance.

I addressed the issue earlier. The effect of the amendment is to extend eligibility of the fund to the children and grandchildren of former residents. It will also include employment opportunities. It remains the Government's position that eligibility for the new fund should be confined to former residents. The Education Finance Board did excellent work in terms of distributing the money that came from the religious congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. Former residents and their relatives benefited from the support. It was always clear that the fund would run out of money given that a specific amount was provided to it and it is now virtually exhausted. It remains the function of the Education Finance Board to manage the funds at its disposal. The board has been closely monitoring the funding available to it in the past 12 months. Last year it advised me that it expected its remaining funds would be fully allocated on applications it received by November last year. It is a matter for the Education Finance Board to plan properly for the orderly wind down and to inform applicants of the facts regarding the funding available to it. I understand this has been done.

I appreciate that the Education Finance Board will not be in a position to support some individuals but it was never the intention that the board would have an open-ended mandate. While I appreciate the concerns expressed, it is open to any individual to apply for maintenance and college fee grants through the student grant scheme. Some 42% of students in undergraduate programmes in our third level system are in receipt of such support. The Education Finance Board has made a significant difference to many former residents and their relatives. The Government is now focused on meeting the needs of former residents across a range of service areas. Having regard to the available moneys and the potential numbers eligible to apply, it must confine itself to the eligible former residents if it is to do this effectively. I cannot accept these amendments and I reiterate my commitment to reviewing the operation of the fund following a period of two years after its establishment.

The Minister says it should be confined to former residents to meet their needs. Who defines their needs? It is the survivors themselves who are best placed to do so. In many instances, they have used the fund to break the transgenerational problems facing them and their families by, for example, availing of educational and other opportunities for their children. These are people who were left on the margins of society and not listened to when they were in institutions. We have an opportunity to listen to them now and we must avail of it.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are out of order because they involve a charge on the Exchequer.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(3) Counselling services shall continue to be available to all former residents and they will be entitled to select their own counsellor, subject to their professional qualifications being recognised by the relevant professional body.".

The purpose of this proposal, which was discussed on Committee Stage, is to copperfasten the rights of former residents to avail of a counsellor of their choice, subject to the requirement in respect of appropriate professional qualifications. The Bill is structured in such a way as to minimise the amount of money required to fulfil its objectives. It prioritises the use of public services, for instance, with which I have no difficulty, in order to avoid unnecessary wastage. However, the imperative to restrict expenditure as far as possible cannot justify encroaching in any way on the individual's right to choose a counsellor of his or her choice. I have had a litany of correspondence from individuals recounting how much they benefited from their work with a particular counsellor or how many years they lost through attempting to deal with a counsellor who was not right for them. The ability to choose one's counsellor should be included in the Bill as a right. The way in which it is currently framed, however, could give rise to a scenario where that right is diluted. Survivors themselves are the best people to ascertain which particular counsellor will best help them to work through their difficulties. Money or other issues should not stand in the way where survivors have developed a good rapport with a particular counsellor. This amendment provides an additional level of protection in that regard.

I do not accept that this additional level of protection is required in the Bill. Counselling services are specifically provided for in section 8 as a class of approved service. While I appreciate the Deputy's concern to ensure former residents' existing counsellors will be retained once the fund is established, I do not see how that position would be threatened simply because the fund is established. People can continue to attend their existing counsellor, with that service being funded under the National Counselling Service, NCS, without recourse to the fund. The Government is committed to continuing the counselling service as recommended in the Ryan report. If individuals are privately attending counsellors and wish to apply to the fund to have that service funded, they can advise the fund of their preference in their application. As long as the counsellor in question meets the criteria specified by the fund in respect of service providers, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which such a request would be denied. These matters should be left to the discretion of the fund, which is, after all, required to act in the interest of former residents. The additional specification proposed in this amendment is not necessary because the safeguards the Deputy is seeking are already built into the legislation.

I hope the Minister is right, but only time will tell. I appreciate his clear statement that survivors will be able to advise the fund of their preference to continue with their current counsellor. I agree that it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which such a request would be denied, but it is not impossible. A decision might be made, for instance, that a particular counsellor is charging too much for his or her services. Where a particular counsellor moves to a different area, it might be argued that the associated travel costs for the client are a strain on the fund. The personal connection between the individual and his or her counsellor should be sacrosanct. However, I must take the Minister at his word on this. I hope he is proved correct in his view that this issue does not require explicit protection, because it is something that deserves protection.

I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage and discussed it, among others, with several of the Minister's officials. Ms Mary McGarry was particularly helpful in clarifying many of the issues that arose. This amendment reflects representations received from survivors in which they expressed a desire to continue working with an individual counsellor with whom they had built a relationship of trust. I agree with Deputy Clare Daly that provided the counsellor in question meets the qualification criteria set out in the Bill, this is something survivors should be able to do.

The Ryan report recommended that counselling and mental health services should continue to be provided to alleviate the effects of childhood abuse and its legacy for the following generation. The Taoiseach accepted all of the recommendations set out in the report and the Government subsequently produced an implementation plan which set out 99 proposals to address each of the 20 recommendations in the report, one of which is to improve services to children. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is chairing the implementation group and two progress reports have been laid before the House. Deputy Clare Daly's amendment is in keeping with the commitments given by the Government in this regard. There must be an assurance that eligible former residents can continue to access counselling via the NCS and in the event of their not wishing to avail of that service or there being delays in accessing it, the fund would provide for counselling services for them, including those living abroad.

I refer Deputy Clare Daly to section 10 under which the Minister of the day is empowered to give directions in writing to the board requiring it to comply with such policies of the Government as are specified in that direction. That power is available to the Minister, and we will be keeping the matter under review. If a scenario such as the Deputy has outlined does arise - she has indicated that it is an unlikely but nevertheless feasible eventuality - then the Minister will have power under section 10 to make those directions.

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

No, I will take the Minister's assurance in the spirit in which it was given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, line 27, to delete "classes" and substitute "categories".

This amendment, which we raised on Committee Stage, reflects a minor issue in regard to the use of language. Some survivors have objected to the reference in the Bill to "classes" of former residents. Specifically, there was a feeling, given that most of the people who ended up in these institutions came from disadvantaged backgrounds, that it was reference to their socioeconomic background. As such, they expressed the view that a word such as "categories" would be better than "classes". The Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, pointed out at committee that the reference to "classes" might refer to a particular period of time or to some geographic area. I totally accept that there is a basis for categorising groups of former residents in this way. My point, however, in view of the concerns expressed by survivors, is that it would be just as easy to use the word "categories" rather than "classes" in this instance. As well as providing greater clarity, this change would take cognisance of the sensitivity expressed by some survivors. I will not fall out with the Minister on the issue. It is not unimportant, nor is it decisive. It is, however, something which could be easily changed.

I understand the sense behind the Deputy's amendment but I am confident the meaning of the relevant provision is clear. I am tempted to inquire as to whether the Socialist Party would want to reinvent the Marxist dialectic into a category struggle rather than a class struggle in terms of the dialectical evolution of society. The word "classes" is clearly understandable as being in reference to particular groups of people and, as such, I do not propose to change it.

I have tabled the amendment because I wish to redefine the word "classes". The point is that most of the people who ended up in residential institutions were working class. In that sense, to label them accordingly in legislation is not appropriate. At any rate, we will not fall out on the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 12, line 4, to delete "and financial".

The section introduces means testing for the first time in the redress process. As I stated, this is a new, unnecessary and undesirable approach. The representatives of the groups with whom I spoke have been repeatedly assured that means testing will not apply when people are accessing services. I am sure the vast majority of the intended beneficiaries are not well off. If there are a small number among the group who have had good luck and are reasonably affluent, I wish them the best of luck. This provision is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.

The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to preclude the board from taking account of an applicant's financial circumstances when determining its criteria. The whole purpose of the fund which is not a large sum of money is to allow it to target its resources to meet the needs of former residents. The section requires the board to have regard to the need to take account of the individual circumstances, including the personal and financial circumstances, of applicants when determining its criteria for making decisions on entitlements under the fund. As drafted, it gives the board considerable latitude in setting its criteria which may be revised by it over time. Removing its power to have regard to applicants' financial circumstances when determining its criteria would not allow it to target its resources at those most in need.

I acknowledge the opinion expressed by the Deputy on Committee Stage that it will almost certainly be the case that the overwhelming majority of applicants to the fund will have modest means. This provision is not intended as a way of preventing vulnerable persons from benefiting from the supports that will be available under the fund. I also stress that it is not intended to introduce a general means test application to the fund. Its purpose is to enable the board to have regard, among other things, to the financial circumstances of applicants. It will be a matter for the board to have regard to the need to take account of individual financial circumstances when determining its criteria for making decisions. For his reason, the amendment is unnecessary.

In establishing the board a clear message and direction must be given that the provision of services under the fund should not be the subject of a means test element. I hope the regulation that underpins the legislation will send that message.

We will take steps to ensure that is the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 17 is out of order as it would impose a charge on the Exchequer. Amendment No. 18 was discussed with amendment No. 9.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 13, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(7) The Minister shall appoint an assessment panel made up of four Board members, including the Chairperson, to assess the eligibility of new applications from former residents of scheduled institutions who did not apply to the Act of 2002 or who have had a court determination made arising out of their residency within a schedule institution.".

I do not propose to press the amendment as the Minister has made his position on the matter clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 24, line 26, to delete "terms of" and substitute the following:

"terms, or may be inconsistent with the charitable purposes of,".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 is out of order as it is in the nature of a tax.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 29, line 15, to delete "terms of" and substitute the following:

"terms, or may be inconsistent with the charitable purposes of,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 29, line 21, to delete "terms of" and substitute the following:

"terms, or may be inconsistent with the charitable purposes of,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 29, line 35, to delete "terms of" and substitute the following:

"terms, or may be inconsistent with the charitable purposes of,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 30, line 15, after "purpose" to insert "of the transfer".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 30, line 18, after "purpose" to insert "of the sale, mortgage or charge".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 30, line 44, to delete "terms of" and substitute the following:

"terms, or may be inconsistent with the charitable purposes of,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 31, to delete lines 9 and 10.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 31, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

43.—(1) There shall be set up for the purposes of this section a special account in the name of the Minister for Health and any moneys accepted by the Minister under section 42(1) shall be placed in the special account.

(2) The moneys in the special account shall be used only—

(a) for the purposes of making contributions towards building, furnishing and equipping a new national paediatric hospital, or

(b) if purposes referred to at paragraph (a) no longer exist, for the purposes of making contributions towards extending, refurbishing, equipping or reequipping the hospital referred to in that paragraph.

(3) The moneys, including interest, in the special account may be used at any time for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) and shall be issued out of that account only by the Minister for Health with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

(4) The Minister for Health shall cause to be kept all proper and usual accounts of all moneys received into or payments made from the special account.

(5) In this section, "special account" means the account set up for the purposes of this section which account shall be—

(a) an account with the Central Bank,

(b) operated subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may determine, and

(c) subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.”.

During the Committee Stage debate the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, indicated on my behalf that I would table an amendment to provide for the use of further cash contributions over and above the €110 million for the statutory fund for the new national children's hospital. This amendment which is technical in nature deals with the mechanics of how contributions received will be channelled to the new national paediatric hospital. This is in keeping with the previous stated position that all further cash contributions will be used for the new hospital.

As Deputies are aware, this and the previous Government adopted the position that it is appropriate for the management bodies which ran the scheduled institutions to meet the cost of the response on a 50:50 basis with the State. These costs are now expected to exceed €1.36 billion and may even approach €1.5 billion. The response to date falls well short of the 50:50 target. I have noted the argument expressed by the select committee that those concerned should face up to their responsibilities and share the burden which has, by and large, been carried by taxpayer. I continue to pursue the issue of additional contributions with the congregations.

Section 42(1) provides for the receipt of contributions from congregations towards the costs of redress. It is these contributions that will go towards the cost of the national children's hospital.

Subsection (1) of the new section 43 provides for the placement of such contributions in a special account of the Central Bank in the name of the Minister for Health. Subsection (2) specifies that the moneys in the account may only be used for the purposes of making contributions towards the building, furnishing and equipping of a national paediatric hospital or, if appropriate, the making of contributions towards the extension, refurbishment, equipping or re-equipping of the hospital. Subsection (3) requires that moneys can only be issued from the special account by the Minister for Health with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The provisions in subsections (4) and (5) are standard provisions which include requirements in respect of the preparation of accounts and audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Everyone who participated in the Second and Committee Stage debates appealed to the religious congregations to make a much greater contribution to the costs of redress. On Second Stage the Minister indicated he was engaged in further communications with the congregations on this matter. A greater contribution must be obtained as soon as possible.

Deputy Brendan Smith: During the Committee and Second Stage debates, the Minister and all Deputies present appealed to the religious congregations to make a much greater contribution. The Minister indicated on Second Stage that he was engaged in further communications with the congregations. It is necessary to ensure such greater contribution is secured as soon as possible.

When I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to compel religious orders to make a greater contribution, I was informed that it was not possible to compel them to do so. An amendment I proposed on Report Stage on this matter has been ruled out of order on the basis that it is in the nature of a tax. As Deputy Brendan Smith noted, a requirement on the religious congregations to increase their contribution would enjoy cross-party support. People are angry that the congregations have not lived up to the initial agreement and want the State to vigorously pursue the amounts owed. They will not accept a failure on the part of the State to aggressively seek to recover every penny of the money promised by the religious congregations under what was a very good deal for them. I argue that the deal was wrong and that greater responsibility should have been put on the religious orders rather than where it seems to be falling - on the State. I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to expedite payment of the money owed, on which matter he would have cross-party support.

I agree fully with those comments. I have a question on the amount of interest, a question which also came up on Committee Stage. On the €110 million ceiling, the interest that has already accrued on the moneys on deposit should be treated separately. Nothing in this amendment should alter that scenario. The fund as it stands now is €110 million plus the interest that is there now. While the amendment refers to interest, I ask the Minister to clarify that it is interest over and above what is available.

I will clarify the point Deputy Clare Daly has raised. This is in the event that we get more than the €110 million. Anything above the €110 million would go towards the national children's hospital. As Deputy Crowe has said, we are far from that at present. With the mandate I have from this House and again from the debate we have had today, I will continue to maintain the dialogue with the 18 religious congregations to pursue this matter on behalf of the people with the clear understanding that there is cross-party support in this House.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the House for its co-operation. I regret that I was not able to participate in the debate on Committee Stage. I thank all those who contributed. There has been broad consensus. We have all met some of the victims and in any dialogue we have we need to remember that they remain victims. It behoves us to do the best we can within limited resources. We need to understand why in some cases their contribution and dialogue with us has been tortuous because they carry the scars of their victimhood from an early time.

I record my appreciation for the work and commitment of the officials in the Department of Education and Skills towards the finalisation of the legislation in this House.

I also thank the officials for the help they gave on the Bill. It was a difficult Bill and it was certainly difficult to deal with the hurt and trauma many of the survivors experienced. I was disappointed that a number of amendments were ruled out of order because they were deemed to place a cost on the Exchequer, namely, those relating to the Magdalene Laundries and Bethany Home. Some of the former residents suggested a housing option, which was also ruled out of order. The Minister felt the eligibility clause could not be opened. The other issue related to a tax on those religious institutions which clearly seem unlikely to pay at this stage. On that basis and particularly given that the fund cannot be opened to those who should have access to it, the Bill is flawed and we have let people down once again.

I also thank the Minister and his officials for keeping us informed throughout the process in the House both with the earlier legislation to wind up the redress board and this legislation. I appeal to the Minister to ensure the fund is established as soon as possible and that the services are accessible to the intended beneficiaries at the earliest possible date.

As the Minister has reiterated on a number of occasions, this fund arose from the cross-party motion and the need for the State to deal with the needs of survivors of residential institutions. The debate we have had has opened many scars for the survivors who have had to deal with many issues. All of us received e-mails and distressed phone calls from many of those people who have been damaged and continue to carry the scars of the damage done. All of us acknowledge that we can never undo that and, as a society, can only acknowledge it and try to make recompense. At the very least we must try to give those people access to the services they require.

The Bill has deficiencies which have been highlighted by many of the groups representing people who feel they have not been listened to yet again. There is a feeling that in some ways much of the money is going to shore up public services which should exist as of right in any case. There may be a desire that, as with the hepatitis C victims, these people should have been given a special card to allow them to access services and so on. As everybody's needs are different and cannot be put in a box, there should have been greater flexibility in the programme. The fund should have provided for access to services in the way in which it does, but it should also have given the option of a lump sum for those who might decide they want to use it for their families. The issue of a pension should also have been addressed. For those reasons and because a number - albeit a small number - of people, who were eligible to apply for redress but could not do so for whatever reason, are again being excluded, which, sadly, has been the story of their lives, we will be opposing the passage of the Bill. That said, I know we will not win the vote and I hope the fund is established without delay. We will certainly be monitoring the review and other safety valves the Minister agreed to insert.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 13.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Browne, John.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Stanley, Brian.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Jonathan O’Brien.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 July 2012.
Top
Share