Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 Mar 2002

Vol. 169 No. 11

Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001: Second Stage.

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

The past abuse of children in institutional care is an issue which has emerged in the last few years, in a sense like a ghost from our past, and confronted us as a society. It has forced us to reflect on the past attitude of our society to children with multiple disadvantages. It has caused us to reflect on the nature of institutional care. It has stripped away the self-denial of the perpetrators of abuse and of society in general. Most of all it has alerted Irish society to the pain of the victims of abuse and to our duty now to bring redress to them even at this late stage. The debate on the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001, in this House marks a further step by Irish society in facing that ghost from our past. We do so to help the victims and their families as well as society itself towards recovery and to guard against any repetition of such callous abuse of children in care.

This Bill will provide financial awards to people who as children suffered abuse in residential institutions for which public bodies had certain responsibilities for inspection and regulation. It is part of a range of initiatives taken by the Government to address the issue of child abuse which have all the elements of redress – compensation, atonement for past wrongs and helping people to set themselves up again.

The Government, through legislation, established the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on 23 May 2000. Health boards now provide dedicated counselling services for all victims of abuse. In addition, my Department and the Minister for Health and Children provide funding for victim support groups which provide information, advice and moral support to those who, as children, suffered abuse.

In the course of this speech I will outline in detail for the House how the provisions of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001, will operate in practice. Later I will describe the associated work which was carried out by an expert group, which advised me on the appropriate structure to be put in place for the making of the financial awards by the redress board. I also wish to raise the continuing vital role of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and to place the role of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill in the context of the role of the commission.

Approximately 30,000 people born since 1930 were committed by court order to industrial and reformatory schools. The majority of these committals would have occurred up to 1970. After that, the Kennedy report into industrial and reformatory schools brought radical change to this sector and greatly reduced the number of institutions and the number of children placed in them.

The institutions in many respects were characteristic of their time. They were set up for the best reasons in the 19th century. There was an element of enlightened benevolence in their creation as they were intended to provide for destitute children for whom their parents could no longer provide. How and why the institutions lost their mission and became for so many places of fear and abuse is at the heart of the work of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, but it is clear that during the 1930s, 1940s and even into the 1960s significant numbers of children were being placed in unsuitable and unsafe institutions.

In addition to children committed by the courts, significant numbers were also committed to industrial and reformatory schools by parents and the schools often operated as orphanages. One of the deeply regrettable outcomes of this policy of placing children in institutional care was that these children brought with them into adulthood a stigma of criminality even though the majority of children in the institutions had committed no offence. They were there because they were destitute, orphans or born to parents who simply could not provide for them. During the course of the debate in the other House, I was happy to provide explicitly that these children were not criminals and, as adults, should suffer none of the disabilities of people with criminal records. I was also happy to extend the scope of the Bill to include those who, as children, suffered abuse in special schools, orthopaedic hospitals and other medical institutions. Again, in the case of children who were resident in these institutions, the State had a very special responsibility for their care and welfare.

A reasonable question which has been asked by Members of the other House and by commentators generally is why I have brought forward a compensation scheme providing for these particular victims and not for others. The Bill, as published, applied to people who, as children, suffered abuse while resident in orphanages, industrial schools and reformatory schools. I later brought forward proposals, which were accepted, to extend the scheme to certain special schools, hospitals and in certain circumstances the Magdalene laundries. This scheme is intended to address a very particular situation, abuse in residential care. It is not, and was never intended to be, a panacea for every injustice committed on children, of which unfortunately there have been too many.

In May 1999, the Taoiseach, responding to the emerging accounts of abuse in residential care, expressed regret on behalf of Irish society for our collective failure to intervene, to detect the pain of the victims of abuse and to come to their rescue. He did so because the most disturbing allegations have been made about these particular institutions. He did so too because public authorities had formal responsibility, and in most cases statutory responsibility, both for the placing of the children in the institutions and in regulating the operation of the institutions. The State, through these public bodies, to a significant degree replaced parents as the natural protector and care giver of the children concerned. This placed a heavy responsibility on public bodies for their welfare.

The nature of the institutions is also relevant to the decision to pay compensation from public funds to former residents. Unlike, for example, ordinary schools, the institutions removed the barriers which normally separate work, play and sleep and controlled every aspect of the child's life. Residents had little or no say in their lives. In the words of the Kennedy committee: "The children in care are completely dependent on the residential home staff for all the love, understanding, security and religious formation they need, as well as for support in making their way in life."

Given the weakness and vulnerability of a child who has been deprived of parental care in such a situation, the authorities mandated in law to protect his or her interests have a particularly onerous responsibility. Failure on the part of those authorities can carry serious consequences for the children who have no other advocate. We do not know how many of those placed in the institutions are alive today. We do not know how many of them suffered abuse and carried the scars with them for many years. We know, however, that the number is significant. From the number of people who have applied to give evidence to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and cases pending in the courts, it is apparent that there are at least 3,000 people for whom their time in an institution was traumatic.

From statistics in my Department on cases pending before the courts, we know that 10% of cases relate to children who were in the institutions in the 1930s and 1940s, while 26% relate to children who were in the institutions in the 1950s. These people are now in their 60s or older. If they are to enjoy any significant benefit from the awards which will now be made it is important that we press forward with all speed with this Bill and with setting up the scheme. In a comparatively short space of time, we, as a Government and as a society, have put in place a broader range of measures to address past child abuse than any Government or society anywhere. In the interests of many of the former residents of the institutions, this is no time to rest on our laurels.

Some have expressed concern that the setting up of the redress board will prejudice the effectiveness of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. This is based on the view that former resi dents of the institutions will be encouraged to make their claim to the redress board only. I cannot stress strongly enough that the commission and the proposed residential institutions redress board are separate bodies with very different functions. Both bodies are part of the Government's response to widespread public concern about alleged abuse in the institutions. They are being developed to serve the needs of victims of abuse in childhood. Those needs, as expressed to me and to my Department by many former residents of the institutions, include the need to be believed. They also want answers as to why abuse happened to them and who were the responsible parties. As a society, we also need to gather this information in order to ensure that it is never allowed happen again.

The needs of survivors of abuse also include in some, but by no means all, cases, a wish to be financially compensated. I appreciate that concerns about the effectiveness of the commission are expressed from a genuine desire to see that body successfully complete its work. As matters stand, the commission has a very substantial number of applications and many have already been heard. As this Bill has progressed, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, of a drift of applicants away from the commission.

As stated earlier, we must also have regard to the reality of the lives of many of the former residents of the institutions, given their age and, in some cases, infirmity. Waiting for the outcome of the commission's inquiries would, in all likelihood, mean waiting several years before moving to address the issue of compensation. The commission's second interim report signalled the necessity of extending the period for completion of the commission's work for a further three years to 2005. In that time there is no doubt that some former residents of institutions would die. Others with claims for compensation would be forced to bring their claims through the courts with all the attendant stress of that process. It has taken society long enough to recognise the serious injustices that our residential care institutions harboured. We should delay no longer in addressing the needs of those who, as children, were placed in these institutions.

With regard to the detail of the Bill and the procedures for making applications, the Bill provides for the establishment of an independent redress board appointed by Government. It is likely that a person with legal expertise, possibly a senior or retired judge, will chair the board.

The role of the board is specified in section 5. It will make awards in accordance with the Bill that are fair and reasonable, having regard to the unique circumstances of each applicant. It will make all reasonable efforts to ensure former residents of institutions will be aware of its function to make awards. The intention is to ensure people are made aware of their entitlement to compensation if abused in residential care. The board will also have regard to the need to deal first with applicants who are elderly or in poor health and will be able to provide an interim payment in some cases. Essentially, the objective of these provisions is to ensure the elderly and infirm can get as much benefit as possible from their awards. The board will also have a general duty to ensure its hearings are conducted as informally as possible.

Detailed criteria for awards, including a schedule of awards for different kinds of abuse and its effects, will be set down by ministerial regulation and laid before the Houses. This approach ensures greater objectivity in determining the amount of monetary compensation and greater consistency generally of awards. It will also provide greater transparency in the award making system and allow claimants a better opportunity to know in advance the likely scale of an award.

In August last year I appointed a committee of experts to advise me on compensation amounts for abuse in childhood. The committee was chaired by Sean Ryan, senior counsel, and included Dr. Helen Cummiskey, Dr. Marion Gibson, Professor Desmond Greer and Professor Martin McHugh. It was drawn from the areas of law, social work, psychiatry and psychology and brought to its task a wealth of knowledge and experience. Following a broad consultation process, both in this country and in England, the committee reported to me in January 2002. I immediately published the report. The report entitled, Towards Redress and Recovery, has been broadly welcomed by the victims' support groups and will provide a reasonable basis for the preparation of regulations for the board.

The committee reached five broad conclusions: the injuries received by a number of victims of abuse are among the most serious kinds of personal injury known to the law – many survivors not only lost their childhood, but much of their adulthood also; no form of abuse or consequential injury is reducible to mathematical calculation; there is an almost infinite variety of combinations of abuse and its affects; the nature of the injury varies in severity, both in terms of the abuse itself and in respect of its physical and psychological consequences; and some system of guidelines or weighting is desirable in the search for a degree of consistency in the level of redress – it is also desirable in helping to speed up the process of determining individual cases and to make the amount of redress more predictable, thus assisting the informal settlement of applications.

The committee, having reviewed international precedents, concluded that the best guidance as regards amounts of awards is to be obtained from within the State by reference to the level of awards made by the courts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities arising from serious personal injury. In general, the awards recommended are higher than those applied in other jurisdictions. The committee concluded that there are four basic areas to be considered in deciding on an award: the severity of the abuse itself; the extent of the physical and mental injury suffered by the applicant; the psycho-social sequelae of the injury; and the loss of opportunity resulting from the abuse and its effects. The report of the committee states that the best way in which all four areas may be taken into consideration is to apply a weighting scale in which the redress board, on the basis of the evidence, will determine the weighting to be given in each particular case.

The compensation provided for in the Bill is through an ex gratia scheme. It involves no finding of fault and no declaration of liability. It is a scheme designed to address the fact that the institutions concerned, in many ways, departed from the normal requirements of child care. It acknowledges that, because of this, many who were in institutional care have, through much of their lives, carried serious psychological scars. It seeks to provide reasonable financial compensation for that injury. This approach has caused concern that awards will be made on the basis of untested evidence. This is not the case. Any person before the redress board must first establish that he or she is suffering or has suffered some significant injury, physical or psychological. Second, he or she must establish that that injury is consistent with the abuse as alleged. Both will involve significant medical and psychiatric evidence and the board may have assessments carried out.

Concerns were raised during the course of the debate as regards the necessity of providing any accused persons with an opportunity to defend their reputations. While I have already said in the other House that it was not the intention of the Bill to create a court of law by another route, I also said I felt it is the function of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse to deliberate on issues such as liability and responsibility for abuse. Ultimately, it is a matter for the courts to make findings of guilt in relation to particular acts of abuse. However, I was conscious of the importance of this issue for many people and their desire to have a hearing if accused of abuse. In order to allay the fears of those who feel justice may suffer if they are not allowed a hearing and allow those who may face accusation an opportunity to defend themselves, I have made provision in the Bill.

In making these provisions I emphasise that these matters will remain confidential and that an award to an applicant does not mean that a corresponding person against whom allegations have been made is guilty. The board will now be required to inform accused persons and managers of institutions where allegations of abuse are made. The accused person may, as he or she wishes, make written representations to the board and apply to it to make oral representations. Inevitably, there may be a conflict of evidence in such cases. The amendments provide that, in that event, medical evidence will prove decisive. If the medical evidence establishes injury consistent with abuse as alleged, compensation will be paid in accordance with the scheme laid down in regulations.

The Bill provides for an appeal by a claimant against an award to a review committee. The appeal will be a full re-examination of the claim. Some have argued that claimants should have the right of appeal to the High Court. Given the nature of this compensation scheme, I do not agree. Involvement of the court in the scheme would blur the distinction between formal court proceedings and the compensation scheme and significantly dilute one of the main benefits of a compensation scheme – expeditious resolution of claims.

In establishing this compensation scheme the State is providing survivors of abuse, who would experience very significant delays and uncertainties in civil litigation, with a quick and effective alternative to civil litigation. Essentially, a claimant will, through the compensation scheme, be offered a quick and accessible route to reasonable compensation for abuse and its resulting damage. This route will have little of the formal procedures of the court. Further, the level of inquiry made by it into the facts of his or her history will be considerably less onerous. In the circumstances, it is proposed that the scheme will stand alone outside the normal litigation process.

It must be stressed that the proposed scheme in no way interferes with a potential claimant's right to bring his or her claim to court. A potential claimant need not access the scheme at all. If he or she does, once an award is made, it will be a matter for the claimant to either accept or reject it. If he or she rejects it, he or she may pursue his or her civil claim in the normal way through the courts. Where a claimant accepts an award, he or she will be required to enter into an agreement whereby he or she waives any right of action he or she might otherwise have had, arising out of the same circumstances, against the State or any party who has contributed to the scheme.

The Government has agreed in principle to a set of proposals which will see religious congregations contributing €128 million to the scheme for people who suffered while in institutional care. The agreement with the congregations came after a lengthy period of discussion, including direct meetings between representatives of the congregations and myself. Discussions on this issue opened over a year ago when the congregations stated that they wished to make a meaningful contribution to any scheme of redress for people who spent large parts of their childhood in institutional care. The terms now agreed in principle represent a reasonable outcome, which will allow all relevant parts of Irish society to make meaningful redress for past wrongs through which children were injured.

The terms of the agreement include a cash payment of €38 million, of which €12.7 million will be placed in an education trust for former residents of the institutions and their families; property transfers totalling €80 million – this amount will include property transfers which have been or are being made since the Taoiseach, on behalf of the State, made an apology in May 1999 to victims of institutional child abuse, with further transfers up to the total amount taking place within the next three to five years; and €10 million in counselling, record retrieval and pastoral services for people in need. The religious congregations have stated that they will also continue their co-operation with State and voluntary bodies in relation to property transfers for services to people in need. I believe that the participation of the congregations in the proposed redress scheme represents a significant part of the healing process for both the people who were damaged as a result of childhood experiences while in the care of the State and for the congregations themselves.

The Bill before the House is unprecedented, not just in this jurisdiction. The measures taken by the Government in respect of past abuse are more advanced than in any other jurisdiction of which we are aware. Our willingness as a society to address comprehensively the issue of past abuse, to some small extent at least, makes amends for our past failure to prevent the abuse. It is also a demonstration that the Taoiseach's words in May 1999 were not an empty formula but a heartfelt expression of our regret at a dark episode in our past.

There are concerns as to past abuse in other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. These all have significant and ongoing measures and proposed measures to address the problems experienced by people who suffered abuse in childhood. The interested parties in other jurisdictions are watching this Bill closely. The decisions we take will have a very direct influence on the lives of the recipients of compensation and will also inform and guide other countries in their struggle with past child abuse.

It is important that we recognise that in this Bill the Government is going beyond the current models of practice to take a new initiative to address the needs of affected people. We have examined and dealt with the legal issues arising and we have committed ourselves to meet the financial burden which this Bill will impose. I hope all sides of the House can support this Bill.

As we commence Second Stage of the Bill in this House, I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators. The development to this point of the proposals for the redress board has taken place in close co-operation with those for whom it will be most immediately relevant – the victims themselves – both through the individual victims groups and through the national office for victims of abuse. Their contribution to date has been vital in ensuring that the provisions in this Bill are aimed towards those who need it most.

This is an important Bill, which deserves widespread support. I commend it to the House.

Of all the Bills that have come before the House in my 20 years of membership this is the most frightening. I understand what Ireland was like in the 1920s, 1930s, in the 1940s – when I was born myself – and in the 1950s and 1960s. However, I did not realise that such things were still happening in the 1970s. We know the State worked through religious groups in that period. We failed badly and we are very embarrassed. Like other countries we are now coming to grips with this issue. We must ask how the victims of abuse have survived their experiences.

I attended Greenmount School in Cork, which had an industrial school attached to it. As a young person I did not ask why there was an industrial school attached to my primary school but it is now very disturbing and upsetting to realise what the State did. We were very wrong and we cannot deny that.

I understand the Minister's proposals but they are completely concerned with money. The Minister appears to be trying to smother things. He has said a case can only be made in one place or another and that he would prefer if there were no courts. He should not say that. We should never say a person does not have the right to go to court.

The Minister does not say that.

He does say that. Information will be held by the commission, by the committees set up by the Minister and by the members of the board who will be very distinguished in their business and professional lives. The people who are at the core of this matter should be sitting on these boards. We should not see judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court or professors as the only people fit to chair such a board. This gives the impression that these are the only people who know anything.

The Minister has said the victims of abuse are in total agreement with his proposals. That is not so. I have a letter from the survivors of child abuse saying they do not agree with everything the Minister says. The letter states the information as regards their abuse is not forthcoming to them from the relevant authorities if they do wish to go before the courts. All of this information should be given to victims of abuse. It is their constitutional right. If they feel the commission is not good enough and wish to seek redress in the courts they should have the right to every line of information. The letter states that the records of all the people are not forthcoming. They should be.

The money is very welcome but it is not good enough for the Minister to say he would prefer that no courts would be used. These people have the same rights as everyone else.

I did not say that. I will reply to the debate later but many people will have left the Chamber when I do so. That is why I want to make it clear now that I did not say that. I am providing a simple and effective system. A person can go court instead if he or she wishes.

I appreciate that, but the information that will be given to the redress board will not be given to those who were abused. They will not have the same information available to them if they opt to go before the courts, yet those who will contest their cases on behalf of the State will have access to all the information. That is not fair and it is a sad reflection on us.

While I would much prefer if the redress board worked, it is not wrong in every sense because at long last we are facing up to the problem. I compliment the Taoiseach on the apology he gave on behalf of the nation. That, at least, started the debate on the issue, but the apology was long overdue. It should have been made in the 1940s or 1950s. Too much authority and power was given to a certain few and a scenario was created where every type of offender was allowed to abuse. When will the people who were responsible be asked to face up to their crimes? If a person is found guilty of abuse by the redress board, it is not provided for in the legislation that he or she should be brought before the courts. If money is awarded to a victim, the person found guilty of abusing him or her will not be charged accordingly. That is a significant issue when one considers the number of children involved.

I recall many such children in my city and I could even mention names. It was a case of them and us. The impression was created that their mothers or fathers could not rear them. They were taken from their parents and put into these institutions for no reason. However, if one speaks to anyone aged under 40, they do not understand this problem and they cannot imagine that such abuse took place. The abuse happened in every town and city and it was allowed to continue for years while the impression was given that everything was above board and that we were a nation of churchgoers. Even on Wednesday, when the church pushed very hard in favour of one outcome in the abortion referendum, it was blown out.

I do not want to be political about this issue because we are dealing with children who grew up between the 1930s and the 1950s when the country was in such a state that if a person had a second pair of shoes, he or she was very lucky. We think that money is the solution to this issue. I understand what the Minister is trying to do and I appreciate his efforts because I am aware of his feelings on this issue. I know him for a long time and I admire him greatly, but under no circumstances should victims of abuse be brought before boards which have information available to them that is not in the possession of the victims. Nothing was known for the past 40 or 50 years about such abuse but suddenly everything is known. We are prepared to smother these victims but we should not be allowed to do so and nor should we give the impression that we are prepared to do so. Those who are guilty of offences should not be spared. We are prepared to pursue people through tribunals and so on and we should not spare anybody who is guilty of abuse. A Taoiseach lost his job because of a child abuser.

It is most unfair to the people and it is an embarrassment to us, as legislators, that our predecessors allowed this abuse to take place and gave the impression that there was no problem and the children were well looked after. That was not the case and the children would have been much better off on the streets of our cities and towns because at least they would have been safe and loved. That is most important, irrespective of the conditions. I do not deny the conditions in which they lived were bad in the 1940s and 1950s, but at least they were safe.

People were led to believe in my city that these children were better off in the institution in Greenmount and that a certain few were being cared for, yet they were destroyed. We have to take significant responsibility. It is sad that a victim of abuse has a straight choice between going to court or attending a hearing of the redress board, prior to which he or she will not have access to all the information relating to his or her case. Everybody must be treated equally—

All the information is available under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. Thousands of people have obtained the relevant information. We are differentiating between criminal and civil cases and that is where the confusion arises.

The Minister stated:

The proposed scheme in no way interferes with a potential claimant's right to bring his or her claim to court. A potential claimant need not access this scheme at all. If he or she does, once an award is made, it will be a matter for the claimant to either accept or reject it. If he or she rejects it, he or she may pursue his or her civil claim in the normal way through the courts.

Every page of the file on each claimant must be given to him or her if he or she takes a court action. The Minister is saying supports will not be provided to those who were humiliated. According to those who were abused, undisclosed State and institutional records can contain evidence that would establish liability in a court. Without access to these records, they cannot make an informed choice about whether to attend the redress board or seek remedy in a civil court. If that assertion is not correct, I will withdraw the comments I made. However, if it is correct, the Minister should answer these people. He says he has the complete agreement of the victims but they say he does not. Let us clear the air once and for all and if more than €128 million is required to compensate the victims, let us pay it.

We are well able to pay lawyers at tribunals, some of whom earn up to €1 million a week working on one page of information. Under this legislation we are dealing with children who were abused and humiliated. An associated problem is that some might abuse now. That is a danger and I wonder whether that has been considered. It is a sad reflection on us that we are prepared to say we did a deal with the relevant authorities to give us properties that they did not need anyway. I do not agree that the total amount of compensation should be fixed at €128 million. Greater amounts are spent on consultants in regard to various issues. A total of between 30,000 and 40,000 victims of abuse need compensation and protection. It is not all about money and every support must be given to them because we wronged them.

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him and his officials on bringing forward this Bill. It addresses a very complex, emotional and disturbing issue in Irish life. Its stated purpose is to establish structures to provide financial rewards to people who suffered injuries while resident in institutions of the State. The Bill puts forward a wide range of initiatives taken by the Government to address the issue of child abuse, which includes the elements of redress, compensation, atonement for past wrongs and helping people to set themselves up again. The legislation is being enacted for some 30,000 people born since 1930 who were committed by the courts to industrial and reformatory schools. Some also were committed by parents who were not able to look after their children themselves. These children committed no offence as they were destitute, orphans and vulnerable.

These schools have a long history and practice of neglect of children. It is difficult to assess how many suffered abuse but at least 3,000 people have carried scars of their experience with them for life. These cases go back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and the victims are now in their sixties. The Government has acknowledged this abuse and has put in place a broad range of measures to address past child abuse, doing more than any Government to date or any society anywhere.

As published, the Bill applies to those who, as children, suffered abuse in orphanages, industrial schools and reformatories. It does not include victims in day schools as they were deemed not to be under the care of the State. However, many of the children concerned suffered physical and sexual abuse and fear was instilled by the abusers not to tell their parents. Today we see examples of people who have carried the psychological scars with them. I understand schools act in loco parentis during children's time at school. They should, therefore, carry responsibility for their physical and emotional well-being. I ask the Minister to comment on this issue.

In May 1999 the Taoiseach, responding to the emerging accounts of abuse in residential care, expressed regret on behalf of society for our collective failure to intervene and come to the rescue of the children concerned. Public authorities have responsibilities for the placing of children in the institutions in question and their regulation. The State put its trust in them. As the national protectors and carers of the children concerned, they had heavy responsibility for their welfare. Public bodies and Departments had the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the children concerned to ensure they were safe and secure.

I welcome the Government's initiative in establishing the Laffoy commission, which came about as a result of the Taoiseach's announcement in 1999. It was established to investigate what happened regarding child abuse and deliberate on who was responsible for these injustices. The commission is intended to go some way in serving the needs of the victims of abuse in childhood by inquiring into the matter and may be able to provide counselling services and financial support. These victims need to be believed, they want to know the reason it happened and need to be financially compensated. I understand the commission is processing a substantial number of applications. However, there are concerns that the setting up of this separate scheme for financial redress may prejudice the effectiveness of the commission to inquire into child abuse.

I congratulate the Government on thinking this through and acknowledging the fact that waiting for the commission to process its work may take too long for some former residents of the institutions in question. We, as a society, must recognise the serious injustice of these institutions. Society failed the children concerned, the management of the schools in question was at fault in the way they were run and making do with the small resources they got. They controlled every aspect of the child's life. Work, play and sleep were not separated. The children concerned depended on residential staff for love, understanding, security and their religious formation as well as giving them support in making their way in life. Is it any wonder that many of them suffered emotional neglect?

They were poorly clothed, corporal punishment was frequent and the regime was harsh. They were regarded as social outcasts, lonely and had little wealth or prosperity. They were thrown out into society at the age of 14 or 15 years to care for themselves. There was nobody to pick up the pieces for them. That is the life they endured in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I accept there were different standards, with different values from today. The institutions in question were used to conceal society's problems and ruled with an iron fist.

The Bill sets out a compensation mechanism, a gesture of redress to all those who suffered and carry psychological scars with them today. It has taken us, as a society, a long time to recognise the serious injustices inflicted by such institutions. This financial scheme involves no fault and no declaration of liability, it is simply acknowledging that many people who were in institutional care through much of their lives carried such psychological scars.

The Bill also provides for an appeal by claimants against the award. If they are not happy, the Bill states they can take their cases to court. I welcome this, but it is important that the board is established with the sensitivity and empathy to ensure it listens to the views and considers the psychological scars endured by the people concerned for so many years.

We need to maintain a balanced perspective on the role of the church and religious orders in Irish life. These wrongs, unfortunately, diminished the religious orders' role in their contribution to society through the provision of education, health and social services. I am concerned that religious orders which managed the institutions in question might all be classified as responsible for the wrongdoings and treated as guilty by association. I welcome the fact that the religious orders are working closely with the redress board in relation to contributions to the fund and that money will be provided for counselling services. It is important to protect the rights of the individual. Those accused of wrongdoing are entitled to due process and natural justice. It is important that the Bill recognises and safeguards this.

The Minister stated the expert committee will determine the schedule of payments, awards and other criteria. He outlined the members of the committee and stated that regardless of international precedents, we will correct the wrongs of the past. The Residential Institutions Redress Board will have a difficult job in dealing with the levels of compensation payable and acknowledging the damage done. There is a concern that the awards will be made on untested evidence. I welcome the statement that any person coming before the redress board will be examined in a sensitive way and his or her injury will be evaluated as being consistent with the abuse alleged.

The board will also have a role in dispersing funds in a fair and transparent manner and must preserve confidentiality. Those responsible for such behaviour must be brought to justice. The board has a very big responsibility and its composition will be crucial if it is to carry out its role in a caring, sympathetic and sensitive manner. We must always bear in mind the injustices and psychological scars endured by the victims of abuse. The members should ideally be involved in the caring profession

I again thank the Minister for introducing the Bill which is unprecedented, not only in this jurisdiction. I have read the document, Survivors of Child Abuse, which contains many points that could be teased out on Committee Stage. The Minister has thought the matter through very well. I compliment the Government on accepting for the first time that this happened in our society. We must ensure we do all we can to help victims and their families towards recovery and guard against any repetition of such callous abuse of children's care.

There are many outstanding areas that should be considered. I acknowledge the points raised by the survivors of child abuse which I hope we will be able to tease out further on Committee Stage.

This is a sad day for the Seanad because we are confronting one of the darkest periods in our history. It is important that we confront it with honesty. The attitude of the Department in the beginning suggested a damage limitation exercise. It is only due to the extraordinary courage and integrity of those people who were victims of child abuse in these institutions that we have changed our approach to it.

I take this opportunity to salute them because in this intimate area of people's lives, particularly when they were taken away from their homes at a tender age and subjected by people in authority above them to the most gross forms of physical and sexual abuse, it is extremely difficult to acknowledge in public and to retain their dignity, yet they have done so. Many of them have done so recently because a response was triggered when cases were bruited abroad in the newspapers. People suddenly after many years had the courage to tell their partners or spouses about it. In many instances, these partners encouraged their relatives to go to the Garda, but it must have taken a terrible toll on their courage.

It is interesting that it was only recently and in response to determined pressure that two significant moves were made. The first was to extend the legislation, which was originally confined exclusively to sexual abuse, to cover physical abuse also. That is important. It is also to be welcomed that the Minister indicated in his speech that he has brought forward proposals to extend the scheme to certain special schools and hospitals and, in certain circumstances, to the Magdalen laundries. It would be useful if he expanded on that and explained precisely what schools and the circumstances in which the Magdalen laundries will also be included. It is another terrible blot on the Irish landscape in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

I have been contacted by people who were outraged by the fact that schools for the deaf and for other people suffering from handicaps, for example, were excluded from the original proposals. It seems extraordinary that once again the most vulnerable elements in society and the people lowest in the chain of humiliation and degradation were excluded. I welcome the fact the Bill attempts to include them, but it must be as inclusive as possible.

I agree with the other speakers who said that while financial redress in many circumstances will be welcome, it is not the core issue. It is the healing of people who have been abused by our society that is necessary. For that reason, it is important that we are careful about those people who are involved in various schemes, including pastoral schemes. It would be a great pity if survivors of such abuse found themselves involved in schemes in which they met members of the various orders under which they suffered abuse, although the members may be decent people and professionally qualified. We must be careful that does not happen and that they do not suffer further humiliation and pain.

I am concerned about suggestions from some groups that records have been mislaid, destroyed or withheld. The least our fellow citizens are entitled to is the fullest possible disclosure of all the extant information about them. I have a document in which people say they have been humiliated by being forced to beg for their records. That is not good enough. They must be given the fullest possible access. I know that in discussions the Government has decided it is appropriate that persons accused of abuse should have the right to state their case. That is appropriate. One must allow a certain degree of equality, but the records are now such that it is clear it was an enormous problem and that it was endemic throughout the system. It is reasonable to suggest that such examination should be done in open court and with the fullest possible disclosure of records to all parties concerned.

I would like to put on the record four or five points which have been made in a submission which the House should consider. The first is that undisclosed State and institutional records could contain evidence that would establish liability in a court. Without full access to the records, the survivors cannot make an informed choice about whether to attend the redress board or to seek remedy in a civil court. These are options, but without the knowledge to make an informed decision, they cannot properly make that decision. Then there is the question of cross-examination. Anyone who has been involved in a court case – I am notoriously litigious and I actively enjoy going to court – knows how bruising cross-examination can be, even if the person is taking the case. If a person is in a situation where his or her childhood has been destroyed and he or she has been bruised and wounded by the treatment received at the hands of servants of the State, then to be cross-examined about the most intimate aspects of his or her life is a type of crucifixion, particularly if the person being cross-examined does not have full access to the records, while the persons and those representing the persons who were involved in the abuse have that access. It gives them an unfair advantage.

The defendants in these cases will have a preview of the evidence the accusers may wish to use in subsequent criminal or civil actions and they will be allowed to test that evidence. That gives them a further position of advantage. Although the Bill does not clarify the point, many of the survivors assume that any records produced by the defendants or any admissions made by them will be inadmissible in a court of law. That is the case in the Laffoy commission. That prejudices their legal position. The matter of records being made available to the victims of abuse is one of the cardinal points involved in the entire matter.

How did it happen in this country? I know it was a different age and that people were brutalised. I also know there was a Victorian regime where children were seen and not heard and if a child got smacked in school and came home and complained to his or her parents, he or she got another belt because it was assumed he or she was probably in the wrong. That was the prevailing ethos. However, the type of victimisation we are talking about is of a scale and quality far beyond that. Is there something in our social and political history which led to this? Is it a type of atavistic memory of abuse through things such as the Famine and the penal laws? It is an Irish problem. The Minister referred to similar situations in England, Australia, Canada and America. When one examines these situations, one finds almost invariably at the core of it are Irish Christian Brothers.

That is correct.

It is terrible. How appropriate is it for the Irish Christian Brothers to celebrate an upcoming anniversary with a jamboree in the RDS? They should celebrate the good work they have done, but the concept is negative. If there is a public celebration, it will be naturally resented by people who are victims of the system.

I say that with great sorrow because although I am a member of the Church of Ireland, I remember many years ago being brought by an old cousin who lived in the country on a 20-mile journey to visit a weed-grown grave in Callan in County Kilkenny. He pointed to the grave and said: "There is one of the unsung heroes of Irish life, Brother Edmund Ignatius Rice. Without his influence and authority, generations of Irish children would have had no proper education at all." That is the other aspect of this matter.

In my opinion there is a kind of sequence of abuse and we ought to try to understand the mindset of people who were involved in this abuse. In some sense, some of these individuals were also victims. Members may have heard a radio interview a number of weeks ago with a former Christian Brother who is approximately 70 years of age. When the individual in question was 14, he was sent to the Christian Brothers. There was a kind of unspoken agreement that he would join the order and his family encouraged it. He did not know any better because he came from a very disadvantaged background and lived on a tiny farm in the west. When he was 18, he was subtly coerced into taking his vows. For six years between the ages of 18 and 24 he was not allowed to return home and was obliged to suffer the agony of loneliness. He was given a brief introduction to primary school teaching and spent a year on some form of training scheme. He was then released on children in a primary school with a strap and a single instruction to get good examination results no matter what the cost. He admitted that he beat the children.

When this man was 24, he returned home and informed his mother that he wanted to be released from the Christian Brothers because he had no vocation. She said: "If you do, you will never come back to this house. You will be a shame and a reproach to the rest of your family and you will not be welcome here." When he told his superiors of his desire to leave, he was informed that if he left without undergoing the lengthy and tortuous process of seeking dispensation from the Vatican, he would be excommunicated and would go to hell. He eventually left the order. He had taught for ten years or so at that point but had received virtually no income from doing so as it was all paid into the coffers of the order. When he left, he did so in the middle of the night and in secret – none of the other brothers were informed about his departure. A sum of £30 was thrown on his bed and he was given a suit of civilian clothes. He exited the order in that fashion.

The person in question subsequently married, has a family and is happy. He says he is bitterly ashamed of the violence he wreaked on the children he taught, but he knew no better. He is glad to think that the money he and colleagues like him earned which was paid into the centralised coffers of the order will be expended on providing some degree of compensation. He states that he wishes he could do something. All he can do is ask for the forgiveness of the children he taught, but he knows this is useless.

This problem did not just apply to the Christian Brothers. I attended an up-market Protestant boarding school and I witnessed precisely what went on there. As far as I know, there was not much sexual abuse. However, there was an evil person who taught mathematics in the school. He came from a minor British public school, wore rimless glasses, used brilliantine in his hair, ironed the folds of his gown and beat the bejesus out of the children all the time. He destroyed people to whom I was very close. I survived, however, because I would not take his abuse and, even then, I was able to stand up for myself.

I attended a dinner in London some years ago at which I was the principal speaker. The host of the dinner took me home to stay with his wife and children in their nice farmhouse in the country. On the way there, as we were driving on the motorway in his luxurious car, he informed me that he thought we had attended the same school. When I inquired which school he had attended and he told me the name, I exploded in outrage. I will not sully the walls of this House by repeating exactly what I said, but I indicated that the school should have been closed by both the police and the sanitary authorities. At that point, he pulled the car over to the side of the road and burst into tears. He said that it had only been in the previous six months that he had been able to share with his wife the experiences he had undergone at that school, where the same master, on foot of a trumped up excuse, had laid his backside open every weekend with a cane. That did a good deal of damage. I know people who abandoned that school and their academic careers, and whose lives suffered as a result, who are doing nothing about it.

What about day schools? Why not open up the entire system to scrutiny? As a result of communications I have received, I know that in England there were some institutions where there were both residential and day facilities in which people were victimised. However, only those who were abused in a residential facility are able to claim any degree of compensation. That is wrong. In my opinion, there should be a level playing field in this area.

I hope this matter will be treated rationally, decently and logically as it has been in this House. It is not always treated in this way, particularly in those sections of the gutter press which have associations with the English tabloids. As a Christian, I cannot believe that anybody is completely removed from redemption. For that reason, even these abusers must be treated as humans. I thought it was shocking when one of the most significant of these people – I abhor everything he did – died, television stations showed familiar, slow motion footage of him lumbering across the screen. The newspapers danced on his grave – one of the headlines used was "The beast is dead"– and they challenged his right to be buried in sanctified ground. That is dreadful.

I do not believe we will ever reach a satisfactory resolution to this matter until we attempt to assist these courageous and wonderful people in their healing process. However, we must also attempt as best we can to understand the process that created not just one monster, but an entire population of such monsters who were allowed to flourish within these orders. I accept that there were also good people in the orders in question, but they said nothing. Why? They seem to have been paralysed by the kind of institutional power with which they were faced. The church authorities simply moved people around when they became aware of what they were doing to children. They did not stop them or send them for treatment; they moved them around and denied the entire thing. I am obliged to use my imagination because I was not a victim of sexual abuse in school. I imagine that what caused the most pain and the worst trauma must have been that denial by powerful institutions that this type of thing took place.

I welcome the Bill. I am glad we have moved on from a situation where it was restricted in terms of excluding physical abuse. I welcome the provisions designed at putting in place a healing process. However, we must be sure we do not do further damage by inadvertently confronting victims with people they may associate, even wrongly, with the system of abuse. I conclude by saluting these people for their courage.

I congratulate the Minister on his involvement in this process. He has shown a great deal of humanity and urgency in bringing this legislation forward.

I had the sad opportunity, as a member of the relevant Oireachtas committee, to listen to evidence given by the representative groups of many of the survivors of child abuse. It was an absolutely horrifying experience. I was struck by the fortitude and generosity displayed by these people. In fact, generosity was probably what was missing during the dark days of these people's childhoods. No Irish person who would like to be classed as decent would, in any way, try to minimise, excuse or ignore what happened in the period in question. The only hope we have not only of endeavouring to heal the scars of the survivors, but also those of the nation, is to be absolutely and utterly honest at this stage. Anything less will prevent this chapter in our history being closed. The current process is concerned with closing the chapter to which I refer in an honest, humane and deeply just manner.

Following their submissions at the Oireachtas committee, I had the opportunity of meeting many of those representatives privately, writing to them and having phone conversations with them. I wish that I had the same attitude of mind they had. If I had been denied justice for as long as those people, some of whom are my personal friends, without having it confronted openly, I believe I would find it very difficult to respond in the positive way they have done on so many different occasions. We must also bear in mind that it is not just a matter of financial compensation but, of course, it is that and rightly so. After all, the people who suffered were denied opportunities. By way of contrast, very flimsy court cases have been taken by people making claims for compensation, with little or no substance, on the basis that they cannot sleep at night as a result of some rather trivial accident. Their claims have sometimes resulted in very large awards of compensation.

The situation we are discussing today is not at all like that. It involves a life sentence, in every sense of the word and, for that reason, it has to be treated in a much more serious manner than might normally apply in a court of law. We have to try to understand that trauma, though I doubt if we ever can fully understand. Speakers in this debate have endeavoured to set back the clock, to set the scene and try to imagine how a person felt in a given situation. That is impossible for somebody who has had the comfort of a home, the love of parents and, indeed, a feeling of security. It is absolutely impossible for us to revisit and try to understand the experience of those people, but we must continue to try. That is part of the current process. Having spoken to many of the survivors, I know they also want to close this chapter at some time when all the assessment and counselling has taken place. Bearing in mind that some of those people are well beyond middle age at this stage, they would like, in their final years, to have at least some sense of their own worth.

Many of the people involved ended up in institutions, not because of any harm they had done but because their parents had died and they were orphans. Yet, to an extent, they were treated as criminals when they needed understanding, empathy, love and security but were deprived of that. We need to bear that in mind and, hopefully, by expressing those views and breaking through to our previously closed minds, this will, in some way, bring relief to them.

I fully understand there are two points of view among the groups of survivors. However, having listened to most of the groups who came before the Oireachtas committee, I will not say there was unanimity but there seemed to be a consensus. I would be the last to suggest that even a 10% or 15% reservation should be ignored because that would only involve repeating what happened in the past. We must also focus on the consensus that has been clearly established. Many of the survivors wish to see this matter dealt with expeditiously and brought forward so that they can avail of whatever benefit will become available and that should not in any way diminish their right to natural justice.

Some of the statements made by the survivors' groups struck me very forcefully and are still in my mind. One man in particular – a very good friend of mine – said, "We should not visit the same injustice on innocent people as was visited on us." As we are all aware, there are people who certainly put a black mark on this nation but there are many others in religious orders who did not do that. As a product of the Irish Christian Brothers, I can put hand on heart and say that, in all those years, I only witnessed one incident of physical abuse. Not only did we get free education but we were also helped in many other ways. In fairness to the Christian Brothers I knew, they were a very dedicated body of people.

In my home town, there was an orphanage run by the Presentation Sisters which I visited regularly as a young person and taught céilí dancing to people in that institution, as well as producing plays for them. I came to know them very well and met many of them in later years. Some of them became teachers and others went forward in public life. I still remember my friend's words that we should not visit injustice on people who were not part of it, even if their orders were part of it.

On the one hand, it is vital to expedite, as much as possible, the cases of those survivors who wish to move forward. They should be helped, in every sense, to close this chapter and we should thank them for their fortitude. The Irish nation will for ever have to bow its head for what has been done to them. On the other hand, if there are outstanding issues to be considered for any percentage of people, through their representative groups, a mechanism must be found to do that.

I have listened carefully to this debate and, particularly, the Minister's very balanced speech, which did not come about through the work of officials in just one evening. There have been many years of consultation, weighing and balancing but none of us can ever be happy with the final outcome because of the gravity of what we are dealing with. However, we are mandated with the responsibility, as public representatives, to do what is right in this matter.

Politicians could all be painted with the one brush because of some politicians who strayed from the straight and narrow. The Garda could be painted with the same brush, in the same way as we may paint religious orders. However, it is vital that those who have suffered feel they now have our full support and protection as legislators. I genuinely believe that what the Minister has brought forward is an honest, humane, sensitive and Christian approach to this problem. I hope there will be no unnecessary delay in moving the situation forward.

This Bill relates to one of the saddest situations which have come before this House. It reflects a horrific time in the lives of so many young people – 30,000 of them, on the Minister's figures, between the years 1930 and 1970 – who were in one institution or another in this State, whether it was a reformatory, an industrial school, an orphanage, a Magdalen home, special school or hospital in terms of the residential institutions. They were refused, yet all of the children and young people concerned were innocent. They had committed no crime, yet were sentenced, in some cases, for their entire youth from the tenderest age up to the age of 14, 15 or 16 years. They were entirely in the care of the State – innocent children who were prisoners of the State.

A worse horror could not have been perpetrated in any gulag in the Soviet Union in the worst days of Stalin – that youngsters could have been condemned to an institution where they were totally at the mercy of perpetrators of evil who preyed on them night and day. It is not as though it was sporadic, it was wholesale and endemic. It happened regularly in many institutions and was caused by many people held in the highest esteem in public life and among their peers. The State, in the form of the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which are supposed to care for citizens, as well as the Catholic and Protestant churches were the bodies given responsibility for the young people concerned in their tender years. The supposed caring organisations, not only neglected them, but preyed on them.

That is the terrible background to the issue we are seeking to address today. There is nothing the Oireachtas can do that can possibly atone or make good the damage caused. The Minister recognised that providing compensatory financial awards can only be one small element of dealing with the trauma suffered and the scars carried by many. As a nation, it has taken us such a long time to even recognise this. It is like a ghost from the past or something that has been buried.

Ten years ago when I was first elected to the city council I brought forward a motion expressing concern with what had been happening in Magdalen homes and found it almost impossible to secure any support for it. The then Lord Mayor of Dublin, former Deputy Tomás McGiolla, was the only one to give his support. Everyone else spoke against what I was saying because I was critical of the religious orders for some of the damaging things that had happened in such places. Throughout the history of the State we have been loath to face up to the horrors that have taken place in the institutions for which we have paid as taxpayers and which have been overseen by the Government and State authorities.

The Department of Education and Science appears to have been deliberately concealing the records of what happened in the institutions concerned for many decades. I tried to get hold of some of them some years ago, but found it impossible to do so. Many of the them appear to have been mislaid – they cannot be found and are presumed to be destroyed. The Department has been complicit in preventing the provision of information that survivors wanted and needed for cases they were taking. I hope the Minister will make it clear that there will not be any obstacle in his Department to accessing any records considered necessary.

There is none.

There has been.

In the past, but certainly not now.

In the not very distant past, since the Government took office, I had difficulty accessing records. I am glad the Minister has said there will not be any difficulty in future, but that certainly has been the experience of many survivors who have previously sought information.

In my experience it has become clear that many people in prison were in industrial schools, orphanages and reformatories. In many ways they have been so badly damaged by their earlier institutional experiences that they have found it extremely difficult to cope with life in the outside world and find themselves in constant confrontation with authority. It is difficult for them to handle normal social interaction because they have not had the experience of growing up normally. They have not had the experience of networking or interaction between family members, loved ones, relatives and neighbours, which is part and parcel of the maturation process. In addition, there is a palpable sense of grievance. Nobody has yet been brought to justice in any meaningful sense for the damage inflicted on them. There has been a sense of helplessness – even with this legislation, which does not go far enough in many areas.

Why are day schools exempt from this legislation? Many were severely damaged in such schools, one of whom has asked me to read an account of his experience to give the reason day schools should be included:

I write to you in the hope that you will represent me to the Irish government and to the people of Ireland as you have previously done, with the honour and conviction of one who cares about society, the next generation and the individual, whether rich or poor, well or wounded.

For the Seanad records, and for the public to know, my name is Joshua Willoughby, I appreciate this opportunity to address the house, but surely hate my reason for having to do so.

More than 30 years ago I was a child growing up on a quiet farm in the hills over Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny. At twelve years old, I optimistically took my second biggest step into the world, by attending secondary school at the Presentation Sisters Convent in Castlecomer. There, I became prey to the criminal perversions and overpowering grasp of a paedophile teacher and school vice principal, Donal Dunne. Day after day, for two years, he beat me, he choked me, he threatened my life, he masturbated against me, he held me prisoner in a tiny grey room, he stole my childhood, he took God away from me and left me alone to the perils and dangers of the night.

The letter goes on to state that he ran away and was confined to a critical care hospital etc.

Some may find it relevant that I was a day pupil in 1969, 1970 and 1971 when Dunne stole my right to innocence, aborted my education and was permitted to continue damaging me in mind and body for the rest of my stay in the school, indeed for the rest of my natural life.

The letter continues, but I will not read it in its entirety.

Essentially, he says that he was physically, sexually and mentally tortured in a day school and he does not see why his case is different and should be specifically excluded from the terms of this redress Bill. What happened to him was similar to what happened to others in residential institutions. I realise that this was put to the Minister previously and that he looked at it, but he made some amendments before and this is an area that should be included in the legislation. If it is not done now, it will have to be done at a later stage. I hope the Minister will refer positively to that in his response.

I intend to table amendments in relation to a couple of matters. The fact that records have not been available has had a bearing on the preparation of cases by survivors. There is a question of the hearings being held in private. Surely there should be an option for anybody willing to go through the process to have their hearing in private or public. If the hearing is held in private, it seems to harbour and protect the accused rather than facilitate the survivor of abuse and help him to come to terms with the psychological scar. A private hearing has the sense of not revealing and publicising what someone needs to get out of their system. It is also of some concern that there can be no finding of fault or declaration of liability and that the payments are purely ex gratia. If someone accepts the reward, he or she has no opportunity to pursue the matter further against the parties, whether that is the State or the individual.

I would have thought that one would still be allowed to go to court and pursue the matter. Why should that option not be available? What happens in cases where people have already gone to court and, through lack of evidence or some other reason, accepted a smaller settlement than is available at this time? There are some who are concerned that they may not have been dealt with adequately in the court proceedings that have taken place to date. They should be allowed further access to the board and the benefits of this legislation.

I can only give a half-hearted welcome to the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, but there are many things which should be included in it and I hope it will be open to amendment on Committee Stage. Given that the Minister took some useful amendments on board in the Dáil, I hope he will be willing to do the same here. This Bill has been before the House since June last year. I would not like it rushed and even if we have to go past next week, I would like the opportunity to take Committee Stage on one day and to have a gap between Committee and Report Stages so that amendments can be teased out carefully.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Senator Liam Fitzgerald.

I welcome the Minister and the provisions of the Bill he has brought before the House which seek to put structures in place to compensate and assist the recoveries of those who were abandoned as children in institutions of the State and consequently suffered a demeaning and gross violation at the hands of those charged with responsibility for them. Those people had the respect and trust of society and abused that respect and trust to leave in their wake the lost innocence of childhood. I hope the provisions we are putting in place today help to finalise and put behind in some way – if that is possible – the experiences of these people.

The Minister, as he stated, will treat this with the greatest sensitivity because we do not want to exacerbate the hurt or anguish victims have had to endure. As I walked in here this morning, I met a young man I work with who suffered at the hands of these people. He opened the Bill, pointed out a section to me and said, "Look at this section, Tony, they are asking us to recall how many times we were abused or how many times we were slapped." This was a matter of great concern to him and I am sure he feels that it will interfere with his ability to have his suffering adequately reflected in compensation. Given the sensitivity of the Minister in this regard, that will not happen.

The Bill, with the best will in the world, cannot hope to make life easier for these people. The intolerable circumstances of their childhood have left deep scars that no amount of money can remove. They lost their childhood and innocence when they were at their most vulnerable and, for one reason or another, found themselves without parents or guardians, without anyone to whom they could turn in their time of need. Instead, they were placed in the care of the State. Many of them are alive today and we know some of them personally. Many still carry with them the scars of the abuse, while some, unfortunately, carried those scars to their graves. That number is significant and a possible 3,000 people suffered in these institutions in a very traumatic and dreadful way.

The compensation the Minister is to provide under the Bill is ex gratia, on a no fault, no declaration of liability basis, as he and Senator Ormonde said. The scheme is designed to address the fact that the institutions departed in a very major way from what all of us perceive to be the fundamentals of child care. It acknowledges that because of what happened, many have suffered and carry scars of that suffering with them. Many have suffered deranged personalities. They have a lack of stability in their lives and they have an inability to form friendships, to hold on to those relationships or to ever again trust. They have lost all their childhood learning and the ability to educate themselves. They have lost the normal, everyday lifestyles we all enjoy and cherish.

A most important development was the apology by the Taoiseach. It is to his credit that he made that statement in 1999. It was an expression of deep regret for what happened and it was a statement from the State. We must remember that the Taoiseach, as head of the Government, needed to do that because it was public authorities of one kind or another that were charged with responsibility for looking after these people. It is equally important to say in relation to various institutions, orphanages and religious orders that we are talking about a minority of individuals. There are fine individuals within the religious sector – it was a small minority of them who perpetrated these terrible acts. This distinction must be drawn as we are closing the book on this issue.

Many of us in this House have a lot to thank the religious orders for. Many of us were educated by them and indeed have cursed them for their desire to make better students of us. I know that the religious orders have been in contact with the Government and are arranging to make recompense for these acts.

I compliment the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, for tackling this issue. I know he will do so with fairness and this Bill will have the desired effect of bringing about closure for those people who have suffered in this terrible way. It is an episode in our history that we should put behind us soon. Equally, it is a time that should never be forgotten.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the introduction of this Bill, which is one of a number of initiatives brought forward by the Government as part of the State's decision to face up to and deal with a part of its dark and sinister past. This Bill represents an attempt at public vindication for those victims of abuse who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. They were physically, mentally and sexually abused in various institutions that were provided by the State and by religious organisations of the time. As previous speakers have so articulately outlined, such organisations and institutions were trusted, almost entirely, by the State and by the public at large. What we are dealing with is a very embarrassing and deeply sad chapter in our history.

I urge the Minister to do everything possible, as I know he will because of his compassionate nature, to enable those people who were abused to bring this horrible saga in their lives to a close. That is what this Bill is all about. This Bill, the Laffoy commission and the counselling services that have been established are not about money. However, money is justifiably one aspect of this, in the form of compensation for a wrecked quality of life and the loss of a career. More importantly, all the organisations of State, resources and structures that have been put in place must facilitate the healing process and publicly vindicate the victims of abuse. Having facilitated the beginning of this process of private healing, the State must make redress to allow the victims to get on with their lives in a meaningful way.

I commend the Minister and the Government on the manner in which they have approached this serious issue. It is not perfect, and it never can be. One of the approaches taken by the Government has been the establishment of the redress board, which will facilitate the speedy processing of claims by those who wish to have this chapter of their lives closed quickly. There are victims who want such an expeditious process to take place. Others have deeper scars and will require a longer period of redress. I sincerely hope that the Laffoy commission and the other support services will enable all aspects of this torture and scarring to be dealt with. I am confident that this will be the case.

The victims of abuse will carry their scars with them for a lifetime. It seems incredible that it has taken so long for our efforts at public vindication to be made. I pay tribute to the victims and salute their courage in the face of appalling adversity as a glowing manifestation of the indomitable freedom of the human spirit. I sincerely hope that all the measures being put in place, including this Bill, will enable them to find that healing place and move forward with the rest of their lives.

This is a sensitive subject which we have discussed at length many times before. It is difficult to know where to start when discussing the Bill itself. While I welcome it, I also consider this Bill to be inadequate.

Senator Costello has made comments that are very close to what my own views on this subject are. On the one hand, I do believe that this Bill is a step forward and I think it should be recognised as such. However, there are things in this Bill that I do not like or feel comfortable with. Similarly, there are things the Minister has said in his speech that I am uncomfortable with.

I have some concern with the Minister's statement that any person before the redress board must first establish that he or she is suffering or has suffered some significant injury, physical or psychological, and secondly, he or she must establish that the injury is consistent with the abuse as alleged. I am aware that the Minister may not have intended me to take this meaning from what he said. However, I ask that the Minister should accept that if someone has their allegations accepted by the board, it is a burden of proof too far that such a person should then have to prove that he or she suffered injuries consistent with their allegation. I accept that allegations have to be tested; no matter how severe the allegations are, they have to be proven.

I think the allegation itself is proof enough that there must have been both physical and psychological injury. There can be no instance of somebody suffering the type of abuse that we are talking about without sustaining some type of psychological or physical damage. I do not think that a person should be required to prove that point; if it were not so horrific, it would almost seem pedantic. I do not think that the steps proposed by the Minister are necessary.

I accept the Minister's point that the need for financial compensation is merely part of, rather than the totality of what the victims have sought. Having spoken to many different groups over the years, people who have brought this issue forward at great pain to themselves, I certainly agree with that point. I believe in the importance of an apology, not just from the Taoiseach but from the structures of State. The tone of the speakers on all sides of the House today certainly reflects the attitude that, as inheritors of such structures, we all have to apologise for being negligent in our responsibility to ensure the protection of these young people. These Houses failed in that duty and in as much as we are the inheritors of the responsibilities of these Houses, we also must offer an apology on behalf of our predecessors. Much of the neglect was a result of omission rather than commission, and I am glad that the Bill has made the distinction between these two things.

As well as apologising, we must acknowledge, recognise and vindicate. These are important issues and I do not believe that this Bill goes far enough in the area of vindication. However, it is a step in the right direction. More than anything else, we must make it clear to the victims of abuse that we believe what they are saying to us. There is this doubt still there. It is not just a matter of acknowledging that there was a breach of trust or accepting that there was an incorrect or inadequate public response to them at that time. It is not just a matter of understanding the pain abuse causes. We must also recognise the years of rejected complaints, the years of not being believed, the years of being put down. Their complaints actually led to a worsening of their position. They were steamrolled further by the State and our representatives. That has doubled, trebled and quadrupled the pain of victims.

It is therefore important that we say to the victims that we do believe them. Having agreed on that, we can then argue with the Minister that the Bill does not go far enough. I do not believe that the Bill should be restricted to various institutions. If people have suffered abuse in the hands of any of the structures of the State then it should be included. We have to be able to say we can process complaints from wherever they may emanate. We have been through this before and there can be no doubt about it. We cannot simply say to people that the abuse cannot be dealt with because it took place in an orphanage, an industrial school or reformatory school as opposed to some other type of school or institution. That is not right. None of the speakers here this morning would in any way support the viewpoint that such a distinction should be made. We would all take the view that if there is pain it is our job to legislate for some form of vindication, compensation and validation.

I agree with Senator Costello regarding the decision about whether proceedings should be public or otherwise. I do not like the wording in section 10: "The board shall conduct its hearings otherwise than in public." It is such an exclusive comment. This is not something new. There is plenty of legislation dealing with whether complaints should be heard in public or not. We want to protect somebody who might be falsely accused, but that can be dealt with by stating that hearings do not have to be in public. Once there is validation that there is a hearing it should be for the victim to decide whether or not it takes place in public. That happens in all sorts of tribunals where there is a choice left to both parties.

The Minister can give choice to both the victim and the board. If the board feels there is a stated reason a hearing should not be held in public, that is fair enough. I cannot see what these circumstances might be but can concede the principle. However, it seems this is a belt and braces job and that the hearings cannot take place in public under any circumstances. That cannot be right. The Minister should review this. Once it is established that there is a prima facie case then it should be at the discretion of the victim as to whether or not proceedings take place in public.

We have seen the courts in recent years being prepared to lift the restriction on reporting of names in cases like rape and so on at the request of the victim. In such cases the victims felt that they wanted the guilty to be named and shamed in order to get proper vindication, understanding and public acceptance of their case. I am not saying this should be done in every situation but it should be allowed under the legislation. If we do not do that we are effectively saying we still want to sweep the issue under the carpet.

That is what is wrong with the provision. It is not stating that there may be cases which should be heard in private or that victims should not be allowed to go through the process in private. It is not even saying that the board should not be able to decide to conduct hearings in private. If that was the case it would be fair enough. Arguments can be made for each of those three scenarios. However, I cannot support the idea that it has to be at all times otherwise than in public. This reflects once again a desire to keep the issue under the carpet and prevent the truth from getting out.

If there is anything we must learn from this it is man's inhumanity to man, how we ensure we will not let it happen again and how we expose it to the public. That way at least we share the victims' pain in some way. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment on that point.

I have to declare an interest in the sense that my son, a politician and a solicitor, represents a number of abuse victims. I represent victims, quite a number of whom played with my son as a child and lived with us, but then went back to an institution where they were abused mentally, physically and sexually. I apologised in this House last week for what we did not know about the abuse that took place in my parish. I am sorry – I get very emotional about this.

A huge number of people were abused in my parish. We did not know about it. They played with my kids, were in my house and then went back to suffer abuse in a "caring" institution. I have seen them grow up and have seen the effects the abuse had on them. Quite a number of them became very caring people. However, in their caring for their children when they got into relationships they became probably too caring. They were too protective. In a lot of cases the protection they gave was to reverse what was done to them. In a few cases that created other circumstances which broke their relationships with there wives, girlfriends or families.

It is about time we realised that we did not live in a Christian society in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. We lived in a society controlled by the church and by the State. There were children sent to orphanages when their parents were still alive. They did not know their parents were alive but some judge decided to send them to an orphanage because they claimed the parents were not in control. There was nobody then who looked at the reality of what was happening in places like St. Joseph's orphanage in Kilkenny or St. Patrick's school in Kilkenny.

I was in the De La Salle college in Waterford and I remember playing a football match in Clonmel. Heading back to Waterford, we came out of Clonmel near the prison for kids. It was horrific. I remember a song being sung on the bus, "We are going back to the borstal," which was outside Clonmel. When we got back to De La Salle I specifically remember a senior brother giving out about the fact that somebody had suggested that De La Salle, Waterford was a borstal. I can still see its president, Big Ben – I can say it now – taking off his collar and beating the young lad who had started singing the song, "We are going back to the borstal".

My son is involved in many cases, not only because he is a solicitor, but because he knows I knew the kids concerned. We cannot give them back what they lost in their youth. There is no way that compensation can ever give back to people what they lost as children.

I am proud of my parish, St. Patrick's in Kilkenny. I am proud of its hurling team, village, band and people, but cry when I learn of what was done by institutions within it. My wife also gets upset. I can still see the young people concerned coming down to my house. We thought they were going back to a loving and caring institution. They were not, they were going back to be buggered and hit. They would then run away. The nuns or priests would send for the Garda, members of which would chase the young people concerned who would tell them, "We do not want to go back to that place because." The gardaí, thinking that they were just another crowd of little kids who did not know what they were at, returned them to the institution where they were welcomed back as if they were the flowers in May and then the abuse started. What can we say? How can we compensate? While money will not compensate, everybody must judge the society in which we lived.

We have to be very careful about the protection of young children. At times I am upset when there are children who will not sit on my knee because they have been told, "Don't sit on grandad's knee", because their parents are afraid of what might happen. Loving and cuddling have become a problem. It is about time we, as a society, realised there are those in society who hate children – hatred is the reason children have been abused in the past.

There are those who suggest that we should give priests and nuns the opportunity to marry, that this would solve all our problems. It would not. There are those in society, whether priests, nuns, teachers, business people or politicians, who are crooked. If, in the morning, an edict was issued allowing everybody in the Church to marry, it would not rid us of paedophilia and all these problems. That would not happen. The Church must make a decision as to whether priests and nuns can get married. If they were allowed to marry, perhaps they would have a better relationship with humanity and society, but it would not rid us of the problems which arose in the past.

I speak emotionally about this issue because I know the kids of some, who were abused, who committed suicide. This happened because the parents were overly protective of their children because of what had happened to them, as children, in my parish.

There is a broad welcome from the groups representing the survivors of abuse in residential institutions for the report to the Minister for Education and Science by the compensation advisory committee appointed under section 14 of the Bill. They urge the Minister to act on its summary recommendations in full.

Many of the people concerned note that the Minister has not included the Magdalen laundries and hospitals. Will he not at this stage consider including specific reference to the various psychiatric hospitals within the State in the Schedule to the Bill rather than dealing with the matter on an ad hoc basis under section 4?

It is regretable that there is still no redress scheme for those children sexually abused in day schools. The number of persons who fall within this category should not be forced through the High Court process which is ongoing. There are concerns that former residents of residential institutions now residing in the United Kingdom will suffer the loss of state benefits arising from awards made by the board. Will the Minister do all within his power or within that of the appropriate Departments to come to an agreement with his British counterparts that this will not be the effect of awards made by the board which should be appointed without delay?

I get emotional about this issue. I was walking up Patrick's Street in Kilkenny about three weeks ago when a man from County Waterford of about 50 came up to me. He asked if I was Mick Lanigan and then started to cry. He told me that my son was doing a good job. I brought him up to my house for a cup of coffee. He said, "Whether I am in public or in private, I still remember what happened to me in that institution." I ask the Minister to recognise the fact that money will never compensate the people concerned, but society might be able to make some effort to compensate them for what happened in institutions established, organised and run by the State. While we have an obligation to provide for them in whatever way we can, we will never be able to compensate them for what happened.

Senators have ranged over a wide area and expressed very wide views on the Bill about which they have obviously thought a great deal. I suppose no Bill is perfect – I do not claim that this one is – but I decided that I wanted to do something to compensate victims, especially those about whom Senator Lanigan spoke. I wanted to compensate those who were incarcerated in these institutions, who were in residence therein, who had no one to turn to outside and who were put in them, in many instances, by a judge on behalf of the State and the people. That is what I wanted to do.

I have been asked on a number of occasions during the debate about the fact that this would cost a certain amount of money –€128 million was mentioned. That is only a contribution towards the cost. The cost is estimated at between €250 million and €500 million. Therefore, we are not doing something inconsequential. As far as the State and the two Houses are concerned, we are trying to make genuine reparation, directed specifically at the people who suffered most. There are many legalities, which we heard about today, and there will be people who will point to them. We have done our very best to provide a simple, sensitive mechanism and forum to resolve the problem and provide some compensation. That was not the case when I started, but, when we complete the Bill, it will be the case. I cannot make amends for all the problems, no matter how badly I and others feel. Obviously, the victims feel particularly bad. However, we can do something specific and very substantial which will have a very wide effect.

I will refer briefly to some of the many comments made during the debate, all of which were relevant. From a political point of view, it would have been simple not to have been involved at all and to leave matters as they were. I am an experienced politician and I know well the abuse I got over starting to do this, which was extraordinary. We now have the best system of any that will exist in any country that we know about. We know that from the independent experts.

We are doing our job in teasing out matters as well as we can, but let us recognise what we are doing. We cannot make up for what happened in the past. Senator Lanigan showed how close he could be to it and yet not know. Others saw people being abused physically, particularly in schools. I went to a Christian Brothers school and got my education there. I saw one or two fellows having a rough time, nothing like what I have heard of elsewhere, but certainly getting a few good thumps. The strap was routine in virtually all schools, whether they were Protestant, as Senator Norris said, or Catholic. That was the age we were in. There were many tough things, but, thankfully, they are gone. We now have many protections for children.

From the Second Stage debate, it is clear that a number of particular issues arise. There is a clear commitment among Members of the House that everything possible should be done to provide redress to the former residents of institutions who, as children, were victims of abuse while in the care of the State. There is an acknowledgement that there is nothing that we, as a society, can do today that will compensate fully for the years of suffering experienced by these victims. However, Senators who spoke during the course of the debate were unanimous in their desire to ensure this Bill provides a basis for some alleviation of their burden, however late that may be.

Senator Dino Cregan raised a question about the waiver. There has been some confusion in this regard, which I would like to clarify. The Bill does not interfere with the right of a person who suffered abuse in childhood to take action in the High Court. Such a person can apply to the redress board and continue with legal action or, more likely, leave it in abeyance pending the outcome of the redress board process. Therefore, the person in question can either go separately to the High Court or go to the redress board. When he knows the outcome of the redress board process, he can make a decision whether to proceed further with it or to go to the High Court.

If one accepts the award, the normal procedure, which is applied in many other cases, is that a waiver arises at that stage. On being offered an award, one can seek advice and decide whether to take it or to go to court separately. I am convinced that many people, recognising as we do that we cannot be perfect in this regard, will be very happy to take the award as some small compensation from the State. Some people will also say that they wish to go on to court and that road is open to them. It is only at the point at which a claimant to the board actually accepts an award that the execution of a waiver is required. At that point, one signs up and decides to take the compensation offered. That is the stage at which the waiver is signed. The option to step out and go to the courts is available right up to that moment if that is what is desired.

The effect of the waiver will be to terminate any litigation outstanding and to prevent civil legal action being taken with regard to the same circumstances. The rationale is simple. The claimant will receive compensation for injury and will not be entitled to receive compensation twice from the same source. The waiver has nothing to do with criminal proceedings that may be taken by the State, when the DPP follows a case through, or by the victim of abuse. The waiver does not affect that process. It is a very simple, practical arrangement.

When the amount and nature of the compensation is determined, the victim can decide either to take it or to go to the courts. The claimant is completely free to make that decision. There is no question of anyone saying otherwise. We know what the court process entails and all the evidence, proofs and data that are needed. It is a heavy system and difficult for a person to go through. What is proposed will provide a much simpler alternative.

Senator Costello and other Senators raised the question of day pupils and day schools. I set out at some length in my opening remarks why I considered day schools should not be included in this Bill. The reasons relate to the nature of day schools and institutions, the latter having had total control over the lives of the children, bearing in mind the responsibility of public agencies for the schools vis-à-vis their responsibility for the institutions and the powers of those bodies with regard to regulation of the schools and institutions.

Senator Norris raised the question of cross-examination, as did a number of other Senators. They raised concerns regarding an accused person being given the right to cross-examine applicants to the board. During the course of the debate in the other House, the issue of allowing accused persons to speak in their own defence was raised a number of times. This matter clearly caused a great deal of concern to Deputies. In particular, it was said that the accused persons should have an opportunity to defend their reputations. As was said on Committee Stage, it is not the intention of this Bill to create a court of law by another route. I also said it is the function of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse to deliberate on issues such as liability and responsibility for abuse. The commission is undertaking that task.

Ultimately, it is a matter for the courts to make findings of guilt in respect of particular individuals. This process does not involve any establishment of guilt. We have been working hard to keep away from that. It is a matter which would be pursued by the investigative side of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. It could be pursued by the DPP and the courts at any time. It is ultimately a matter for the courts to make findings of guilt in relation to particular individuals. However, I am conscious of the importance of this issue for many people and of their desire to have a hearing if they are accused of abuse.

In making the changes to the Bill I emphasise that these matters will remain confidential and that an award to an applicant will not mean that a corresponding person against whom allegations have been made is guilty. The purpose of this process is not to establish guilt.

The board will be required to inform accused persons and managers of institutions where there are allegations of abuse. The accused person may, at his own volition, make written representations to the board and may apply to the board to make oral representations. A refusal on the part of the board to allow oral evidence can be reviewed by the review committee. An accused person may be represented by legal representatives and may cross-examine his accuser in defence of his version of the truth and his good name. An accused person may also be cross-examined by the person who is alleging abuse. Inevitably in such a scenario there will be a conflict of evidence. The amendments provide that in that event medical evidence will prove decisive. If the medical evidence establishes injury consistent with abuse as alleged, compensation will be paid. Overall, the provisions are a balanced and measured approach to the issues of potential false accusations.

Senator Cregan referred to a number of these issues and I hope what I have said in reply has been helpful. He was concerned about information not being available. All information is available to the commission which will examine all sides of the matter. Some 400,000 documents have been made available; everything the commission wants has been made available to it. Some of those documents were so worn and dusty that people examining them had to wear protective clothing. All documents are being made available to the investigative side of the commission as well as the listening side. An individual may have the documents which refer to his or her own situation and many individuals have received them. The commission is investigating the totality of the situation and will report on that.

It was initially suggested that we should wait until the commission had given its report before proceeding with compensation claims. However, the commission will take some years to finish its work. It would be easier to wait until then before taking the steps proposed in the Bill but if we were to do that too much time would pass and people who have suffered would be deprived of compensation in the short term. Others might never receive their compensation, although of course it would go to their families.

Senator Cregan referred to the €128 million contributed by the religious orders. The State has accepted full responsibility for compensation and the religious orders are making a donation towards that. The State is not quibbling over the amount of compensation and that is right. Estimates for the total amount of compensation range from €250 million to €500 million.

Senator Ormonde mentioned the responsibility borne by the State for what happened in industrial schools. Senator Lanigan, in his own eloquent way, reminded us that it was the State which placed children in institutions. At a minimum, the State has a very serious moral obligation to people who were placed in institutions. It is this obligation which we are now meeting. We do not need to discuss matters in legal terms. We merely need to recognise our obligations. When I came to the Department of Education and Science it did not take me long to see that the State had to compensate in this area. The Government agreed that should happen and that is what the Bill tries to do.

I recognise Senator Ormonde's point about all religious being classified by association. In 1970 there were 29,000 members of religious orders and we all know wonderful people among that number. Among them there were paedophiles, as there were among the population as a whole. There is still a percentage of paedophiles among the general population. Research shows there is a higher percentage of paedophiles in certain areas of the population but the numbers do not vary greatly. Therefore, there was a percentage of abusers among religious. Institutions in which children were incarcerated suited the purpose of these people and they were often attracted to such places.

Senator Norris spoke about bruising cross-examinations in court. However, the purpose of the Bill is to avoid this. He also said the Irish Christian Brothers were at the core of this problem. I received my education from the Irish Christian Brothers for something like two pence a week. I can say they did me a great service. It was a tough era and we all knew that. We came across the occasional brother who was rough, just as Senator Norris, in his up-market Protestant school, found one teacher who was brutal. Many of us have had that experience in schools. We would probably find the same today although adults cannot do today the things they did in those days. It is not fair to throw such an accusation at all Christian Brothers.

After Senator Norris had spoken, Senator Ó Murchú gave a deep personal experience of an example of the work done by many of the brothers in those years. He quoted a person who had been abused and who said we should not visit on innocent people an injustice which was visited on himself. Many innocent people did excellent work with children throughout the years, in Ireland and overseas. Senator Ó Murchú said he came across one case of physical abuse from a Christian Brother in his lifetime.

Senator Lanigan spoke of playing with children from an institution, not knowing what was going on behind the walls. That was the problem. I played football with deaf schoolchildren and did not know what was going on. I ate meals with them in their institution in Cabra, but did not know this abuse was taking place.

There were people in the institutions concerned who were brutal and committed terrible offences in abusing young people, but there were also wonderful people in them at the time, who did tremendous work with little funding. They made a great contribution, which must be recognised. Senator Norris mentioned that he attended an up-market Protestant school where there was one teacher who was very brutal, but nobody did anything about him. Tragically, that is what happened in that era.

Senator Costello referred to the day school issue which I could have done something to address if it meant I would not have to enter an entirely different arena. Perhaps if the Senator is in government following the general election, he can examine the issue. A way must be found to deal with day school cases. I thought of cases which were taken to court and criminal convictions obtained. The Senator also referred to a case in which a criminal conviction was obtained. We took those cases on board, but it was then pointed out that it would be very unfair to many of the others who were treated as badly but could not seek criminal convictions because they did not have evidence and so on. The day school issue is difficult to address. We are concentrating on those who were in residential institutions.

The question of no finding of fault was raised. Fault can be pursued otherwise. The Laffoy commission will examine the issue in terms of investigation, but the board will not be involved in finding fault because this will lead to battles involving lawyers which will take up time, something we want to avoid.

Senator Kett hopes we can put this terrible period behind us. He referred to a friend who told him he was being asked to say how many times he was slapped. That is not true. While I am aware there are great fears about this process, it is ultra-simple. We could not make it any simpler or realistic.

There have been complaints about the basis and criteria on which the payments will be made, including by Senator O'Toole. The criteria are there will be no finding of fault and the award will be based on injury, with the intention of simplifying the process. I am sorry Senator Costello is of the view that he can only give the legislation half hearted support, but even half a heart is better than none at all. Senator Fitzgerald emphasised the State must facilitate the healing process. That is what is happening. He was also of the view that the State should compensate in so far as that is possible. I welcome his comments.

Senator O'Toole accepted the principle of what we are trying, but considered it inadequate in some ways. He feels uncomfortable that a person must prove he or she was injured or suffered in some way. This is one of the lowest levels of proof necessary. One must prove that one was in the institution and suffered in some way. One must not get into legalities and there will not be cross-examination. Once the board is up and running, there will not be great difficulty with this provision. However, there is a difference in the types of abuse, highlighted in the expert report. It stated some people were so brutally assaulted and abused that they were the worst cases that could have been found while there were others where people managed to stand up to the abuse. Once one tries to address this issue one cannot wave a magic wand to sort it out.

We appointed an independent group of experts, which everybody accepted. They examined similar scenarios in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and thought those countries did not give enough in terms of compensation. The group wanted the issue dealt with in the courts because they award greater compensation. It indicated that the compensation for the abuse could not be worked out mathematically, but that it had to be done some way. It outlined a process, which was accepted relatively widely. That is the basis on which we are proceeding. I stress that low levels of proof are required and the injury must only be consistent with the allegation.

Senator O'Toole was also concerned about the hearings being held in private. While these are sensitive matters, he compared the cases to those involving industrial schools, which were quite different. These are traumatic cases in which great sensitivity is required. We want the board to get on with the job on our behalf in a quiet, confidential manner and resolve these matters as quickly as possible.

Senator Lanigan has been moved by the issue, particularly in the context where one could be so close to people and not know what was going on in the background. His description of what went on at the time was fair. Society was controlled by the State as well as the Church and that was accepted. There are records of complaints by people against members of religious orders and, unfortunately, the State did not recognise them.

Senator Dino Cregan said people acting on behalf of the State hid some evidence and information during the years, but there is no question of this whatsoever. There are legalities involved in terms of access to information in criminal or civil cases. Apart from this, all the information is available. Senator Lanigan referred to the possibility of victims who reside in the United Kingdom losing their social welfare payment, a matter I will follow up. He also said the board should be appointed without delay and allowed to get on with the job in hand. I share those sentiments.

It has been suggested that the board should be established after the general election. This legis lation has been published since June last year. I was criticised again earlier that it has taken so long to get it to this House. However, time must be made available to me to come to the House. I have been discussing the Bill since day one and would have come to the House then. I work every night until all hours. I sleep for approximately five hours nightly and work the rest of the time. I have no problem attending the House. I can come back on Monday for the next Stage and the following day for the remaining Stages.

I like to get things done. I have been working on this since last June and if this goes beyond the general election, I may no longer be the person responsible. It would then be necessary to determine what that person's conviction is and whether the Minister for Finance will be prepared to provide the money. If we are returned there should not be a problem, but if there is a change, the incoming Administration could blame us for wasting all the money and could claim it needed to cut back on expenditure. I would rather get this done now when it is possible and have it set up. We could go on debating it forever, but it is better to get on with it. I hope the Senators will give me support in that so that the board can be set up and payments can commence.

The records that exist are not very detailed. The institutions did not keep individual files on the children. In most cases the only references to individual children are on an admissions register or medical records. I noticed on one circulated today that somebody went home to his mother and did not return. I am not surprised at that, but that was the only record. There was nothing giving any more detail. The Laffoy commission will dig out much information.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20 March 2002.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Wednesday, 20 March, at 2.30 p.m.

Top
Share