I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and his official, Mr. Tom Boland. We resume our consideration of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001. Deputy Creed was in possession.
SECTION 11.
Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 41:
In page 9, subsection (4)(b), line 28, to delete “Review Committee” and substitute “High Court”.
—(Deputy Creed).
With a view to making progress, may I ask whether the Minister has received the report of the review committee on levels of compensation? This particular amendment refers to levels of compensation, implicitly, in so far as it would relate to referring levels of compensation payable to the High Court. The bone of contention in this matter, before Christmas, was the matrix system to which victims object — the slide rule approach which does not take individual circumstances into account. The amendment seeks to provide that, where there is an inadequate compensation award by the relevant body, there would be a right of appeal to the High Court. The Minister's line is that the matter will go immediately to the appeals committee. Can the Minister give some indication of the colour of his money, so to speak, in terms of the review committee? Can he throw any further light on this before we press the amendment?
This arises more specifically under amendments Nos. 48 and 49. As Deputies will know, I appointed a committee of experts on 30 August 2001, or, effectively, 1 September, to advise in relation to the compensation amounts for abuse in childhood. The report is imminent — I understand I will have it within the next week — so we will have it in good time for Report Stage. Once I receive it, I will bring it to Government. When the Government has dealt with it, I will then publish it.
Will the Minister assure Members that we will see the findings of the review committee before we are asked to take Report Stage?
I have no difficulty in that regard. As I said, I understand the report will be with me within the next week, I will bring it to Government without delay and it will be published before Report Stage.
Before I decide on the amendment, I wish to be quite clear on the position. Do I understand correctly that the Minister has not received the review committee's report, that he expects it shortly and will take it to Government and make it available to Members before Report Stage?
Yes, that is my intention.
On the last occasion we discussed this Bill, it was clear the Minister had not finalised his thinking on a number of critical aspects, in particular, the scope of the Bill and the categories of persons to be covered by it. He said he had an open mind at that stage and was still considering the issues. Can he now throw any further light on how he intends to proceed, specifically in relation to the possibility of extending the Bill to cover categories that are not already included, such as those people who were victims of abuse in day schools and those who were in orphanages, orthopaedic hospitals and Magdalen laundries? It is only fair that the position should be clarified. Some of us pointed out that it was very difficult for us, as Opposition spokespersons, to give adequate consideration to the Bill when we did not know what was being proposed. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify those points at this stage.
As the Deputy has said, a number of issues were raised during Committee Stage. These are being considered urgently so that we will have a very definitive view before Report Stage.
Have there been no developments since we last debated the matter?
There have been discussions and there is work in progress on each of the aspects mentioned by the Deputy. We will have these matters finalised in time for Report Stage.
With regard to Deputy Creed's question about the report, did the Minister expect to have the report before the resumption of the debate today?
I hoped to have it in time for the Report Stage. I am in the hands of the expert committee in that regard.
Was it not intended——
I have been informed that I can expect to receive it within the next week.
Was it not intended to have the report with the Minister before this Select Committee resumed its work?
It was. The expert committee intended to have it with me by Christmas. Sometimes, these matters prove to be more complex or further information arises and people want more time. There is not really very much delay beyond what they had hoped for in the first instance.
It was known that this Bill was being discussed prior to Christmas. Surely, it is a matter of urgency that the report should have been with the Minister before the committee resumed today, and that he would have brought it to Government?
The committee is an independent group. When I deal with such a group, I respect its independence. I will ask questions but it is important that such groups are left entirely independent in what they are doing. It is also important that we have that basis for going forward because people may have a different view on what should be the levels of compensation. There was agreement with the expert committee and with the people who were chosen. That followed discussions and consultation. The group is truly independent. I want to leave it like that, although, obviously, I have conveyed to the group that I want the report before Report Stage. The report is imminent.
How stands the amendment, Deputy Creed?
In light of the Minister's commitment that we will have the report before Report Stage, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 76 is consequential on amendment No. 42, and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 9, subsection (6), line 38, after "made" to insert "an appropriate contribution relative to that public body or person's financial capacity to contribute".
Since the Minister published this Bill in June of last year, we have been led to believe that negotiations have been ongoing between the umbrella body representing the religious institutions involved in the running of the institutions where abuse occurred. That is a long period for negotiations to be ongoing. Negotiations are taking place behind closed doors and the Opposition, the public, and most importantly, the victims, have no idea of the levels of compensation the institutions propose to pay. Figures in the region of £100 million have been bandied about. However, recent RTE documentaries on institutional abuse in other countries made the clear inference, which was substantially proven, that institutions had gone to considerable lengths to avoid paying meaningful compensation to victims. This amendment seeks to ensure that the contribution paid by the various institutions involved is appropriate relative to the abuse which occurred in the institutions and relative to the capacity of institutions to pay.
I am anxious to tease out the current position with the Minister and whether there is any finality to this issue. As Deputy Shortall said, there are a lot of loose ends in this legislation. We are putting our faith in the Minister's assurances about Report Stage, where debate is much more truncated than on Committee Stage. This is an important issue. What amount of money is on the table from the institutions? We are asked by the Minister to wait for Report Stage to see what money is on the table from the State, yet we do not know what is on the table from the institutions. In replying to this amendment, the Minister should give some indication of our position in respect of those negotiations, and whether there is a final figure.
We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in respect of the proposals for compensation. All of the information is not available to us at this point and that is highly unsatisfactorily. In respect of the issues which I raised at the start of this meeting, it is unfair of the Minister to expect Opposition spokespersons to participate fully in this debate given that so many aspects of the Bill are not finally decided. We do not know fully what we are talking about and the Minister was not ready before Christmas to bring this Bill to Committee Stage.
We are conscious of the need for as much speed as possible to pass this legislation but it is unsatisfactory, from an Opposition perspective, to adjudicate on aspects of the Bill which are not yet clarified. One of those aspects is the level of contribution which will be made by the religious orders involved. The Minister should tell us the current position of the negotiations and whether the contribution that the religious orders will make has been finalised. We should have an indication of the amount of that contribution.
The level of compensation paid by the religious orders should be commensurate with their level of responsibility. I urge the Minister to seek a percentage of the overall total bill to be contributed by the religious orders, rather than a set figure. We do not know what the eventual bill for compensation will be and it is likely that we are underestimating it. The Minister should operate on the basis that the religious orders pay a percentage. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view as to what that percentage should be.
The contribution to the scheme to be made by the religious orders is the subject of ongoing discussions. I remain hopeful that agreement can be reached which adequately reflects not just the congregations' role in the institutions but their wider role in Irish society. A joint approach to the issue of financial redress from the State and the congregations is the approach which can best bring closure to this painful issue for those who suffered the injury in institutional care and Irish society.
The Deputy's amendments would require a thorough inquiry into the assets of every congregation. The Bill has no provisions for such an inquiry and the Deputy has not proposed any such provisions. It could be argued that, as such an inquiry could not be made in any reasonable period of time, it is appropriate for the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Finance to determine what is an appropriate contribution in each circumstance. As section 20(5) indicates, the consent of both Ministers is required to allow a person to make a contribution. Both Ministers will ensure that the public interest is well served by the level of contribution made.
In so far as the amendments require a finding of responsibility for abuse, the Bill makes no provision for this matter which would be completely contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill. The effect of the Deputy's proposal would be that the redress process would be converted into an adversarial inquiry, akin to a court. That is one of the difficulties for the victims which the Bill seeks to avoid.
In the event that agreement is not reached on a contribution from the congregations, the scheme will proceed nonetheless. However, it is my intention to bring forward an amendment in that event which will allow civil actions to proceed against congregations in the courts, notwithstanding any award made by the board. As Deputies know, the two are collectively brought together in the Bill as it stands. If we cannot reach agreement about a contribution, we would have to make an amendment to remove that from the Bill. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that an agreement can be reached which reflects not just the role of the congregations in these institutions, but also their wider and continuing role in Irish society. I hope to have such an agreement before Report Stage. The discussions are ongoing and are making progress. I hope to be in a position to go to Government with the results of those discussions and have them made public before Report Stage of the Bill.
Will the Minister tell Members who is negotiating with the religious orders on behalf of the State? Are the negotiators from his Department or from a different Department?
What does the Minister mean by "appropriate contribution"? The Minister is in negotiations, with his Department and with the Department of Finance. Surely, there is some yardstick used to determine what constitutes an appropriate contribution? The matter is so vague and woolly that vague terms such as these cause further confusion.
What are the Minister's views on the congregations making a percentage contribution as opposed to a flat amount? Does he favour that approach, is it the approach being taken in the negotiations and can he give us some idea of his thinking on the kind of percentage responsibility the congregations have?
The Minister made the very interesting comment that the quid pro quo between the State and the religious institutions is that the institutions and individuals therein will be exempted from civil cases in the event of satisfactory financial compensation being made available. That is at the heart of the deal being done, but the public and the victims have a right to know where these negotiations stand as they have been going on for far too long. As I understand it, and perhaps the Minister will confirm this, these discussions are being conducted by CORI. Is that correct?
They are being conducted by CORI on behalf of the religious orders .
It is not fair to victims that we do not know what levels of compensations are being proposed. How many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Minister's Department, or the Department of Finance, and CORI and what offer is on the table at present? The Minister mentioned that in the event of an unsatisfactory outcome to the negotiations, he would bring forward amendments so that civil cases could be taken. Does that imply we will know before Report Stage because in order to bring forward amendments to this legislation those negotiations would have to be concluded by then?
It is absolutely my intention that committee members will know the facts before Report Stage and I must proceed in the interests of the victims. I am not going to delay unduly which is why I say it is necessary to reach a conclusion on these matters now. If no agreement is reached, amendments will have to be made to provide for separate cases to be taken against the religious congregations. My first concern, and I know it is also the concern of the committee, is to ensure there is a scheme of compensation for the victims. Obviously, who contributes and the extent to which they do so is a matter for negotiation and discussion. My main concern is still that the State meets its obligations and follows through on them and, if we cannot reach an agreement, there must be another way of proceeding. No matter what that way is, I intend to proceed in the interests of the victims.
The Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and my Department are directly involved in the negotiations and ten or 12 meetings have taken place. There is communication and correspondence with legal people regarding issues that arise and to help people to understand the issues involved. We are at a stage where I hope this can be concluded very shortly. The negotiations are confidential at the moment but I will go to Government as soon as I can to put the proposals on the table. I would not like the victims to feel there is anything other than total support for them from me, the Government and the committee. It is my clear intention to provide the compensation scheme for them as a matter of urgency. We have discussed the contributions to be made. I would prefer an agreed approach whereby all sides can contribute. If I can get that, I will be quite happy because it is the best thing nationally. As far as the victims are concerned, it is the Government's intention to provide for them.
Is there a framework for these negotiations? Are they based on a similar framework to that set up in other countries, such as Canada, or are we starting afresh? Have we taken a lead from the experience in other countries where a similar system has been established? The Minister keeps saying that he does not want any further delay in relation to this legislation. We do not want any delay either, we are just trying to perfect it.
For the third time, I ask the Minister if he believes that the congregations should make a percentage contribution as opposed to a flat amount? Is this the basis on which the negotiations are taking place and what percentage responsibility do the congregations have?
I replied to that. I said the negotiations are confidential at the moment.
That is not a reply. I asked the Minister if the approach would be based on a percentage.
I am bound by confidentiality. I want to see this resolved at an early stage and I do not want to say or do anything that will prolong that.
What is the Minister's thinking on this?
There should be an adequate contribution.
Should that be a percentage contribution?
I am not——
I put it to the Minister earlier that very often in matters such as this the final bill tends to be underestimated. We have seen the experience abroad and in relation to other compensation tribunals here. Surely it would make more sense to get agreement from the religious orders that they would contribute a percentage of the final cost, rather than a flat amount at the beginning. If the final figure turns out to be much larger, then, clearly, the religious orders will not have made a fair contribution. Does the Minister believe that the congregations should make a percentage contribution?
As I have said, the congregations should make an adequate contribution. That is a matter which I have to discuss with the Minister for Finance——
The Minister should answer the question.
——and with the Government in the context of the negotiations which are proceeding. Once they are concluded, we will make public the outcome.
Does the Minister have a view on the point I am making?
Of course, I have the view that it should be adequate.
Will he share it with us, please?
If we were to discuss that, we would have to go into many different issues which I am not prepared to discuss.
No, we would not. Will the Minister please tell me what is his thinking?
My thinking is that the compensation should be adequate.
I will withdraw the amendment pending Report Stage and in the context of the Minister's intention to provide detailed information.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 10, subsection (8), line 5, after "instalments." to insert "Where an applicant may wish to receive the entire award, but where in the reasonable opinion of the Board payment of the entire award is not advisable, the Board shall make arrangements for payment of the said award by instalments.".
This is straightforward. Obviously, many of the victims have encountered difficult circumstances during their lives and may not be equipped with the necessary financial skills to manage an award of substantial amounts. This amendment seeks that, where the award is made, provision will also be made for payment by instalments where, in the opinion of the committee, this would be in the best interests of the individual.
Concern has been expressed that a number of the adult victims of child abuse in residential institutions are not well placed to deal with the single payment of a large sum in redress for the injuries they have suffered. It has been noted in the administration of various schemes in other jurisdictions which provide compensation to large numbers of people that, inevitably, some recipients do not cope well with the money.
We have a duty to assist survivors without unnecessarily interfering in their decisions. In proposing to make awards by instalments, Deputy Creed has, I believe, the same objective as I have in amendment No. 71, which proposes that claimants be given financial management advice. It is entirely within the spirit of the Bill to offer recipients the option of financial advice to help them put their award to the best use in rebuilding their lives. Recipients must be free to avail of the advice or refuse it as they see fit. If advice is given, it is a matter for them to accept or reject it. My concern is that to go as far as providing awards in instalments would be seen by many survivors of abuse as the State interfering in their lives yet again for no good purpose. Therefore, while the proposal has many merits, I cannot support it.
On balance, I hope the Deputy will agree that my amendment goes far enough. It must be borne in mind that most, if not all, claimants will be advised legally at public expense. It is to be expected that the legal profession will see its duty to the clients as extending beyond merely securing an award and encompassing some element of advice, where a client wants this advice, on how to deal with it. In any event, I try to deal in amendment No. 71 with the scenario raised by the Deputy. While I understand his point, I trust he will understand the concerns I have raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 12, subsection (2), line 3, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:
"(d) the evidence given to the Board by the applicant and by any witness called by the applicant.”.
This amendment is intended to clarify that the review committee will have regard both to the evidence of the applicant and any evidence provided by witnesses. In some cases, an applicant may wish to call medical evidence before the review board. This provision ensures a more complete review of the case can be undertaken. It is a helpful amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 13, lines 16 and 17, to delete ", either before or after the passing of this Act,".
We discussed this earlier.
It is way down the wire.
Maybe a couple of days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 58, inclusive, not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 59 to 63, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 14, line 24, after "tribunal" to insert "save where in the opinion of the Board, such evidence is essential for the protection of other persons from abuse".
The point I am trying to make here is that where the tribunal or the board comes upon evidence that somebody has previously abused and may still be in a position to inflict abuse or may hold a position which would put other children at risk, we need to wrap the evidence in such a level of security as to ensure it does not place others at risk. Where somebody is identified as having been an abuser and it is known to the State that the individual is in a position to inflict further abuse, the evidence should be made available to various authorities in the State to ensure this person is removed from a position where others may be put at risk.
I seek to address the same issue in amendment No. 88. It is unfortunate that the two amendments are not grouped because they deal with the same principle. I raised this matter on previous occasions and have asked the Minister to clarify the legal responsibilities of persons sitting on the board or review committee in respect of information being brought to their attention about an abuser whom they know to be continuing in a position in which he or she has responsibility for children and there is a real danger that such abuse may continue.
At present, there are clear legal responsibilities on persons working with children to report complaints or allegations of abuse to the relevant authorities in order to protect potential victims. Has the Minister had time to clarify the legal responsibilities of members of the board in the event of information being brought to their attention that a person holds a position in which he or she may potentially continue to abuse children in his or her care? What is being done to ensure action will be taken where necessary?
Deputy Shortall is correct about the amendments, they are very similar.
Can we agree to group them?
Deputy Shortall has raised this matter on numerous occasions and I support her. The State has a responsibility to ensure that the type of abuse that occurred in the past can never happen again. If information comes to light when evidence is being given to the redress board that could ensure such abuse does not occur in future, then it should be used for that purpose. It will probably be a rare occurrence but it may happen. If somebody who has been accused of wrongdoing or abuse is still working in an institution or a similar area, then there is a responsibility to investigate and use information that is given to the redress board.
In effect, we are discussing the two amendments together because Deputy Creed raised the issue and Deputy Shortall quite rightly said that it also arise later. The purpose of section 17 is to encourage witnesses to the redress board to be as open as possible in their evidence. It is to a large extent a provision to prevent self-incrimination. There is some misunderstanding that the section provides an immunity from prosecution or prevents subsequent civil actions. It does neither but provides only that statements made before the board and documents prepared for the board cannot be used against the person making the statement or preparing the document in subsequent proceedings. There is nothing to prevent any other documents or statements being used in later proceedings. Deputy Creed's amendment would effectively remove the protection against self-incrimination and cause witnesses to refuse to provide information.
I have sympathy with the issue raised by Deputy Creed and agree to look at this further on Report Stage. As Deputy Shortall said, amendment No. 88 deals with this issue and the reason why the Bill does not contain provisions of the kind which the Deputy proposes is because the redress board will make no inquiry outside the hearings of the board into the facts of an allegation. The focus of the inquiry will be on the injury claimed and, in those circumstances, the board is unlikely to be aware of the kind of situation to which the Deputy refers. That said, it is possible that in the course of a hearing information may come to the board. As Deputy Coveney said, in exceptional cases an alleged abuser may still pose a potential risk to children. In that situation, I would share Deputy Shortall's concern if the board were required to overlook the situation.
I would like to consider the situation further and take legal advice on it. At present, it seems to me that provisions along the lines of section 28 of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000, may also be appropriate in this context and I will return to that on Report Stage. I recognise that there is an issue here that we need to deal with on Report Stage. The way it is dealt with in the Child Abuse Act is that where there is a risk, confidentiality does not apply. That is provided for under section 28(2). We will look at that on Report Stage if that is acceptable to the Deputies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 70 will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 26, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".
These amendments concern the giving of evidence where the section deals with the giving of evidence under oath. I am proposing that as an alternative to swearing an oath, witnesses would make an affirmation. This is fairly standard practice and I hope the Minister will accept the point.
I accept these amendments.
Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 69, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 30, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 14, before section 19, to insert the following new section:
"19.—The Board shall establish such procedures as it considers appropriate through which a claimant who has received an award may be given advice as to financial management of the award.".
We discussed this amendment substantially with amendment No. 43 in the name of Deputy Creed. As I stated then, we have a duty to assist survivors to manage their awards without necessarily interfering with their decisions. It is entirely within the spirit of the Bill to offer recipients the option of financial advice to help them put their awards to the best use in rebuilding their lives. Recipients must be free to avail of the advice or not as they see fit and, if advice is given, it is a matter for people to accept or reject it.
I welcome this amendment. A word of caution must be voiced to the Minister if what we are proposing is free access to financial management. That is not sufficient because there are individuals who would be intimidated by the prospect of going to their local bank manager to get financial advice. We need to support these individuals in a way with which they are comfortable. I would like the Minister to clarify that point but I am happy with the principle of the amendment.
I agree with the Deputy. We want simple financial advice and I will certainly convey the views of the Deputies to the board in that regard. The board will be responsible for this and it needs to be done in such a way as to fit within the context of what is happening. There is no question of people being sent off to a bank manager. We want to implement this provision to the best possible advantage of the victims.
It is important that the advice be independent. The board should take cognisance of that when the Minister goes back to it with the committee's views.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 14, subsection (1)(a), line 34, after “award” to insert “or interest earned on an award”.
I will have this matter further inquired into with the Revenue Commissioners and will return to it on Report Stage.
It is clear that the Minister understands the purpose of the amendment. We are trying to be generous here by adding to the advantages of getting an award in giving tax-free interest to the victims on the moneys they receive for redress. I am happy to withdraw the amendment in light of the Minister's undertaking.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 15, subsection (5), line 21, after "person," to insert "including a religious order or church,".
We want to include more accurate wording in subsection (5) and to insert "including a religious order or church," after the word "person". That would make the section more complete.
The definition is a legal one from the Office of the Attorney General. The amendment is not necessary. In law, a "person" encompasses religious orders and churches. It can be a person sole or a person corporate, if I remember correctly. The Deputy should have no fears about it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "a report" and substitute "an annual report".
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are connected. They would ensure the publication of an annual report as opposed to publishing one at the Minister's request. As the redress process will continue for some time, we want to ensure reports are published regularly. That is why we want the words "annual report" to replace the word "report" and, if necessary, the phrase "at such a time as the Minister directs" should be included.
I agree with the sentiment in the proposal and will return to that amendment on Report Stage.
To be helpful in that regard, it would be acceptable if the Minister included, on Report Stage, the words "an annual report" and, if necessary, "when the Minister directs".
In addition, the words "such reports as the Minister would direct".
That would be satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 16, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
"(1) The Board shall pay to an applicant to whom it has made an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 13) a reasonable amount for expenses incurred by him or her relating to the preparation and presentation of the application as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(2) The Board shall pay to an applicant who accepts an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section 13) the costs of any proceedings instituted by that applicant and to which the waiver under section 11(6) applies as shall be agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where expenses or costs are agreed or taxed regard shall be had to any expenses and costs concerning—
(a) the proceedings referred to in subsection (2), or
(b) a submission to the Investigation Committee,
for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such expenses or costs is not made more than once.
(4) In subsection (3) "Investigation Committee" has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2000.".
It is important that survivors of abuse do not feel disadvantaged in deciding whether to access the redress board and whether to accept an award. While these issues are to be decided by each person, they also involve law and legal precedent in terms of the amount of an award. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the reasonable legal and medical costs of an application should be met as part of the redress process.
Concern has also been voiced by some survivors of abuse, and even more trenchantly by their solicitors, that the process of determining costs before the commission to inquire into child abuse places them at a disadvantage. This is so even though the costs in any one case could exceed £3,000. The commission has expressed its concern to me that this issue is hampering its work as some solicitors are advising their clients not to participate in the commission's proceedings. This is regrettable and, ultimately, the victims of abuse will lose out. To avoid this outcome, I propose completion of consultation with the commission to bring forward on Report Stage an amendment that will allow for a taxation-of-costs approach to be adopted also at the commission. This will, once and for all, end the disputes over costs and allow the commission to proceed unhindered with its work.
I also take this opportunity to inform the committee that I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which will expedite the work of the commission. The commission has written to me outlining a very lengthy timescale for completion of its work under current arrangements. It has proposed alternative arrangements involving the making of preliminary findings by additional personnel, which will greatly assist the work of the investigation committee. It is my intention to propose amendments to the commission Bill on Report Stage.
I want to ensure the public purse does not pay on the double or treble. In many cases, three sets of proceeds will arise, a civil action before the courts, evidence to the commission, and evidence to the redress board. All these relate to the same issues and work done for one forum will translate into the others. This amendment will ensure that regard is had to civil proceedings and commission proceedings when setting costs for the redress board.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendments Nos. 80 to 86, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 16, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Records disposed of in accordance with subsections (5) and (6) shall be disposed of in a confidential manner and on a date not earlier than 5 years after the date of creation of the record.".
This amendment relates to the prohibition on the disclosure of information and what happens to the information the board receives during its sitting. The reason for the insertion of a subsection (7) is to allow for a further review. Where, for example, further cases are brought to the attention of the authorities, the insertion of this amendment would ensure the information in the possession of the board cannot be disposed of immediately and that it can be held for a period of five years. I hope the Minister will accept it.
It would be better for the board to determine how and when the records are disposed of. The board is in the best position to know the contents of the records and to decide on their disposal accordingly. The Deputy has included the phrase "not earlier than 5 years". She said the records should be kept for five years. It might be desirable to keep some of the records for much longer than that and then include them in the archives. I do not have a fixed view on the matter. We will look at it for Report Stage and see if we can arrive at a formula that might meet the Deputy's needs. I do not want five years to become the norm when it might be desirable to have a longer period. I do not want to tie the hands of the board.
I do not think anybody is trying to do that. It should be at least five years to ensure they are not disposed of six months after the hearings.
I will look at the issue for Report Stage.
In support of Deputy Shortall, what is being proposed here is a system whereby victims would know before and after they give evidence that there is a five year window for them to access that evidence again should they need it. If they are not happy with the level of redress, for example, they could access it. It is important for victims and their legal teams to have that clarity before the process starts. There is no suggestion that records would be disposed of before the five year period. If the board wants to keep them for much longer, there is nothing in this amendment that would prevent that. I support the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 16, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing the Board shall, where they make an award, report to a member of the Garda Síochána particulars of a complaint in respect of a person who continues to have functions in relation to the care of children.".
We have already discussed this and on the basis of the Minister's undertaking I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 16, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
"23.—(1) In this section a 'relevant body' means the Board or the Review Committee as the case may be.
(2) Subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, a relevant body may, from time to time, appoint such and so many persons to be employees of that relevant body as it thinks fit.
(3) An employee of a relevant body shall be employed on such terms and conditions as that relevant body, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine.
(4) A relevant body shall pay to its employees such remuneration, fees and allowances for expenses as the relevant body, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine.".
This provides that the Redress Board and the review body may appoint staff subject to control as to numbers, terms and remuneration, by the Ministers for Finance and Education and Science. It is a normal inclusion.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
Sections 24 to 26, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 27
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 35, after "regulations" to insert "approved by the Oireachtas".
This is a straightforward amendment. It is about accountability to the Oireachtas. If the Minister feels the need, by regulation, to interfere or to take action that he or she would do so with the approval of the Oireachtas. I think it is a fair and simple amendment.
Generally I do not like that approach because it can prolong actions as there are only so many Dáil sitting days. This amendment means any proposal would have to come before the Oireachtas to be considered. The laying of the regulations is provided for in section 28 which states, "Every regulation under this Act shall be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is made by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." The amendment would require that the regulation be voted on in any event. I would be concerned we might end up with a delay that we do not want. If the regulation is laid on the table of the House within 21 sitting days everybody is notified. If there is a concern people can vote against it . Under this amendment the regulation could not come into operation until a vote took place and that would cause a delay. That is normally the concern about such an amendment.
I understand what the Minister is saying. However, our point is that the regulations will take effect within that 21 day window. If the Oireachtas had a problem with that, the regulations would still have been in effect for three weeks. Is that correct? I am seeking clarity here.
Yes they would.
What we are trying to do is ensure the Oireachtas is consulted before any change in regulations would happen as opposed to the Oireachtas taking a vote on them after they had already changed.
There is a very practical alternative, it means the job cannot be continued. If the people who are waiting to receive benefits are not happy with it, we may have to go through that process. It is management by exception; there is a procedure if there is an exception or if something is wrong. Departments and Ministers do not set out to make bad regulations, they are consistent with what the legislation states. It means the process can proceed and be more efficient. If there is something with which a person is not happy, there is a mechanism available to do something about it within 21 sitting days. That is why most Acts have that provision rather than the other one. Otherwise, issues would become bureaucratically tied up and delayed. There may be cases where it is necessary but the mechanism is available for that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 18, after line 9, to insert the following Schedule:
"SCHEDULE
Artane Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dublin 5
Baltimore Fishery School for Senior Boys, Baltimore, Co. Cork
Benada Abbey Industrial School for Girls, Ballymote, Co. Sligo
The Bird's Nest Home, 19 York Road, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Carriglea Park Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Cottage Home, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire,Co. Dublin
Don Bosco House, Gardiner Street, Dublin 1
Family Group Home, Geevagh, Co. Sligo
Family Group Home, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal
Family Group Home, Wexford
Kirwan House, Ranelagh, Dublin 6
The Los Angeles Homes, Dublin
Miss Carr's Children's Home, 5 Northbrook Road, Dublin 6
Mount Carmel Industrial School for Girls, Moate,Co. Westmeath
Nazareth House, Sligo
Orphanage Schools, Convent of Mercy, Kells,Co. Meath
Our Boy's Home, 95 Monkstown Road, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Our Lady of Mercy Industrial School for Girls, Kinsale, Co. Cork
Our Lady of Succour Industrial School, Newtownforbes, Co. Longford
Our Lady's Industrial School for Girls, Ennis,Co. Clare
Pembrook Alms (Nazareth House) Industrial School for Girls, Tralee, Co. Kerry
Sacred Heart Home, Drumcondra, Dublin 9
Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, Co. Dublin
St. Saviour's Orphanage, Lr. Dominick Street, Dublin 1
St. Aidan's Industrial School for Girls, Newross,Co. Wexford
St. Aloysius' Industrial School for Girls, Clonakilty, Co. Cork
St. Anne's Industrial School for Girls, Booterstown, Co. Dublin
St. Anne's Reformatory School for Girls, Kilmacud, Co. Dublin
St. Ann's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Renmore, Lenaboy, Co. Galway
St. Augustine's Industrial School for Girls, Templemore, Co. Tipperary
St. Bernard's Industrial School for Girls, Fethard, Dundrum, Co. Tipperary
St. Bridgid's Industrial School for Girls, LoughreaCo. Galway
St. Clare's Orphange, Harold's Cross, Dublin 6
St. Coleman's Industrial School for Girls, Cobh/Rushbrook, Co. Cork
St. Columba's Industrial School for Girls, Westport, Co. Mayo
St. Conleth's Reformatory School for Boys, Daingean, Co. Offaly
St. Dominick's Industrial School for Girls, Waterford
St. Finbarr's Industrial School for Girls, Sundays Well, Marymount, Cork
St. Francis' Industrial School for Girls, Cashel, Co. Tipperary
St. Francis Xavier's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballaghadereen, Co. Roscommon
St. George's Industrial School for Girls, Limerick
St. John's Industrial School for Girls, Birr, Co. Offaly
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Boys, Passage West, Co. Cork
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Whitehall, Drumcondra, Dublin 9
St. Joseph's Orphanage, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Boys, Tralee,Co. Kerry
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Clifden, Co. Galway
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Liosomoine, Killarney, Co. Kerry
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Cavan
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Dundalk,Co. Louth
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Kilkenny
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Mallow,Co. Cork
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Girls, Summerhill, Athlone, Co. Westmeath
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Ferryhouse, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Glin, Co. Limerick
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Greenmount, Cork
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Letterfrack, Co. Galway
St. Joseph's Industrial School for Senior Boys, Salthill, Co. Galway
St. Joseph's Reformatory School for Girls, Limerick
St. Kyran's Industrial School for Junior Boys, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow
St. Laurence's Industrial School for Girls, Sligo
St. Laurence's Industrial School, Finglas, Dublin 11
St. Martha's Industrial School for Girls, Bundoran, Co. Donegal
St. Mary's Industrial School, Lakelands, Sandymount, Dublin 4
St. Michael's Industrial School for Girls, Wexford
St. Michael's Industrial School for Junior boys, Cappoquin, Co. Waterford
St. Mura's Orphanage, Fahan, Co. Donegal
St. Patrick's Industrial School for Boys, Upton, Cork
St. Patrick's Industrial School for Junior Boys, Kilkenny
St. Vincent's Industrial School, Goldenbridge, Inchicore, Dublin 8
St. Vincent's Orphanage, Glasnevin, Dublin 9
St. Vincent's Orphanage, North William Street, Dublin
St. Vincent's (House of Charity) Industrial School for Junior Boys, Drogheda, Co. Louth
St. Vincent's Industrial School for Girls, Limerick
Tabor House, Dublin
Trudder House, Newtownmountkennedy,Co. Wicklow".
As we mentioned earlier we may have some amendments to this on Report Stage.
I wish to raise an issue that came up at the previous sitting. The Minister stated that only those persons who were in institutions on foot of a court order would be covered by the legislation. I take it the Minister is reconsidering that. Clearly in the other categories we have raised — which the Minister is considering for Report Stage — such as those in orthopaedic hospitals, foster care and day schools, there are persons who would not necessarily have been placed by way of court order. I take it everything is up for grabs at this stage in terms of the categories of persons. It is unusual for us to be taking a vote on the addition of a schedule to a Bill which limits the categories. We are taking that decision today on the undertaking the Minister has given to us to review the categories and return on Report Stage with further categories of persons or institutions which will be covered by the Bill. I would like the Minister to clarify that for us.
We discussed this as we went through the Bill in detail. The Deputy is right, those issues are being considered for Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 98, inclusive, not moved.
Why is amendment No. 95 out of order?
It is one of a number of amendments that involves a potential charge on the Revenue as it seeks to extend the benefits of the Bill to persons who were not resident in institutions.
"Resident" has a meaning attributed to it in the Bill which covers some of the issues about which the Deputies might be concerned.
Title agreed to
Bill reported, with amendments.
Before concluding, I thank the Deputies for their detailed consideration of this very important legislation. I regard the issues raised as important and we will examine those we said we would on Report Stage. I wish the Chairman, staff and Deputies a happy new year since this is our first meeting of the new year.
I thank the Minister and his officials and the members for their contributions.
As the Minister said, this is complex legislation and as a number of substantial areas have yet to be decided on, I ask that we have a copy of the Minister's amendments for Report Stage at least three days in advance of the debate taking place. Previously, we have received substantial amendments on the morning of a debate which is unsatisfactory because members have not had time to give them adequate consideration. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and that we would be given adequate notice.
From my party's point of view this legislation has been emotive and at times difficult. The Minister has undertaken to consider a number of serious issues and questions before Report Stages and for that reason it is important that we have time to assess what the Minister proposes to do on Report Stage. I echo Deputy Shortall's request for a three day period before Report Stage.
As Opposition spokespersons, will we have access to the detail of the report in relation to the levels of redress shortly after the Minister or will we have to wait to see that three days before Report Stage?
As I said when earlier, as soon as I have been to the Government with it, I will make it available.
Will that be in the next fortnight?
Yes, I hope to have it within the next week but hopefully within a matter of a few days. I have not seen it yet.
I have compiled a body of work in respect of my work as rapporteur for the Committee in respect of physical education. The Minister has given the imprimatur previously that we could advertise nationally for comments or observations from the public. I ask if we can insert them in the national newspapers next week so that those outside the committee might also have an opportunity to air their views.
I join the Minister in wishing the committee a very happy and prosperous new year.