Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 29 March 2012
96 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will ensure that further consideration will be given to the views of a number of groups who are concerned about the provision of services and assistance under the proposed statutory trust fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17419/12]
View answer97 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will ensure that further consideration will be given to the views of representative groups who are concerned that victims who did not receive assistance or support under the redress scheme will be denied access to the proposed statutory trust fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17420/12]
View answer98 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills the date on which he proposes to publish the legislation in respect of the establishment of the statutory trust fund; the proposed timescale he has for the establishment of the fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17421/12]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 96 to 98, inclusive, together.
Work on the drafting of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill which will provide for the establishment of the Statutory Fund, is currently being finalised and I expect to be in a position to publish it very shortly.
As set out in the General Scheme of the Bill, the Statutory Fund will focus solely on victims of residential institutional abuse, with eligibility being confined to those who received an award from the Redress Board or an award or settlement in court proceedings and who would otherwise have received an award from the Redress Board. While I am aware of concerns regarding the proposed eligibility provisions for the Fund, it is likely that in the region of 15,000 former residents will successfully complete the redress process. If eligibility were significantly widened to include, for example, all former residents of scheduled institutions, then the amounts available to fund services for individuals could be greatly reduced and the effectiveness of the Statutory Fund could be put at risk. Having considered this matter carefully I am satisfied that it is the correct approach, at this stage, to focus the Statutory Fund on those former residents who have successfully completed the redress process. Recipients of redress awards have been through a fair but thorough process. Provision is included in the General Scheme to allow Redress Board advise the Statutory Fund of the name, address and date of birth of award recipients. Such a provision will allow the Fund to confirm applicants' eligibility and minimise the administration associated with the Fund. Some former residents may, as was their right, have chosen not to make an application to the Redress Board but every encouragement was given to them to apply: there was extensive advertising of the Redress Scheme which has operated for some nine years. Of course, those former residents who will not eligible for assistance from the Fund can continue to avail of the National Counselling Service and the Family Tracing Service.
I would suggest that the issue of who is eligible to apply for assistance could be reviewed following the establishment of the Statutory Fund in the event of the applications to the Fund not resulting in a significant expenditure of the Fund. I am aware that some former residents advocated a simple distribution of the available money rather than the establishment of the Statutory Fund. However, as I outlined when I published the legislative proposals, I believe that the Fund should target resources at services to support former residents' needs. The General Scheme provides for a wide range of services to be approved for the Fund including counselling, psychological support services and mental health services, health and personal social services, educational services and housing services.
