Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)

I wish to share time with other Labour and Fine Gael Deputies.

I wish to make some comments on the statutory fund aspect of the Residential Institutions Redress (Amendment) Bill. Following on from the Ryan report of 2009, the proposal for a statutory fund was first mooted in the all-party motion passed by Dáil Éireann in May of that year, following the publication of the Ryan report. In light of the Cloyne report published this week and containing yet more horrific revelations about the behaviour of the Catholic Church and its clerics in Ireland, the question of the statutory fund must be raised again.

Apologies and pledges of future co-operation with the civil authorities by the Catholic Church have lost all credibility. The Cloyne report, the latest report by the Murphy commission, is a clear demonstration that this Government, and this House, must assert its authority and ensure the civil law prevails. It is a straightforward matter. The civil authorities oversee the rule of law in Ireland and canon law can have no place in the rule of law.

On 5 July this year, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, announced that the Government is proceeding with legislation to provide for the establishment of the statutory fund to support the victims of residential institutional abuse. That proposal follows a comprehensive consultation process undertaken by the Department of Education and Skills. That process involved meetings with the 18 religious congregations that were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement under the redress scheme, with groups representing survivors of the residential institutions where child abuse occurred, and a number of other interested parties.

To date, just over €21 million has been received and placed in a special interest bearing account in the Central Bank pending the establishment of the statutory fund. However, the remaining congregations are awaiting confirmation that the legislation will provide for the charitable status of their contributions to the fund or sight of the proposed terms and structure of the fund prior to making their final contributions. The offers of contributions envisaged that cash contributions would be made over a period of years.

In light of the Cloyne report, not only should more land should be removed from the control of the institutions that were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement around the country for the purpose of setting up the statutory fund but lands should be transferred from the control of the institutions and put under the control of the State to be used for community and social projects that cost the State money. That should be done where it is clear the land owned by the institutions is not in active use by those institutions. I am not suggesting the State should expropriate property that is in use.

By way of example I point to land owned by the Christian Brothers in my constituency for this latter purpose, namely, the former Christian Brothers novitiate building in Baldoyle. That building is still owned by the Christian Brothers. It is not used, and serves the Christian Brothers no purpose whatsoever. It is a vacant building. Fingal County Council had to contact the owners to ensure the building was properly secured. It remains unused.

I am of the view that the State should now take that building and use it for the benefit of the community in Baldoyle. Indeed, the Baldoyle Community Forum has no facility in Baldoyle village and is reduced to using a building in the nearby industrial estate. This would not be part of the statutory fund but it would relieve the State of the financial burden of the cost of providing buildings for community and other purposes.

See this speech in context