Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:“Dáil Éireann resolves that the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund (Amendment) Bill 2016 be deemed to be read a second time this day eight months, to allow for scrutiny between now and then by the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Skills and for the Committee to consider and hold hearings that have regard in particular to ensure that the proposed Bill:

(a) takes account of recommendations of the Review of Eligibility for Caranua (Residential Institutions Statutory Fund) which is ongoing and is expected to be concluded in July 2017;

(b) does not give rise to any unintended consequences that create any adverse impact on the 15,000 former residents who qualify for support under the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme and the 4,000 former residents currently availing of approved services provided by Caranua; and

(c) identifies and corrects any potential legal issues arising from definitions of eligibility and approved services in the Bill.”.

I welcome those present in the Gallery and thank all those who contacted Deputies on Caranua. I also thank Deputy Clare Daly for presenting this good and important Bill.

Public representatives frequently get into arguments with State bodies and it is very easy to slag them off. However, they have a job to do, which is sometimes difficult and not always understood. For this reason, I am not one to slag off State bodies and while I have not slagged off Caranua, I have found it to be a strange organisation with which to interact. In my limited dealings with the organisation, I have found that, unlike many other public bodies, it does not give Members direct access. Even the Minister acknowledged the difficulties survivors face in dealing with Caranua. I am glad he has done so because it is rare for Ministers to acknowledge such difficulties. This is a significant development and if there is one positive element to emerge from the debate, it is the Minister's acknowledgement of these difficulties. I sincerely hope that Caranua staff, who I assume are good people, are listening to this debate and will work out not only how to provide a service and deal with service users, but also how to deal humanely with people who have been grievously wronged by the State.

It bears repeating that the circumstances that forced the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, to issue an apology in 1999 were outrageous and barely believable. Unfortunately, the State adopted a bad element of the British system and grossly expanded it. In the 1940s and 1950s, foreign observers who would normally have been sympathetic to Ireland described this system as a national disgrace. The horrific circumstances that led to the former Taoiseach's apology informs this debate and clearly informed Deputy Clare Daly's Bill.

While virtually all aspects of the Bill are good, Fianna Fáil has a legitimate concern about expanding the number of people eligible for support under the redress scheme. It is worrying that the Minister and Deputy Clare Daly are unable to provide figures on the number of people who would be eligible to seek assistance from Caranua and its fixed and declining pot, as it were. This issue must be carefully examined. This can be done under the procedures of the House and the Bill will go for pre-legislative scrutiny, irrespective of whether my amendment is passed. The amendment proposes that such scrutiny will be undertaken by November at the latest. In truth, even without the amendment, I expect the Joint Committee on Education and Skills will need time to deal with the Bill. As Deputy Carol Nolan, a member of the committee, will agree, we are still dealing with legislation presented to the committee in July 2016 and we would like to complete that legislation.

It is worth giving the Bill careful consideration because if we expand the number eligible for assistance by an unknown quantity, it will have a negative impact on other people. We must think this through to ensure the definition is appropriate, as I assume it is. The number of people involved is unclear and must be studied carefully.

I like many of the other provisions. Deputy Clare Daly referred to the purposes for which grants or assistance can be provided and the Bill provides that age will be a ground for assessing applications. I agree with the sentiments the Deputy expressed on the purported aims of the legislation. The debate on Committee Stage will help to improve the Bill.

The requirement that all decisions be made within 28 days is not unreasonable, nor is it unreasonable to require in law that a State body process applications, which are generally relatively simple in scope, within a 28-day period. I look forward to working with Deputy Clare Daly when she appears before the committee. I undertake to do everything in my power on the committee to secure a slot for her Bill as soon as possible.

I assume Caranua is listening carefully this debate and the contributions of the Minister as well as of other Deputies who have essentially agreed with the Minister on the perception and reality of the service the organisation offers. I ask that it please change tack and consider a different approach to doing its work, as a State body, in the limited time available to it.

See this speech in context