Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate. The core issue that is causing concern, which I think is shared by Deputy Thomas Byrne of Fianna Fáil, is that if, as provided for in this Bill, we expand the scheme to people who did not apply to the redress board, we would be expanding it substantially to a new category of applicant. There is serious concern as to whether we can meet the needs of people who were designated to be eligible and for whom the legislation was introduced.

7 o’clock

Deputy Coppinger raised a number of concerns as to why there should be any restriction on how this money is used and whether it should just be disbursed to those eligible without any restriction. It was decided by the Oireachtas in 2012 that there should be certain categories of recipients, with moneys allocated according to needs. The new scheme was to be different from the arrangement under the previous scheme in that it was designed to meet needs that arose and specified the different areas within which those needs would be categorised. That gave rise to a process of application and decision-making as to how those applications were processed. There have been a substantial number of applications, running to several thousand each year. The latest figure I have is that there were a total of 13,000 applications to the board. While the number of appeals has doubled, it is 99 appeals against a total of 13,000 applications. The board worked with the appeals officer to respond to concerns raised and that work will continue.

I agree with the approach set out by Deputy Thomas Byrne. We need to have clarity on the scale of demand that would be imposed upon the fund by the various extensions proposed by Deputy Daly. The review we have initiated is timely in that respect and will clarify many of those points on a professional basis. We will then be in a position to decide whether there should be extensions, on what basis they should be given, whether moneys should, as the Deputy suggests, go to spouses and children for certain needs, or whether funding should go to a whole range of new people who did not apply under the original scheme.

I thank Deputy Daly for sponsoring the Bill. We must ensure we do the very best possible for the people affected by these issues. At the same time, under any fair system for dealing with applications according to criteria set down by this House, there must be an element of evaluation of each application. I realise that can and is giving rise to concerns, but I am confident that through this debate, the ongoing review and the work with the appeals officer, continual improvement can occur. To be fair to Caranua, it did revise its rules in 2016 to respond to issues that had arisen and in an effort to improve procedures. That has to be a continuing feature of the activities of Caranua as it works with people who, as every Deputy recognises, have been extremely damaged through the neglect of the State and of institutions to the care of which they were committed at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. We must do our very best to support them while also respecting the need to ensure, in accordance with the decision of this House in 2012, we respond to needs on the basis of the case presented to Caranua and which is evaluated in as fair a way as possible. I hope we can continue to improve the service to those who need it.

See this speech in context