David Norris (Independent)

It was a shoddy and disgraceful arrangement. However, it is in place. One of the most significant aspects of this Bill and of the Minister's attitude is that he has determinedly pursued the demand, not just on behalf of the survivors but the people, that there should be an equal sharing of the burden of compensation. I stand 100% behind the Minister in looking for a 50:50 arrangement between the State and the religious institutions. They are getting off lightly.

However, the State was also involved. The State sent people to these institutions knowing some of the conditions that obtained in them. The State sent children, who were not represented in court and who had committed no crime except to have been born, to these places.

For that reason, it is welcome that a monument will be erected. That could be seen as a gesture. In the beginning, I was undecided about it and wondered if this is merely another way of washing our hands in public. However, such monuments have a certain power.

For example, in visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, or on Holocaust Memorial Day, usually held in either City Hall or the Mansion House, with which the Minister is directly associated and which is always dignified, the reading of the names of the places where these events occurred is electrifying - Auschwitz, Belsen, Majdanek, Stuffhoff. There is the same kind of list here, with names like Letterfrack, Goldenbridge, Artane. It is astonishing for those of my generation who remember seeing the Artane Boys' Band in Croke Park. I thought how wonderful and fantastic it was that those young people were given this glorious opportunity to celebrate our Irishness and we were so lucky to have such institutions. I was stupid enough to believe that but I think an enormous number of Irish people felt like that.

I do not intend to revisit the Ryan and Ferns reports, etc. The records of this House will show that I spoke in detail on those. I spoke forensically, but not in any sectarian way. It is not appropriate to be sectarian or to batter particular churches, or even particular orders, because within each one of them there were good persons and there were also victims. I remember the days when I used to see crocodiles of 11 year old boys walking along, who had very little money but who had been enrolled into a free education on a kind of half-promise that they would join the priesthood before they ever had the opportunity, as mature adults, to reflect on what would be required of them. I remember hearing one man, who did not sexually abuse children but who physically punish them, his voice laden with emotion, state on RTE radio that he wanted to apologise for this. He had been a child when he was put in. His family would not allow him home. He came from a small farm in the west. He ran away and they sent him back stating that if he ever ran away again, they would disassociate themselves from him forever. He suffered there in that place. He got no instruction in how to teach except to belt the children with a strap, and he said he did. He managed to get out and he was given a £5 note, a cardboard suitcase and a second-hand suit. However, he got himself together, he got married and he had children, and he also is a survivor. I think that was a form of abuse, although I excuse nothing that was done. I have visited abroad where some of these orders have done good work. I have never believed in labelling any group. I would not categorise survivors of abuse. I would not categorise religious orders.

I want to raise a couple of questions with the Minister. By and large, it is a good Bill. Like others, I want to see something done for the survivors of the Magdalene laundries. This issue is under review. This is another shocking matter. Apparently, people did not realise it. I understand that, for example, laundry went at one stage in the 1950s from Áras an Uachtaráin. Obviously, if the first citizen did not know, it is simply bizarre.

The other issue is the inclusion in some way at some point of Bethany House. The former Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Reverend Dr. John Neill, wrote and asked that this should be redressed. That was an act of courage on his part. I attended a ceremony at a point in Mount Jerome Cemetery where there were 300 children buried in an unmarked grave.

I am glad that there is accountability. That is very important in financial matters.

The question of confidential information is to a certain extent covered. I am a little concerned about the question of the Freedom of Information Act being applied. I hope that this would not be done in any way that would impinge upon the rights and privacy of those involved.

With regard to the board, I trust this Minister but, usually, I am very much against the idea of a board being appointed. The balance is reasonable. I am glad that there are survivors.

Finally, I raise the exclusion of anybody who is nominated to Seanad Éireann for a particular reason. I mentioned Councillor Mannix Flynn. I see no reason for it and think this House would be enhanced if, for example, one of the survivors was in a position to stand for election. When the Senate is reconstituted, including the nominating bodies, perhaps the survivors of abuse should be one such body. The debates in this House, particularly on these continuing reports, would be enhanced rather than diminished by a representative voice which could speak authoritatively from that experience, rather than persons sitting in the Gallery.