Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputies Gogarty and Crowe. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. As the Minister said, the background to this legislation and to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 is the reality of serious child abuse having taken place in homes and institutions funded by the State and, in effect, to a large extent run by it. In 1999, we all welcomed the apology on behalf of all of us by the Taoiseach for what had taken place during those years and the scale of abuse which residents had to endure over a long period.

Like others, I am concerned the process is so slow. It is sad that even if we start with the Taoiseach's apology in 1999, the process will not be complete until at least 2008. The Minister said in her speech that it is the intention of the commission to report before May 2008, a timespan of nine years. On an issue such as this where victims need closure and to put these difficulties behind them, a timespan in that range is too long by half.

I hope this legislation goes through the Oireachtas speedily and that the necessary amendments will be made. When dealing with the previous legislation I expressed my concern about the Department of Education and Science as the sponsoring Department for this legislation because of the serious conflict of interest with its involvement. There is no doubt that the role of the Department in funding, managing and running some of these homes and institutions gives rise to a conflict of interest as has been indicated by the difficulties in getting information and files from the Department over the past number of years.

I am aware survivor groups have looked at and are concerned by this legislation. They have indicated a number of amendments they would like to see made. They have requested a meeting with the Minister and I have been asked to reiterate that request. I hope the Minister will meet representatives of the survivor groups as requested and that she will take on board some, if not all, of their amendments.

There are welcome aspects to this legislation, one of which is the extension of the definition of abuse. It will now be open to the commission "to make a finding of abuse where it might be reasonable to assume that acts or omissions concerned caused serious harm to the person". I welcome that provision and also the provision under sections 27 and 28 of the principal Act whereby information coming to the commission or its committees required to be forwarded to the Garda Síochána has been amended so that any information which would lead to a serious offence carrying a period of imprisonment of at least one year must be brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána. Previously only offences that carried a five year sentence had to be reported to the Garda. This is a welcome change.

Survivors of abuse have serious concerns with regard to section 4 of the Bill which changes:

the functions of the Commission in a number of respects. It extends the functions to include a duty on the Commission to inquire into the manner in which children were placed in institutions and the circumstances in which they continued to be resident there.

The survivors would like to see significant amendments to this section. They feel the wording is too vague. It should be more specific, particularly following the public statements by Mr. Justice Seán Ryan in May 2004. He said: "The Commission ought to examine the 'role of the Courts' in placing children in the institutions."

The survivors also feel the wording "to inquire into the manner in which children were placed" in these institutions is no improvement and does not meet the assurances given by the former Minister, Deputy Woods, in the Dáil in April 2000. In addition the wording "the circumstances in which they continued to be resident" could mean anything and is, therefore, meaningless. It does not amount to the assurances given that the role of the Executive in keeping children detained against the wishes of parents would be examined. It must be appreciated that the Minister exercised statutory powers under various Children Acts and there is evidence of improper use of those powers. Therefore, to allay fears and give full expression to undertakings already given, section 4 should be amended and changed leaving no room for doubt that the commission intends to investigate the role of the courts and the Executive arm of Government which exercised statutory powers. The survivors want to see the role of the courts in placing children in these institutions and the role of the Department and the Government in that process investigated thoroughly. They feel Mr. Justice Seán Ryan's stated aim to examine the role of the courts justifies the amendment they propose in this regard.

Survivors of abuse also have difficulty with section 22 which deals with the Education Finance Board. They want the substitution of the term "relative" by the word "families". The €12.7 million contribution from CORI envisaged financial assistance to survivors and their "families". Survivors believe the use of the word "relative" in the Bill is too wide and that in view of its interpretation within the amendment proposals, it will create criteria that will allow persons who were never in an institution, or even in Ireland, to make grant applications to the board on the same basis as those who spent years in industrial schools and suffered educational deprivation arising from that. The integrity of the fund should be protected and parties not originally envisaged by the CORI contributors or who are not blood issue or legally adopted children of survivors should not be invited to participate in the process.

Survivors want the Bill to make clear in section 25 what is meant by "educational services". This should not be left for interpretation by others at a later date. Section 27(3) states: "The [finance] Board shall determine the criteria" for the fund. Survivors believe this should be done by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 29(2) provides that four of the members of the board shall be persons who are each former residents of the institutions. This should include a reference that such persons should sign a conflict of interest protocol and resign from any body or organisation connected with these matters to which such person belongs.

While I welcome this Bill, significant amendments are required if it is to meet the views of those centrally involved, namely the survivors of child abuse. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the amendments suggested by these groups and that she will agree to meet their representatives at an early date.

See this speech in context