Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, set out the Government's response to the Bill yesterday. Following the Ryan report, the Government met with the survivors and victims of child abuse. It also met with the congregations and explained to them that it would seek a substantial increase in the contribution they had previously made. As the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, in accepting the recommendations of the Ryan report it has fallen to me to formulate an implementation plan. I take advantage of this debate to update the House on progress and touch on some of the issues raised by Deputy Quinn's Bill and some of the comments made by Deputies on both sides.

We have set up a group in my office to draft the implementation plan and the response. There are people from my own office, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, HIQA, and the Health Service Executive. We are also getting input from the Department of Education and Science as some of the recommendations touch upon the work of that Department. We received 40 submissions. We are determined also that we will adhere to the principle expressed to us very simply by Paddy Doyle that "there would be nothing about us without us". We have tried to adhere to the principle that we will listen to what survivors have to say, feed into their experience since the report was published and reflect that in the final outcome of the implementation plan. We have also met recently with interested parties, including legal experts.

I want to touch on one of the aspects Deputy Lynch spoke about earlier. She has obviously met survivors in the United Kingdom many times and has vast experience of that. I was not aware of all of that. As she is aware, I met some survivors on Monday last. I do not claim to have any great insight as a result of that simple meeting but it is worth pointing out, and I mentioned this in public recently, that the late applications issue is something that has some compelling virtue. In particular I was struck by the fact that so many left this country and that so many would have had literacy problems. Many of them recoiled from the Irish centres that were supposed to be the source of information about redress, compensation and the commission because they were populated by members of religious orders. Many of them were decent people but one cannot imagine how difficult it would be for survivors to approach these centres.

While a great effort was made by the Department to try to publicise redress and the commission, the publicity that followed the Ryan report is vastly greater. The commission was on the front page of The New York Times. It was on CNN and every website and media throughout the globe, and there is no question but that some genuine late applications have come to the attention of both centres in the United Kingdom and here in Ireland. Some acknowledgement of that is what we must consider in due course.

Another issue that touches on areas I have been working on is the question of spent convictions. As Deputy Quinn will know, I have done some work on legislation in that regard already and the Children Act ensures that convictions arising would be wiped clean in any case. Equally, when the spent convictions legislation comes before the House for debate, that will provide an opportunity to accommodate the principles contained in Deputy Quinn's Bill at this stage.

I also met Lord Lamingthis week who is a child protection expert in the UK. It was interesting to note the great similarities in the problems the UK is experiencing in terms of child protection. The one legacy we want to leave is that what was contained and catalogued in the Ryan report was acted upon and that the voices expressed in that report did not go unheard.

Lord Laming said to me: "Whatever you do; do not do what we have done". Its own structures are wholly inadequate, in his view. He was the author of the reports on both Victoria Climbié and the Baby P tragedy but in both cases he pointed out that the inspection regimes need to be updated in the UK. Aftercare is a crucial issue.

One of the aspects that struck me was that we can say things have changed dramatically since the last century, and they have in many instances, but in some instances there is a depressing familiarity in that people with a care history tend to have to avail of the services of the justice system. They suffer from addiction and illiteracy, and that continues today. That is to our shame and that is the reason it is such an onerous task for me to try to come up with an implementation plan arising from that report. I want to underline my commitment to working with survivors throughout that preparation.

On the Bill itself, in principle there is much in it that is good. In due course we may be able to accommodate some of that but naturally we were criticised for doing the indemnity agreement too quickly, and there are some valid criticisms in that respect. Equally, it would be previous to accept all of the principles in this Bill without due consideration and without going through the processes we have already undertaken.

See this speech in context