Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the outline by the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, of what has been a comprehensive undertaking by the State, in particular by the Department of Education and Skills and the Residential Institutions Redress Board. As the Minister of State indicated, this is a short two section Bill to enable the winding up of the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The board, which has done a considerable amount of good work, was established in December 2002 pursuant to the Residential Institutions Redress Act of the same year. The original closing date for receipt of applications was 15 December 2005. However, prudently, the Government had included section 8 which allowed the redress board to extend the period for receipt of an application in exceptional circumstances and required it to extend the period when it was satisfied that an application was under a legal disability. That measure in the legislation was very good.

The Bill removes the board's power to consider applications made after 16 September 2011. I hope the Government has given final and detailed consideration and that it is satisfied that all potential applications will have been addressed. As the application process has been under way for approximately nine years I hope all outstanding and worthy applications have been dealt with. The importance of the work is clear when one considers the large number of claims and the veracity of the overwhelming majority of the claims based on the high rate of approval. In response to a parliamentary question I tabled I was informed that by the end of May of this year the board had processed 14,592 of the 15,135 applications received. A total of 13,669 awards had been made and the average payment was over €62,000. The value of the scheme, the need for it, and the fact that it was long overdue is evident when one considers that the overall expenditure has already exceeded €1.1 billion.

The Minister of State indicated that the imminent closing date for applications will be advertised in national newspapers and in some British publications as well. I hope the network of Irish communities abroad will be used to ensure that potential applicants are aware of the finalisation of the scheme. In this House and the public service in general we often think an advertisement in a national newspaper, the broadcast media or on the website of the relevant Department or agency is adequate but we must be conscious that everyone does not buy a national newspaper or have access to websites. It is important to use the best possible mechanism to disseminate the information. It is important also that the advocacy groups will be active as well. I am sure they will ensure that any of the people with whom they have been in contact who have not made an application but are potential applicants will be made aware of the closing date for applications. The Department is good at news management and I am sure it will be able to disseminate the information in the relevant print media as well.

The Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, referred briefly to the Commission of Investigation and the Report into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne. Along with others, I compliment Judge Yvonne Murphy and her colleagues in the commission for their detailed and painstaking work which has given us a very comprehensive report. The report is shocking. I wish to express my shock and outrage at the full horror outlined in it. Deputy Ó Cuív and the Tánaiste referred to the matter in the House this morning. One clear message that emerges from the report is that the State must find a way of hearing victims across the entire country.

There is very little that any of us in this House or any public representative can say that will add to the testimony of the victims whose experiences are laid out in the report. It had to be a very difficult exercise for all who gave their testimony. I compliment those people. It is clear that what was done to those children was shocking; it was awful and it was unforgivable. The report is deeply distressing and it is additionally shocking that these wrongs were not committed in the deep past but in relatively recent times. The effort to cover up the abuse was appalling and the pain and full horror of the abuse of trust will leave people across the country deeply upset and angry, as we are aware from speaking to people.

In January 2009 the Government extended the remit of the Dublin commission of investigation to examine the diocese of Cloyne and the terrible and welcome clarity of the report vindicates the decision to establish the enquiry in the first instance. The challenge for politicians from all parties and for all statutory agencies is to not only ensure that such an intolerable situation can never be allowed to develop again. We must build on the work that has been done and establish a framework to ensure that the voices of victims across the country can be heard. I have only had an opportunity to have a quick perusal of the Cloyne report but the three commissions to date have established the scale of the crimes within three dioceses. The voices of victims from across the country must be heard.

The Minister for Justice and Equality has stated that further investigation should be reviewed on completion of the HSE's audit of dioceses and the national review by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church, both of which have been under way for some time, and when the response of the church to the commission's report can be fully evaluated. I hope those necessary evaluations can be undertaken as early as possible in the autumn and that a further investigation if necessary should be initiated without delay.

We hope further investigations will not be necessary and that the HSE's and the Catholic Church's own reports will be comprehensive, detailed and accurate.

I welcome the measures outlined by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, and we look forward to getting further details on the initiatives to which they referred yesterday. The Fianna Fáil Party will continue to play its part in a constructive way, building on the work we have done to date and working in the best interests of victims while ensuring their voices are heard. I want to refer to the people who shared their experiences and made the Cloyne report possible. That had to be a difficult task for every individual involved. I also pay tribute to Judge Murphy and her fellow commissioners and all who worked on this particularly distressing report.

Some years ago, society in general would have thought the wrongs that were highlighted were committed in the deep past, but this is clearly not the case, as the Cloyne report indicates to us. The State must ensure the safety of children is not put in danger by any organisation. I welcome the Government's commitment to put the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis. All State agencies must work together with clarity in following and implementing the guidelines. There must be consistency and uniformity across the State and the guidelines must be implemented throughout the country in the best interests of children.

As I mentioned earlier, the remit of the Murphy commission, which investigated clerical abuse in the Dublin archdiocese, was extended to include Cloyne in January 2009 following publication the previous month on the Cloyne diocesan website of a report by the Catholic Church's own child protection watchdog, the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland, which found child protection practices there to be inadequate and in some respects dangerous. The Government at that time asked the commission to investigate the handling of clerical child sexual abuse allegations in Cloyne by church and State authorities between 1 January 1996 and 1 February 2009. The timescale was based on the fact that the church's first published guidelines - its framework document - became operational in January 1996. This again demonstrates the shocking point that the period covered by that investigation is relatively recent.

The establishment of the Residential Institutions Redress Board in 2002 was a welcome development. Its purpose was to provide fair and reasonable financial awards to victims of institutional childhood abuse. I understand from a recent parliamentary question that the total expenditure approved by the board was €1.008 billion, which included €847 million in awards and €161 million in associated medical and legal costs. My understanding is that the average award was more than €62,000 and the expected expenditure, according to the Minister, is in the region of €1.1 billion. The scope of the work is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a total of 139 institutions were included in the Schedule of specified institutions to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.

As public representatives, we have all been contacted by individuals who made application to the redress board or by different groups advocating on their behalf. The people who spoke to me had really distressing stories to tell, and this was the first time an opportunity had been given to them to tell their story to an agency that would listen to them - and, indeed, to the State. That process was long overdue and badly needed.

I trust the Minister and the Government, in deciding to introduce this legislation, are satisfied that this project, as such, is nearing completion and that deserving cases will not be denied their rights. I hope the Minister, in replying on Second Stage, will be able to reassure us in that regard.

The redress board was established under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to make fair and reasonable awards to persons who, as children, were abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories and other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection. The board set about its work, dealing with applications in the strictest confidence and conducting all its hearings in private. At the time of its establishment, the board clearly specified who would be entitled to apply for redress. It stated that if a person was resident in an industrial school, reformatory school, children's home, special hospital or similar institution while under the age of 18 and was subjected to sexual, physical or emotional abuse or serious neglect while resident in that institution, that person would be entitled to compensation. The residential institutions listed in the Schedule to the Act were all over the country.

The provision in the original Act to enable the board to accept late applications was obviously a good and prudent one. Five years further on from the original deadline, a further 1,260 applications had been submitted. The Bill setting up the board was published by the then Department of Education and Science in June 2001, just two years after the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, apologised to victims of physical and sexual abuse in reformatories and industrial schools for which the State had responsibility. That apology, on 9 May 1999, followed the broadcast of a television series dealing with these important and distressing issues. The legislation was described at the time as a Bill providing for the setting up of a residential institutions redress board which would pay appropriate compensation to successful applicants without the need for court appearances. Importantly, at that time, it was decided that the amount of compensation to be paid out by the redress board would be open-ended. It was not a case of dividing a finite amount of money by the total number of successful applications. I have heard criticisms from some quarters that the numbers who made successful applications to the board far exceeded the original estimate. In fairness to the Departments and agencies involved, it would have been extremely difficult to estimate with any accuracy the likely participation in such a scheme. Of course, the establishment of the scheme was the catalyst in informing people of their rights and their entitlement to compensation.

I understand an expert committee was established to decide on the types of payment to be made, depending on the severity and extent of the abuse and its long-term effects upon the victim. It was also appropriate that provision was made to have interim payments on hardship grounds. The expert committee quite rightly stated the redress board would have to operate with sensitivity and flexibility in processing applications, and I trust this has happened.

At the time, the then Minister stated the experts' report provided a sound basis for a fair system of financial awards to people who suffered injury as a result of abuse while in care. He further added that the State incarcerated people in those institutions for very flimsy reasons - being born out of wedlock, being absent from school, or being an orphan. That background to the admission, including the compulsory admission, of so many people to institutions is shocking. Those innocent people were being admitted to dark and grey institutions, and many suffered for years. I remember speaking to a former resident of an institution in Dublin. He recalled the horrors to which he was also subjected when he was employed by private employers at Easter and Christmas and during the summer. Sadly, abuse was perpetrated in the private sector and in the community by some heartless and terrible employers.

In January 2003, the advertising campaign commenced, urging victims of institutional abuse to make contact with the redress board that had been established to assess compensation claims. My recollection is that there were radio and television advertisements and also advertisements in the print media. I know that some time later there was concern that the campaigns had not reached out adequately to the Irish population in Britain.

Many efforts were made to ensure members of that community were fully informed of the purpose of the scheme, its extent and the mechanisms to make an application to it. I also recall the various advocacy groups addressing the education committee about their experiences and assisting in getting the message out to those affected. It is hoped that information dissemination has been as successful and comprehensive as possible.

Applications for the compensation scheme exceeded the Government's original estimates less than a year into its operation. The advertising campaigns undertaken in late 2003 in Australia and the United States were adequate. I hope the relevant Irish networks in all those countries were used to bring this information to potential applicants. I note that in December 2005 one of the advocacy groups had sought an extension of three months for the deadline to submit applications. A practical and understanding approach has been taken with the completion of the scheme.

In May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, stated on behalf of the State that the Government wished to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of child abuse. Too many children, he stated, had been denied the love, care and security to which they were entitled. He also said that abuse had ruined their childhood and had been an ever-present part of their adult lives. He emphasised that the Government believed they were gravely wronged and the State must do all it could to overcome the lasting effects of their ordeals.

Those statements by the Taoiseach were long overdue on the part of the State. Substantial numbers of late applications arose following the publication of the Ryan report in 2009. The then Government and the Dáil called on the religious congregations to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. Considerable work was undertaken by an independent panel and the former Government outlined that the overall cost of the response to residential institution abuse should be shared on a 50-50 basis between the taxpayer and those responsible for those residential institutions. I hope the Minister for Education and Skills can make quick progress in resolving these outstanding issues.

In April 2010, the then Government announced its proposals to use €110 million of the offers of contributions to be made by the religious congregations to establish a statutory fund. A wide-ranging consultation process was undertaken with the survivor groups and the congregations with views on the scope of the fund widely sought. A diverse range of proposals were enunciated by the different groups.

An issue discussed in the House previously was the method of disposal of documentation gathered as a result of the work of the redress board. It is absolutely essential the records of the board are safeguarded and the privacy of applicants is not breached. Maintaining these records and maybe necessary access to them is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a confidential and sensitive manner.

The Ryan report made many recommendations such as the erection of a memorial and the provision of counselling, educational and family tracing services. Subsequently, an implementation plan for 99 specific recommendations was drawn up by the then Government. Will the Minister of State outline the extent of the implementation of these recommendations? I hope they are being implemented actively.

The provision of educational services for former residents is important. The Education Finance Board will be replaced under the new statutory fund. Have all the views of the different stakeholders been taken into account? Funding must also continue for the provision of counselling services, Barnardos providing its family-tracing service and the various outreach groups in Britain. This will ensure beneficial and effective support is given to those former residents. A range of views on the funding issue were expressed by the various advocacy groups at a 2010 meeting with the then Taoiseach. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made on these issues?

Survivors from Bethany Home have been active in putting forward their case to Members to be included in the redress scheme. Only a short time ago many Labour Party Members were their great advocates. Has any progress been made with the requests of this particular group?

Will provision be made in either legislation or regulation to ensure genuine and exceptional cases that arise subsequent to the final application dates can still be processed? If a statutory agency is dissolved but its functions need to be activated, the parent Department can assume them. If a provision in this regard is not contained in the Bill I am sure it could, if the Government were willing, be included in the legislation relating to the residential institutions statutory fund which, as the Minister of State indicated, is due to be published in the autumn.

The Residential Institutions Redress Board has done extremely important work. I compliment the chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Esmond Smyth, and everyone else who participated in the work to which I refer. I also compliment the advocacy groups and the many public representatives who worked with individuals and tried to assist them in dealing with an extremely difficult issue. Thankfully, the funding provided has been of great help in assisting people to return to some form of normality in their daily lives.

See this speech in context