Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Pringle.

Stolen innocence and a stolen childhood cannot be compensated for, no matter how much money is involved. The idea of the Residential Institutions Redress Board was to allow people to find ways to cope with the abuse they suffered.

This Bill seeks to wind down the Residential Institutions Redress Board, which has over approximately nine years paid close to €1 billion in financial awards to survivors of institutional abuse in Ireland. The board, over its lifetime, has helped to reveal an astonishing and shameful legacy of abuse across a range of institutions, particularly religious institutions. When it was first proposed as an independent mechanism for compensating abuse victims, it was envisaged that the redress scheme would cost approximately €400 million. I remember a great deal of discussion took place about the contribution that would be paid. In the years that have followed, the sum of €850 million appears to be closer to reality, which indicates the depth of the scandalous treatment of the residents of Irish institutions and the huge number of people affected, who reside in Ireland and elsewhere.

The Bill proposes to amend section 8 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to wind up the residential institutions redress board. The board was officially established in 2002 to make awards to the victims of childhood abuse in certain designated institutions. The original closing date for applications to the redress board was December 2005 but the Act allowed for late applications in exceptional circumstances. The Bill proposes 16 September as the closing date. This has come at a very bad time when one considers we are debating this in the same week that the Cloyne report has been published. The proposal to extend the scheme to 2013 is safe and not unreasonable.

We are still waiting for belated official apologies and appropriate compensation from institutions such as the Magdalen laundries and the Bethany Home. I worry there will be a late spike in applications for compensation to the redress board. Legitimate claims will go unheard and unaddressed. For many people, this is about more than seeking financial compensation, it is about being believed. They spent most of their lives not being able to say what happened to them because they did not think they would be believed. This apology is incredibly important and the mechanism to deliver it is the redress board.

In 2002, it was expected that Catholic religious orders would pay one third of the cost of the compensation scheme but in April 2010 the then Government announced the orders which ran the institutions would pay half the overall bill. This was a welcome development and an acknowledgement of the unambiguous responsibility the religious orders bore for the horrific abuse that took place in their institutions. However, it is clear from recent revelations that the true level of contribution offered by the religious orders falls far short of the 50:50 ratio. Based on recent estimates, it seems that €680 million will be paid by the orders and there is a shortfall of €200 million. This is a disgraceful state of affairs and it needs to be addressed.

I understand a significant amount of land and property has been sold in recent years by the religious orders. We should note they are free from paying tax because they are charitable institutions. If this money does not find its way to the State it creates a double problem.

It has also emerged that only two of the 18 congregations have made any additional offer to tackle the shortfall. The remaining congregations have made absolutely no additional offers to the Government. I find this shocking. This is about them taking responsibility and it would be a means of showing they are taking responsibility, as would a change in culture in the reporting of abuse.

The scheme has failed miserably to live up to expectations and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has expressed disappointment at the outcome. He is seeking to implement a legal mechanism whereby the title of school properties would be transferred to the State at the State's request giving it the power to intervene and stop the sale of such properties. This is a welcome development and I support it. However, the arrangement could throw up some complex legal issues and I call on the Minister to pursue as far as possible a means of finding the €200 million shortfall and not to allow these institutions to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

It is important not to forget the context in which today's debate is taking place. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, the report of the commission of investigation into the Catholic diocese of Cloyne was published, illustrating once again the horrific record of abuse in the Catholic Church and its utter failure to deal with complaints and allegations. I welcome the announcement that reporting will be made a legal obligation. It is absolutely necessary that we make sure this does not happen again.

Every time we receive a report like this old wounds are opened up and people who feel they have been coping find they are struggling again. It is very important that we consider at this time the adequacy of the counselling services provided for new complainants and those who have been hurt by the opening up of old wounds. There will be an increase in the numbers who present and it is important that they are properly dealt with.

The history of industrial schools is older than the State. My grandfather, along with some of his siblings, was in an industrial school in Carriglea House, which was a sister institution to Artane. That was under British rule and I believe he was liberated in 1910. Industrial schools were carried over from a previous environment. Children were sent to these schools because a parent died. They were told they would receive an education. We carried on some terribly bad practices and trusted people we had no entitlement to trust. What has come across is that irrespective of who commits abuse there are two common aspects: one is access to children and the second is putting people above question. We see people in all types of situations who have access to children and it is essential to put systems in place, which is why I welcome criminalising people for not complaining.

I am not religious but I know many good people in religious orders who are very hurt by the revelations of this week about the handling of complaints in the Cloyne diocese. We should not treat everyone the same. The institutional failure lets down these people as much as it lets down the people who were abused.

See this speech in context