Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

My argument is based on the timescale and date. It took the State years to accept its role in regard to the institutions. Brave journalists wrote about the situation and then we woke up to the fact that a problem existed. The State apologised and tried to make restitution.

It appears that the State is trying to save money. The Minister of State accepted that a cohort of people in Britain came forward. I suggest that a significant number, perhaps up to 100,000 people went to the United States. Not many applicants have come forward from there.

In many cases information about the redress board has come about from victims talking among themselves following chance meetings and hearing about what was happening in this country. People do not put themselves in a pigeon hole. They went through a certain amount of difficulty in the institution and they find it difficult to talk to people. Many victims do not talk to their families about what happened but they may talk to other people. Many have cut themselves off. This move will be seen as the State protecting itself. What emerged in the case of the Cloyne and Ferns reports is that it was not about the victims but the institution protecting itself. I accept the board has existed for many years but I worry that we are sending out the wrong signal to those victims with the closure of the redress board within a short period. What option is there for a person who decides to seek recompense for what he or she went through, other than the courts? The only ones who will gain from such an approach are barristers and such individuals rather than the victims. It is not a great forum for people to get recognition and tell their story. The redress board was established to allow people to tell their story. On that basis I call for an extension of the redress board. I accept the Minister of State cannot do it if his hands are tied. I wish to press the amendment.

See this speech in context