Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)

The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill legislates for the provision of support for some of our most vulnerable citizens who, under the State-run institutions, suffered appalling mental, physical and sexual abuse. It left a harrowing legacy where lives were blighted and ruined, and the scars of the sadistic cruelty inflicted have never healed. The failure of successive Governments to protect the most vulnerable children and hold the abusers to account further compounded this dark and shameful period in Irish history.`

The cover-up of the religious orders and the State's refusal to acknowledge the extent of the cruelty being inflicted within institutions that were supposed to be a safe haven for children have had far-reaching implications. The Ryan report laid bare the scale of the systematic and widespread institutional abuse that had blighted so many lives over a number of decades. What it revealed and the conclusions it came to shocked a nation that had become increasingly numbed by scandals that discredited the once unassailable power and authority of the Catholic Church and the religious orders. It was a watershed moment that vindicated the efforts of the courageous survivors of abuse who had campaigned so vigorously for the truth about what had taken place in supposed institutions of care to be revealed.

When I have met and spoken to survivors their constant criticism has been the lack of meaningful consultation with the victims of abuse and the fact that little or no effort has been made to listen to what they had to say. Despite all the rhetoric in support of victims and the spilling of crocodile tears in recognition of their plight, more often than not survivors of abuse have been kept on the margins of the decision making process, with no credence given to what they want from the process of redress. Typically, their views have been ignored or sidelined and their rights as individuals have been denied. As evidence of this, it is clear that a straightforward way of consulting directly with survivors would have been to use the redress board's database which has the details of over 15,000 people who have previously made an application for recompense. This would have been the ideal mechanism for the Government to elicit the views of the people who suffered under the care of the State and to find out from them what they required and in what form. It would have been the ideal way to facilitate their input into shaping this legislation but, as has so often happened in the past, their views have been largely ignored and the decision on their behalf has been made without respect to their opinions or needs. This Bill is intended to provide support for a range of services, including access to housing, education and counselling, yet it does not allow for compensation to be paid directly to individual survivors who wish to receive compensation in the form of a lump sum payment.

I note the Minister's disappointment with the offers made to date by the religious orders and the fact that he continues to pursue a 50:50 division with the management bodies involved. He has suggested transfer of the ownership of the schools' infrastructure as one way of allowing those involved in the process the opportunity to shoulder their share of the cost. It is now incumbent on the Minister to ensure the religious orders and congregations honour their past commitments and pay their financial obligations in full. Their failure to do so to date has resulted in further hurt and anxiety for people who have already experienced too much suffering. It is clear that many of the services for which the Bill provides are already available to survivors, or they should be, as a matter of right. At a minimum, necessary procedures must be put in place so the victims of abuse can have preferential treatment when accessing health care and counselling facilities, as this is the type of enhanced provision that can make a meaningful difference.

Providing supports for children whose parents qualify under the redress Bill should be provided for in the legislation, as access to education can go some way towards enhancing an individual's opportunities and life chances. It is also the case that education plays an important role in helping families break the cycle of inter-generational abuse and can be a platform that enhances the life chances of children whose parents were themselves the victims of abuse.

Part 4 of the Bill dissolves the Education Finance Board and transfers its functions to the residential institutions statutory fund board to distribute the remaining €12.7 million contribution provided by the congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. The Education Finance Board has advised that it expects its funds to be fully allocated on applications received by the end of November 2011 and that it is not therefore in a position to process any applications received after that date. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that anybody who has benefited under the Education Finance Board will have the opportunity to complete their courses and that they will remain fully funded.

A serious flaw in the Bill is, of course, the eligibility criteria, which are currently confined to those who received an award from the redress board or compensation following a court decision or settlement. Former residents of scheduled institutions are also excluded primarily because, as the Minister has already stated, if eligibility were significantly widened, the amounts available to fund services for individuals could be greatly reduced and the effectiveness of the statutory fund placed at risk. He also went on to say that the question of reviewing the eligibility under the statutory fund could be considered following the establishment of the fund in the event of applications not resulting in a significant expenditure of the fund. What this simply means is that money is the deciding factor which will dictate who will be entitled to receive help should they need it. That is not good enough. Limiting access to redress in this way will exclude a significant number of people who for many reasons have been unable to access compensation. One difficulty with the redress fund was how best to communicate its existence to the thousands of survivors who would qualify for help but who, because they were widely dispersed throughout many countries, were unaware of its existence. It also is the case that many victims of abuse, scarred by their past experiences, left institutions with few or no literacy or numeracy skills and subsequently struggled to find gainful employment. Some turned to alcohol and substance abuse and ended up living lives on the margins of society far removed from the source of the communications that would have made them aware of the limited assistance that was being made available to them. Clearly, a newspaper advertising campaign informing people of the redress board that was restricted to a handful of countries could only reach a minority of survivors. It is wrong, therefore, that despite these flaws, the Government has sought to limit the eligibility of people who qualify for the redress fund. There also is a perception among many survivors that a significant amount of money paid through the redress board went to the legal profession to pay for fees or for people sitting on advocacy groups. It is important that every effort is made to ensure that resources made available to victims of abuse go directly to them and to their families.

Even more worrying has been the impact on people who went through the stressful and fraught process of gaining access to compensation, in which old wounds were reopened and the pain of past experiences was relived. From my own family's experience, my first cousin, Danny Ferris, was put into St. Joseph's institution at the age of 14 and a half years.

See this speech in context