Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

I would like to acknowledge Deputy Neville's moving speech. He showed great understanding of and compassion for people who have been abused. I am familiar with his work in the area of suicide prevention. I am glad to have been present to listen to his contribution to this debate.

Following the publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, the congregations that managed the residential institutions were called on to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The word "reparation" can be associated with words like "repair" and "reparable" that involve setting things right, making amends, mending and compensating. When the Cloyne report was published, I had to read it in stages because I found it so grim and awful to read what was done and was allowed to be done by the church and the State.

Every country has had its dark moments. For the Jewish nation, it was the Holocaust. For the people of Cambodia, it was the Killing Fields. For the Balkan countries, it was the incidents in places like Srebrenica and Mostar. This country's darkest moment was obviously the Famine, but I suggest that the systematic sexual, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual abuse which was carried out by those in authority in the church, in the State and within families is in second place.

We should not forget that some of the deaths that took place in these institutions have not yet been explained. There is a sense in which those who are abused experience a form of death, in that part of a person dies when he or she is abused. Those in positions of trust who perpetrated this abuse were responsible for vulnerable young people. There are no words to describe that betrayal of trust.

We know what happened, or did not happen, when instances of abuse was reported or mentioned to another person. When action was taken, it was often inappropriate or wrong. It involved moving the perpetrator and failing to call on the authorities along the line to take further action. We know the authorities were sadly lacking at times. There are issues regarding the involvement of the Garda Síochána.

It seems that the welfare of the abuser was the paramount concern at times. I know of a victim who has suggested that there was more of a focus on damage limitation than a genuine wish to help unreservedly.

There is so much hurt, pain, damage and distress, not just for the immediate victim but also for their families and their relationships. I know that some of those abused, in that hurt, pain and despair, turned to alcohol and drugs. We know the additional difficulties and trauma that addiction brings. There are areas, some in my constituency in Dublin Central, where we can see death by suicide or through addiction of young people in recent years having a direct link to family members who had been abused in these institutions.

I have met people who have been abused. What is common is the pain and hurt but how people deal with it varies considerably. Some, as I mentioned, turned to alcohol and drugs. Some left the country and although there was a better life for some of those, many ended up homeless and destitute. Therefore, the services are also needed for those outside Ireland. Others tried to bury the hurt and to keep the lid on. This probably saved some because not everyone is comfortable with the process of opening up and talking about what happened. In that case, the time factor is crucial because the healing process does not have a time limit.

The abuse took place over many decades and the abused heal at different paces so we cannot say the compensation moneys or the services can only be available for a certain time. It is important that counselling and psychotherapy are available when the person who has been abused is ready to avail of them. There is no "one size fits all" solution for victims of abuse.

This was brought home to me very forcibly by a person I met who had been abused and whose reaction was very different. He said he was trying to get on with his life with his family. He was a man of very simple needs and his entertainment was television and radio but when the media coverage happened, his entertainment was lost as he did not want constant reminders of what had happened. He was deprived of being able to turn on the radio and television because, at the time the Cloyne report was published and at other times, it was always there in front of him. We could all say that person needs to be in therapy but forcing somebody into a counselling or psychotherapy situation is not the answer. That man needs to know what is available to him when he is ready and when he chooses.

We have had a public consultation process in which groups representing survivors, religious congregations and others were involved. I want to acknowledge the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide for the establishment of a body to support the needs of former residents and to provide for the making of contributions by certain persons. I also want to acknowledge the principles of equity, consistency and transparency, the provision of approved services and the requirement that those services will be evaluated, which is important.

Section 8 is very clear on the range of approved services, which are all needed. These range from mental health, health, social, education, hospital and housing services and it is stated they would be provided both within and outside the State and that there is provision for further services to be added. Another positive point is the effort to ensure there are standards for those approved services.

I want to consider the process of applying and the criteria around decisions on the applications. For that, the board will take account of the individual circumstances, including personal and financial circumstances. Everybody wants the money used in the best interests of those who were abused so I was disappointed not to see, within those principles, that there would be some emphasis on respecting the dignity of the person applying. I know the board has to be fair but it sounds a very rigorous and intrusive process for vulnerable people. A lot of information is required and I particularly wonder about this when practically all of that information is known already. That section deals with individual personal and financial circumstances, assessing the likely effect of a service on health and general well-being, personal and social development, educational development and living conditions. It then specifies the "supporting evidence that may be required" and, in a rather vague phrase, refers to taking into account any other matter that the board considers is a proper matter to be taken into account.

This set off a few alarm bells because I see this as an onerous process. I can see it being difficult for vulnerable people unless there is a clear commitment to respecting the dignity of the person and that the individual needs are not lost in the layers of bureaucracy. Form-filling is hard enough for people in the whole of their health. Some of these people are so badly hurt that I am afraid individual needs will be lost or that they will not be addressed adequately.

There are concerns from some of the survivors that the application process may be demeaning. Victims of residential abuse should not be made to feel they are coming, cap in hand, almost with a begging bowl, and also with no guarantee of getting the compensation or service they need. No amount of money will ever be adequate compensation for abuse and it can only go some way. While some amounts have been given already, many of the survivors are of an advanced age so it is vital their needs are addressed soon and this is not allowed to drag on. The same can be said in regard to their health and housing needs as it is now they need the services, not in years to come. We must also ask about the records of the victims who have not come forward. Is the Department confident it has records on all those who have been in the institutions?

While this fund is not about making finance available, there are survivors who feel this is wrong. Has the Minister taken into account those survivors, whose signatures he received, who are against the way in which this fund is being administered? They say the details are with the Department and they believe it is preferable that there would be a simple system of dividing money among the survivors. I personally believe a certain amount must be reserved for services. It is sad that it took ten years for the Government to allocate €12.7 million from the education fund under the 2002 indemnity agreements, and I go back to the point about the urgency of these matters.

The children and grandchildren of survivors have been removed from the new fund but they were included by the Education Finance Board. This is where a further set amount to each named person who has been in an institution would be helpful and would be a financial support for children or grandchildren of survivors, whom we know have been affected by what has happened the abused family member - the parent or the grandparents who had been in an institution.

The board has nine members, all appointed by the Minister, four of whom will have been resident in an institution specified in the Schedule. I am stating the obvious when I say these appointments are crucial to the process. Some concerns arise in regard to the board's finances. It should not cost any member of the board money to serve on it but we have so many examples of the expenses culture in this country, and I hope that will not happen with this board. While there are allowances for expenses, they must be relatively modest. With regard to the chief executive's salary, again, we have examples in this country of chief executives on absolutely obscene salaries.

The board will have a staff and certain sections of the Bill cover their remuneration and superannuation. The National Treasury Management Agency will establish an investment account into which the sums will be deposited. Another section states that the agency can advance to the board sums as requested for the purpose of defraying expenditure incurred by the board and advancing other sums to enable the Minister to make a payment to an appeals officer. There will also be liaison officers.

We know the constraints that local authorities are under at present and this will make for additional pressure. While it is necessary, some issues arise. There is a need for limits surrounding all of these aspects because, to me, the money is for those who were abused in the institutions, which is where it has to go. There should be a limit on what goes from the fund towards these salaries and expenses. There is also a committee of experts to be employed by the board and, again, there will be expenses for them.

It is very unfortunate and sad that some survivors see the Bill as a massive job creation scheme, although that should not happen. The survivors have been through a redress board and the Education Finance Board so life should be becoming easier for them, not more difficult. To me, the needs of the survivors are paramount. One survivor group said "We, as survivors, did not get a say as to what way this unwanted fund should be implemented", that "The Government consulted the so-called representative groups, who do not have an authority to speak on our behalf" and that it continued to support them. This issue has to be addressed. Are the groups speaking for all of the survivors or some of the survivors? Are there survivors who are not within these groups or represented by them? Their voices have to be heard.

The apology and the memorial must be handled in a dignified and careful manner and the voices of the survivors must be heard in that regard.

With regard to the Justice for Magdalenes group, I wish to acknowledge their work and the way they went about it. I am aware that their work and that of Professor Smith, Claire McGettrick and Maeve O'Rourke showed a respect for the dignity of individuals who worked in the laundries and provided them with a space to tell their stories. I was very struck by what some of those ladies said, that they want to be believed and to have their voices heard. We must hear them and allow them their dignity. I acknowledge the work of those I have mentioned as an example of how we can do this right. The issue is that progress is very slow on this. Many of these ladies are of advanced age. The Minister may say he does not wish to rush on this and that he wants to do it right. However, the issue has been around a long time and time is very important.

See this speech in context