Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I will come back to some of the points that were made. First, I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. As has been discussed, the Bill's primary purpose is to establish a statutory fund to support the needs of survivors, in keeping with the all-party motion which was unanimously agreed by the House in the aftermath of the Ryan report.

The general support for the Bill is welcome. I noted the many concerns expressed by many Deputies. On the issue of eligibility, some Deputies called for access to be broadened to include all former residents, relatives of victims and former residents of the Magdalen laundries and the Bethany Home. As a maximum of €110 million will be available for the fund, to assist some 15,000 potential beneficiaries, in my view the optimal approach is to proceed on the basis we already proposed. The question of review and eligibility can be considered after the fund is established, in the event there has not been a significant expenditure of the fund. Extensive efforts were made to facilitate claims to the redress board and those former residents who did not apply to the board can avail of the counselling and family tracing services available.

I can clarify for Deputy Brendan Smith, who is present in the House, that those who gave evidence to the commission on child abuse will be eligible to apply where they have received awards from the redress board. I can also clarify for Deputy Mary Lou McDonald that eligibility is not confined to those living in Ireland. Former residents who received redress board awards will be eligible to apply for assistance, irrespective of where they live. This is an important point, as some 40%, or just under half the number of applicants to the redress board, now live outside the State.

To date, €21.05 million of the €110 million in cash contributions committed by congregations has been received. A number of congregations have confirmed that their contributions will be received on the establishment of the fund. I have written to the remaining congregations requesting confirmation of the timescales for the receipt of their contributions. I expect to be in a position to confirm the arrangements when the Bill has been considered in committee. Like other Deputies, I urge the congregations to fulfil their commitments and respond in a generous spirit.

Having regard to the financial situation facing the country and the burden already borne by taxpayers, the Exchequer is not in a position to top up the fund, as proposed by some Deputies. Some Deputies raised demands from some survivors for the available money to be distributed on a simple per capita basis while others referred to the possibility of a pro rata distribution based on the redress board awards. The purpose of the fund, however, is not, and never was, a form of additional compensation. That issue has been dealt with by the redress board. It is, as advocated in the original motion passed by all parties in this House, intended for the support of victims.

Eligible former residents will have a range of needs, with some likely to require more significant interventions than others. The approach set out in the Bill is intended to support those needs. I have consulted with very many people, including many of the victims who are represented by different individual groups and other bodies, as well as those unrepresented by anybody but themselves. The nature of the victimisation they endured is such that it was never possible, and was never going to be the case, that there would be a coherent or cohesive representative body.

The current economic climate precludes the use of Exchequer funds to meet administration costs. Every effort has been made to contain the administration overhead and I am confident that the administration costs will be kept to a minimum while we ensure the fund has the capacity to function effectively. I point out to Deputy Daly there must be some mechanism for the distribution of funds but that does not mean it has to be some kind of bloated inefficient quango. I assure the Deputy it will not be such a body. I noted the concerns expressed regarding the need to ensure simple and accessible procedures and agree these should be pursued while acknowledging the need for the fund to confirm the legitimacy of its expenditure. The essential function of the fund will be to use its resources to provide services and support the needs of eligible former residents. The Bill places an onus on it to secure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of its resources. The fund will have regard to the existence of publicly available services. This is to ensure that it is not used in place of existing State-funded services but rather that it can supplement existing services for the benefit of survivors.

In addition to the points that were prepared after the initial debate that took place in the House some weeks ago, I listened with interest to the many contributions that were made in the House by various Deputies. I cannot recall a Second Stage debate that has had so many contributions in this area, during my time with responsibility for it. I know that victims have been in contact with many Deputies, on all sides of the House. Before I came into this position, in the previous Dáil and the one before that, I was in contact with many victims and received their representations.

I believe the full revelations of the Ryan report were devastating to a point far beyond that we already knew, or thought we knew. When I responded on behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party in opposition I was a strong supporter for the erection of a memorial to those victims. That caused some discussion and debate among some of the victims and I now wish to respond to that. This atrocity that occurred on this island, in our name, in an independent state, was something we did to ourselves. It was not the fault of the British nor the function of some colonial exploitation. It was not the foreign invader. It was us, who did it to us. For future generations, including the one now in the Visitors Gallery, who have no idea what this country was like in those days, we need to be able to say, for generation after generation, "We did this to ourselves. We are capable and were capable in the past of doing such things to ourselves". The memorial, therefore, should be a constant reminder that we must never let it happen again. I believe the victims need a place where they can explain to their children, grandchildren and extended families that they could not live full lives because of the damage that was done to them. We have heard tale after tale and story after story about the effects of abuse on people during their adult lives. In some cases, people have not been able to articulate what was done to them. As a consequence of that, the life experiences of their children and grandchildren have been irreparably damaged, distorted and deprived of the potential they would otherwise have had. That is the significance and the importance of the memorial. I know the memorial committee met this week. I am not sure what its decision will be. I assure those who are listening to this Second Stage debate and those who will read my concluding reply that the memorial, above and beyond any shape or form it will take, will be an important and significant piece of communication.

I wish to respond to the comments of a number of Deputies, including Deputy Clare Daly, whom I interrupted in order to add to the debate. I believe this is a place where we should talk to each other and listen to each other, even on Second Stage. The State has distributed the guts of €1.5 billion to 15,000 victims of abuse who came forward. The deal that was done with the church by Dr. Woods on behalf of the Bertie Ahern Government was frankly outrageous. When I have spoken with the religious congregations, I have consistently argued that there is a responsibility on them to agree that the costs should be shared 50:50. I have asked all 17 or 18 of them whether they accept that argument. At the outset of this process, it was impossible to measure what the likely cost would be. The figure I have mentioned significantly exceeded all of our expectations.

We know that some people chose not to apply for redress, for a variety of reasons. Some people did not want their families to know, did not want to go back there or did not want to ask for money. We extended the length of time for which the window for applications was open. The relevant period was much longer than was originally anticipated. After we introduced legislation this time last year to impose a closing date on that window, we received approximately 1,500 additional applications before the closing date in the autumn of last year. I am not sure how many of those applications will be processed to their completion. Additional information is usually requested to verify and confirm that the person who made the initial application is entitled to compensation. We simply do not know. I have been told by the chairman of the board, former justice Esmond Smyth, that it will probably take approximately 15 months to process the last tranche of applications that arrived in the autumn of 2011. The sum of money that is involved is frankly enormous.

Some of the religious congregations - we have not completed our negotiations with all of them - have said they have no more money to give. According to the congregations, the figures mentioned in the recent The Irish Times series in advance of the Eucharistic Congress, which is taking place as we speak, were based on property valuations rather than on assets and cash deposits. Obviously, those properties have lost their value considerably in recent times. I assure the House that I am continuing to pursue the 50:50 proposal with those congregations. I will repeat in this House what I have said to them as the Minister responsible. I am aware that the religious congregation are ageing communities. Many of them have retired from the active lives they engaged in when they provided services for this country in the education and health fields. They have to care for their own rapidly ageing communities. They do not have children or grandchildren of their own. They just have themselves. As anyone who has a relative in full-time care will know, care is very expensive.

My Government colleagues and I have absolutely no desire to bankrupt these communities. They have given this country great service. The vast majority of that service was positive and constructive. As a former student of the Holy Ghost Fathers, I am one of those who benefited from that service. I salute the contribution they have made. Having said that, they are way shy of contributing the 50:50 share I have mentioned. I have said to them that neither Fine Gael nor the Labour Party wants to damage, smear or besmirch the contributions they have made to our society. We have paid €1.5 billion in cash, however. This country is currently in a programme, having lost its economic sovereignty. There has to be some tangible response from the congregations that were responsible, along with the State, for what happened. We have paid more than 50%. I am asking the communities in question to give us at no cost - not even legal transaction costs - the title deeds of the educational and medical infrastructure they own.

See this speech in context