Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, to delete lines 14 to 20 and substitute the following:

"3.—(1) This Act shall apply to any person (in this Act referred to as a "former resident"), whether or not he or she is resident in the State, who is a former resident of Irish institutions identified in the various approved schedules of institutions as applied within the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2001 and eligible to apply to the Redress Board.".

This was discussed at length on Committee Stage. It is probably one of the biggest areas in which people have sought change. It relates to the fact that the Bill restricts access to the fund to those former residents who have already received awards from the RIRB or from a court. Many survivors have said that this is just too restrictive and is unjust on that basis. There are many reasons people may have chosen not to seek redress. We dealt with them in this Chamber even on Second Stage. Some people had to deal with the issues themselves. Some people were outside the country and were not aware of the availability of the scheme. Some did not want others to know about their plight or simply found it too hard to deal with it at that time. It is unfair that they should be denied again this time.

The reason given for their exclusion is that the fund is limited and that if more people are added, it will delay the process and eat into moneys for everybody else. I do not accept that. Very strong arguments have been put forward about the small number of applicants living outside the State, mainly in Britain, numbering no more than a couple of hundred people who would seek to avail of the assistance. That will certainly not break the bank.

Another area that has been identified as a complexity is how to identify the people. Very good points have been made by some of the religious orders. The trust fund is not a redress issue. The redress issues have been dealt with by the redress board. Many people who were resident in these institutions, whether or not they were abused, should be able to avail of the fund because they were disadvantaged by virtue of the fact that they were in the institutions in the first place. One of the orders was quoted in the Ryan report as stating that an important aspect of this process of exploration, acceptance and understanding by the State and the congregations is the acknowledgement of the fact that the system failed the children, not just that the children were abused because occasional individual lapses occurred. People who were resident in these institutions have needs which have not been met. They were disadvantaged by their time there. Many arguments have been made about the nature of the fund and whether people should avail of a lump sum or a pension. These are worthy demands, but I think the definition and the terms are too restrictive at the moment. That is why we are moving the amendment.

See this speech in context