Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

As the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, explained on Committee Stage - I was not able to attend myself - the effect of these amendments would be to widen significantly eligibility to the fund, which Deputy Daly has acknowledged. Some suggest that former residents who would be eligible for an award from the redress board should be eligible, while it is unclear in other instances whether the proposal is to include all former residents, irrespective of whether they were abused, in scheduled institutions. Amendment No. 5 also proposes to include family members of former residents in the case of educational services.

As I have repeatedly stated, the Bill's primary purpose is to establish a statutory fund to support the needs of survivors in keeping with the all-party motion that was unanimously agreed by Dáil Éireann in 2009 in the aftermath of the Ryan report. As the Deputies are aware, a maximum of €110 million will be available to the fund to assist around 15,000 potential beneficiaries. If eligibility were significantly widened to include all former residents of scheduled institutions, as is proposed, then the amounts available to fund services for individuals could be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the statutory fund would itself be put at risk. Some of the amendments refer to former residents who were eligible to apply under the redress Acts. Anyone could apply to the redress board and we know more than 900 applications to the board were withdrawn, refused or resulted in no award, generally on the basis that the person was not resident in the scheduled institution itself.

The Government has deliberately and for good reasons proposed confining entitlement to the 15,000 or so survivors who will have come through the redress process. If the fund were to investigate applications to establish residence and injury consistent with alleged abuse, as would be required if amendment No. 3 were accepted, clearly a considerable structure similar to the Residential Institutions Redress Board would be required, thus expanding the role of the statutory fund and deflecting it from its intended focus. The statutory fund is not intended nor is it designed to consider issues such as abuse. Since it will take applications only from those who received an award from the courts or the redress board, all issues relating to abuse have been dealt with, allowing the fund to focus on the needs of the prospective recipients. Extensive efforts were made to facilitate claims to the redress board. Those former residents who did not apply to the redress board can continue to avail of the counselling and family tracing services available.

The motivation for amendment No. 5 appears to be to allow the child of a former resident who received an award from the redress board to benefit from the fund in so far as it relates to educational services. The receipt of a grant or assistance of educational services from the education finance board was not linked to the receipt of an award from the redress board. This amendment proposes that any former resident and his or her relatives, including children and grandchildren, could benefit. Again, widening eligibility to include children and grandchildren would result in broadening the scope of the fund beyond that for which it is intended. The education finance board has done excellent work in distributing the moneys which came from the religious congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. Former residents and their relatives did benefit from this support. However, it was always clear the particular fund would run out and we are now almost at that point.

I appreciate the sentiments expressed by Deputies regarding the range of eligibility issues. I urge them, however, to see the logic of the Government's position on this matter. I have indicated previously that the issue of who was eligible to apply for assistance could be reviewed following the establishment of the statutory fund in the event of the applications to the fund not resulting in a significant expenditure of it. In view of the considerable concerns expressed by Members and by some groups and congregations, I am prepared to commit to reviewing the operation of the fund two years after its establishment.

While I note Deputies' many useful and positive comments, I believe it is best to proceed on the basis as proposed in the Bill as outlined. Regrettably, I must, therefore, oppose these amendments.

See this speech in context