Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

Eligibility is one of the major weaknesses of the Bill. On every Stage I have argued about this section. It was discussed at length on Committee Stage with the Minister and I altered my amendments for Report Stage to take on board some of his points. The fund should be opened up not just to those who applied successfully for redress but also to those who, if they had applied, would have been successful. It should be opened up not just for those who have been through the courts concerning their abuse in a residential institution but those who may go through the courts in the future.

Having spoken to many of the survivors, I noted many of them found the whole redress process very difficult and regretted going through it. Some spoke about the process lacking empathy and how it opened up old wounds from the past which they are still trying to live with today. I find it difficult for us as legislators to draw a line in the sand when it comes to who is and who is not eligible for this fund. Clearly, we are talking about people who fulfil all the criteria and who were abused in residential institutions with the complicity of the State.

There are many reasons survivors of abuse did not feel able or were willing to apply to the redress board. It is wrong they should be penalised for not meeting a deadline. Many of those to whom I have spoken were clearly traumatised by their experiences in the institutions. Understandably, they did not want to re-open it at this time in their lives.

To illustrate the point, this morning I spoke to the husband of a survivor who had spent 19 years in an institution. She was supposed to be released when she reached her 16th birthday but she was retained in the institution until she was 21. In the 1990s, she took a court case which took seven years to get to court because of delays due to changes in solicitors on the State's and the institution's sides. In court it emerged from one of the witnesses that sexual abuse was involved which led to the case having to be stopped. The same woman applied to the redress board but was turned down on the basis she had gone down the court route. In one of her discussions with a counsellor, she was asked if she was still considering going down the court route, to which she replied it would be her preference. She did not get redress as a result. This woman is now outside the process, meaning she is not eligible for this fund.

Another survivor, who is disabled and now lives in the United States, suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder after 16 years of abuse. He will require counselling and medication for the rest of his life but must survive on a small stipend. He applied successfully to the redress board and the State is paying for basic counselling but refuses to cover his medication costs. It is wrong that only those eligible for assistance from the fund will be former residents who were offered awards from the residential institutions redress board or received awards pursuant to court actions. We need to show those who are not eligible for the fund – those who decided they could not go through the redress process - that we are concerned about what happened to them and that the State's apology to them is inclusive.

Under this legislation, a person who pursues a court action relating to their abuse will not have access to the fund. This is a weakness in the legislation that needs to be addressed. As matters stand, those who have not received redress to date will be excluded from benefiting from the new fund. It is expected that some 15,000 former residents - whether living in Ireland or abroad - will successfully complete the redress process and be eligible to apply for the range of services on offer. The Minister has previously stated that to widen the eligibility criteria to include all former residents would reduce the amount of money available to fund these services. When discussing the moneys for this fund, it must be remembered that last year we gave away an absolute fortune to zombie banks. The fund is relatively small, particularly when one considers what families have gone through and the inter-generational effects that have become apparent.

There is a need for flexibility. It is welcome that the position will be reviewed after two years. However, I do not want us to be obliged to wait two years. As the Minister, other Deputies and I are aware, those whom we are discussing have experienced absolute horror in their lives. Mr. Justice Ryan mentioned some of the things done to people in his report. As public representatives, we have spoken to people and are aware of the abuse they endured. In all conscience, I do not believe that, as legislators, we can put up a barrier for those to whom I refer. We failed them in the past and by not including them under the legislation we will fail them again.

I experience strong emotions in respect of this matter. That is because people have related their stories to me. Some individuals were not able to seek redress or go to the courts. The difficult part for them was that they would have been obliged to narrate what had happened to them to counsellors, the Garda, the courts and their families and friends. That is a huge step for anyone to take. Many of those to whom I have spoken were not prepared to take it. As stated, others who went through the process regret doing so to this day. Their families also have regrets in this regard in the light of the impact it has had on their lives. In short, they did not have a positive experience. Most of the individuals with whom I have been in contact have informed me that it was never about the money. What they wanted was an apology and to be able to tell their stories.

That is the background to my amendments. The Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, indicated on Committee Stage that there was a difficulty with them. The Minister asked how we would actually process what was proposed. A number of later amendments in my name outline how we should proceed in the context of the board which will not be not a court of law. There are those who would be quite capable of making decisions on allowing the people to whom I refer access the fund. According to Right of Place, at least 150,000 children and teenagers went through orphanages, industrial schools and centres for young offenders, with many suffering abuse at the hands of religious orders and others in charge of their care. An estimated 100,000 left Ireland afterwards, with a large proportion going to the United States. In that context, previous speakers referred to the fact there were people who were not aware of the State's efforts in establishing the redress board. We have, of course, discussed that matter in detail on previous occasions.

The eligibility criteria severely limit people who have a right to avail of the statutory fund. They fail to take into consideration survivors who for many reasons were unaware that they could seek recompense from the redress board or were unable to do so while it was in operation. The amendment tabled in Deputy Brendan Smith's name refers to approved services covered under the Bill and would allow the children of survivors to avail of services relating to the statutory fund. I support what the Deputy is seeking to achieve in this regard. I want to facilitate those who were hurt by ensuring they will have an opportunity to access the new fund. That is why I am seeking to have the eligibility criteria widened.

See this speech in context