Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

Amendment No. 4 in my name requests that the phrase "former residents who would have been eligible to receive an award under the Act of 2002 but who failed to apply under the Act of 2002" be inserted into the Bill. I am seeking to ensure people who would have been eligible if they had applied will not be excluded. Some of the other amendments refer to people who might apply. Last year, when we debated what became the Residential Institutions Redress (Amendment) Act 2011, under which the redress board was wound up and which was the forerunner of the Bill before the House, I appealed to the Minister to insert a provision whereby an appeals or some other mechanism would be put in place to cater for people, should they come forward at this point, who would have met the criteria set down by the redress board and thereby qualified for payment.

I am much better informed about this issue than was the case one year ago. Having had the opportunity to meet the individuals involved and the groups with represent them, I am even more convinced of the need to put in place a mechanism whereby people who did not go before the redress board will not be excluded. I have been in contact with some of the advocacy groups in Britain and with an eminent public representative in London who outlined her concerns about the possible exclusion of people who required help. I am concerned by the fact that the most marginalised have not availed of the redress board mechanism. We are all aware of the particular difficulties they face in terms of a lack of literacy and, perhaps, social skills. In that context, they might not have been aware of the existence of the redress board. Advocacy groups, both here and outside the jurisdiction, have done a huge amount of good work in trying to get the message out in respect of the availability of assistance from the redress board and the eligibility criteria that applied. However, that message did not reach all potential applicants.

The group we are discussing is small. As time passes, the age profile of those who were resident in the relevant institutions is increasing. I appreciate the Minister's comment to the effect that the work of the statutory fund will be reviewed after two years. A period of two years is particularly lengthy for those who are in the older age cohort. That is a factor about which I am extremely concerned.

When we debated what became the Residential Institutions Redress (Amendment) Act 2011 last year, I stated provision could be made in legislation for residual functions to be brought back within the remit of the parent Department. As Deputy Seán Crowe indicated, on Committee Stage the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, said this could lead to the creation of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and that funding could be used up in a way none of us would desire. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister of State's assertion. There are enough competent people in the Department who possess the relevant expertise and could take on the role previously played by those who served on the redress board. As Deputies Seán Crowe and Clare Daly stated, there were individuals who were abused in the past and lacked the mental strength to come forward and relate their stories to the redress board. I appeal to the Minister that in the event of someone who did not previously receive assistance or support coming forward and meeting the criteria applied when the redress board was in place, he or she should not be denied the possibility of accessing such assistance or support.

Amendment No. 5 relates to the provision of education services. The Minister has rightly pointed out that the work of the Education Finance Board has proved to be very important. I am aware of this because I have spoken to people who availed of the services or assistance on offer from the board directly or the family members of those who did so. My understanding is that third level students in receipt of some assistance who commenced their courses in 2010 will be assisted throughout the full duration of their courses. However, it has been brought to my attention that in the case of students in receipt of assistance who began their courses in the current academic year, 2011-2012, this new legislation will not provide for such assistance to continue. As I said on Committee Stage, it would be a shame if the lack of additional support and incentives that many young people need was to cause them to quit their third level or further education studies. I would like to have that matter investigated also.

No matter what good promotional campaigns the Minister conducts on the availability of Government programmes, many of the most marginalised will not have been reading the newspapers and as such will not be aware of the redress board and its functions. What I genuinely believe is a small number of people should not be denied access to assistance that would have been readily available to them had they participated in the work of the redress board earlier. Through no fault of their own, however, they did not apply to it.

See this speech in context