Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Clare Daly for tabling this Bill. To prepare myself for this debate, I went back to when this was debated in the Dáil in June 2009. It is a very sad indictment of both the State and society that led to the events described in the Ryan report that led to the establishment of this fund. It is worth recalling that the Dáil then acknowledged the pain and suffering endured by the former residents of institutions. The commission's report vindicated their claims of abuse and acknowledged that crimes were committed by members of the religious congregations and others against children placed in their care. It restated the sincere apology of the House to the victims of childhood abuse for the failure to intervene, detect their pain and come to their rescue. It acknowledged that the State has an obligation to ensure that children and young people in the care of the State receive the highest possible quality of care, and to provide services to protect them as much as possible from all forms of harm.

There was no doubt that the Ryan report and the lid it took off such appalling conduct in institutions was a real turning point for Irish history. It opened up the weaknesses of administration. The Department of Education and Skills is singled out within that report for some of its failures. There were huge failures with regard to its duty of care and its obligation to discharge its responsibilities. It did not have an effective inspection system. Even cases that were revealed were not properly pursued. There was resistance to the growing volume of criticism that arose. There was a failure to act on reviews that came to its attention.

The House has little comfort in this report either. The House rarely, if ever, had the plight of children in the industrial schools system brought to its attention, and even when it was it was about administrative issues rather than the core issues that were at the heart of this report.

There is no doubt that it was an important decision to establish Caranua, which was a trust to spend for the benefit of the 15,000 people who were sexually or physically abused, or who suffered various forms of psychological or other abuse, and received settlements and to put in place an independent board to devote that money to the needs of those people.

I am very conscious that Deputy Daly's Bill is brought forward with the very best of intentions. On the basis of the applications to date, where I think a little more than 4,000 cases have been dealt with and, at this stage, 55% of the money has already been expended, I would have to express a concern that there is an expectation that as others apply from within the group for which it was established, the full amount of the money will be expended on the basis of present trends.

There is a risk in doing as the Deputy is proposing at the core of her Bill, which is to extend substantially the group for whom this money would be used. I have sought information from my Department as to what the potential extent of going beyond those who received redress on account of abuse would be. My Department is not able to tell me the scale of that. Many thousands of additional people would become eligible to apply to the scheme. There is a real concern that this might create real problems in honouring the commitments made to those for whom this scheme was established and who are likely to utilise the full amount of the scheme. Essentially this scheme was established by the Oireachtas for their support. That is why it is important we have a review that establishes the extent to which the resources in the fund will be fully met by those who have applied, or are likely to apply, under the terms of the scheme. That is only fair in the context of the basis on which this was established, which was for very well-established cases of those who brought stories of abuse, who were heard by the redress board, whose case was established and who received a settlement. This fund is now there to meet their specific needs.

I have met some of the survivors myself and I am very conscious of the concerns they have about the administration of the fund. There is no doubt that people have experienced a lot of problems. The best efforts of Caranua to ensure the fund is administered in a fair way have caused problems for people. There is no doubt about that and I heard those cases at first hand. Some of those were perhaps misunderstandings and some were due to changes in the coverage that were not properly communicated.

As the Deputy points out, at a certain stage the board introduced limits because of its concern that there would be equity of treatment for those who had already applied and those who had not yet applied. Those limits were introduced in an effort to ensure moneys would be deployed fairly, but as the Deputy has said, that has caused problems and difficulties. It is appropriate that this review would look into the nature of those difficulties and whether better rules can be developed to ensure the money is allocated in a way that is easy to understand and to apply.

There are a number of elements in the proposals that the Deputy has put forward. Many of those can certainly be considered in the context of the review including the possible extension towards funeral costs of spouses of former residents and the possible extension to educational services of children of former residents. There will, however, be a need to establish the scale of the funds and whether it is able to meet the likely demands upon it. That is an important element of the review. The review could not have taken place until there was a reasonable level of participation already recorded in the scheme. As I said, more than 55% of the money has already been disbursed at this stage to just over 4,000 of those who are eligible to apply. There is a potential base of substantially more than that who have yet to apply. I understand there are more than 1,000 applications already on hand that have yet to be dealt with and there is an expectation that there are many more potential applicants remaining. That work will be ongoing.

The Deputy makes an interesting point as to whether the issue of the age of former residents should be brought into account. I think there is a reasonable case to examine that.

The objective of the time limit on decisions is reasonable but whether they can be completed within the 28 days in practice is unclear considering the need to process decisions and the information that needs to be collected . There is certainly an endeavour, which will be reinforced by the review, to improve the speed with which decisions are made. I know there have been frustrations with the length of time it has taken to deal with the various applications.

The Deputy has raised an issue about the present provision whereby sums in excess of the maximum amount would go to the children's hospital. It is not sums that would be left within the €110 million. There is no provision for moneys within the €110 million to be deployed for any purpose other than the support of applicable residents. That amount has been ring-fenced. I understand at this stage about €90 million has been fully subscribed and is available, but the provision in the Bill is not that money left over from the €110 million would be applied elsewhere. The provision is that, in the event of there being money over and above that amount, it would be deployed. The €110 million which was the commitment in the Bill, when it is reached, will be available for that purpose. It would take new legislation in the Dáil if any other purpose were to be found to deploy that money. The expectation within my Department is that those moneys will be fully committed to supporting those who are already eligible, that is the 15,000 for whom it was originally established.

The terms of reference for the review was the other issue. They have know been published. There is an opportunity for submissions to be made not later than 8 March, which is just next week. On foot of that we will proceed with the review. It is reasonable that we would revisit the legislation the Deputy has put forward after that review is completed. I would not like to consider extending to new applicants if, as the officials within my Department indicate, the money is likely to be fully exhausted for those who are eligible. If there was a very substantial expansion in the number of applicants it would be very difficult to proceed with the present regime. If we found that the money would not meet the needs of the new extended list of applicants, it would slow down the disbursement. There would have to be some assessment of the likely needs of those new applicants to ensure the money would be fairly expended on all those who are eligible.

It is correct to have a detailed assessment of the extent to which the existing expenditure will be devoted to those who are already eligible.

I understand that people are extremely hurt by their experience and who feel that is continuing. I know it can be difficult at times as a result of the procedures within any institution regarding assessing applications and seeking the information that is required under the administrative procedures of any public body in order to ensure that money is devoted to the purpose for which it is intended. I understand that there is a real problem with the requirement for accountability that the expenditure of public money creates in the context of people who want a quick response to their needs. In the course of this review, we need to find a way to meet those demands more sensitively and quickly, while ensuring that there is fairness in the way in which the money is used so that everyone who has a legitimate case to put forward for support under the fund and its various headings can receive that support.

I thank the Deputy for her Bill. I recognise the purpose for which it has been introduced. However, I ask that some time be given to complete the review so that we will be in a position to decide, on the basis of solid information, whether we can extend coverage to new individuals or purposes within the fund. I hope that we can achieve a quicker and easier approach to administering the fund that reduces the frustration many people have experienced in dealing with Caranua, despite the very best efforts of those working within it who have tried to deal with individuals on an equitable basis.

See this speech in context