Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I will start my contribution with a simple question to the Minister. In regard to the €110 million fund, what interest has built up on it in the intervening years since it was established and is that interest being added to the fund for the survivors? If not, why not? I would appreciate an answer to that question.

Why does Caranua not pay people a lump sum, similar to a pension? As far as I am aware, a person has to jump through many hoops to qualify for a payment.

My understanding is that, in order for funds to be disbursed, they must be for health or well-being, housing support, education, learning or development and cannot be for something that has already been bought, for something which is not recommended by a professional or for ongoing costs such as rent, mortgages and so on. There seems to be a presumption of irresponsibility and this is wrong. There almost appears to be a presumption of criminality. Why not give these people a lump sum? Why not give an annual lump sum - something like a pension - payable twice a year? We might not know how many people will be involved in the scheme but the scheme will only last for a number of years and the numbers should be easy to calculate - one could even err on the side of caution. The criteria are very narrow and often rigidly applied. For somebody who suffered in a Magdalen laundry, the act of washing clothes and putting them on the line brings back all kinds of memories. It would be a positive thing to be able to buy a washing machine but it would not easy to do so under the rigid criteria that have been set out.

Major questions have to be asked about the way survivors who apply are being treated. Deputy Gino Kenny referred to the comments of the chief executive, who called them "these people" and said they were damaged and would never be happy. I welcome the fact that those comments were withdrawn at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Her comment about funeral arrangements, however, was of more concern to me. Caranua can apparently give up to €5,000 to a funeral director to provide a decent burial for survivors when their time comes but it was revealed that some - very few - had approached funeral directors to ask for the €5,000 to be released to them for weekly or monthly expenditure. Why was that revealed? Was there an attempt to make out that the survivors are feckless and undeserving? It is completely understandable that survivors would have approached funeral directors in that way. If people live in conditions of hardship and poverty it is entirely understandable and I cannot understand why the information was made public. It was wrong to do so. There is no privity of contract and I do not think that, if €5,000 is given to a funeral director and the funeral director goes out of business, the family of a survivor who has passed away has a claim over the money. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

I know of two survivors who did not have the skills of reading and writing and who went to another survivor who did have those skills. The latter went to Caranua and asked to fill in the form on behalf of the former but he was laughed at, which is a disgrace. I understand that a U-turn was announced at the Committee of Public Accounts meeting and that, in future, a third party will be able to fill in a form in this way. I welcome that but it should not have happened in the first instance.

Under section 10, the Government can instruct the board of Caranua as to things that should or should not be done. Given everything that has happened, the idea that the new board, which I welcome, should report to a committee of the House is progressive and positive and serious consideration should be given to it.

See this speech in context