Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 56: To ask the Minister for Education and Science her proposals to add additional institutions to the list under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7957/05]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 4 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 enables additional institutions, in which children were placed and resident, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, to be added to the Schedule to the Act.

Since enactment of the legislation, my Department has received correspondence from individual and survivor groups identifying a number of additional institutions that may be eligible for inclusion in the Schedule. Accordingly, consultations have taken place between my Department and other Departments which may have provided a regulatory function in the operation of these facilities to ascertain the case for their inclusion under the Act.

While inquiries have not yet been completed in respect of all institutions, I signed an order on 9 November 2004 which provided for the inclusion of 13 additional institutions to the Schedule. Further consultations are taking place in regard to a number of institutions and I will consider the position of these institutions when this process has been completed.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My colleague, Deputy Costello, who tabled this question, had a particular concern about Bethany Home in respect of which he received correspondence. Will the Minister indicate whether it is one of the institutions being considered? It would not have been under the auspices of any of the bodies which signed the indemnity agreement. Will the Minister clarify whether the fact that it was not run by one of these bodies would rule it out?

In regard to the recent High Court judgment which awarded a considerable sum to somebody who survived residential institutional abuse, does the Minister intend to amend the Act?

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Institutions included on the list must be identified as reformatory schools, industrial schools, orphanages, children's homes and special schools in which children are placed and resident. A key feature is that a public body had to have a regulatory or inspection function. In many cases, we are still trying to identify whether the State or a public body had a regulatory function and, therefore, our liability in that regard. That might delay the inclusion of some of the institutions.

On the case last week, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the legislation. I think everybody will agree the system works very well. There are distinct advantages to the redress scheme and the way it works. It is practical and people are able to get financial redress for what they have suffered. It is very fast and there is a much lower burden of proof. It is not an adversarial process. Many people have had offers made to them on the basis of an application and without ever having their cases heard. Many people have accepted that on the basis that it is private.

It is important to note that of all the awards made by the redress board only four have been rejected. The number of awards of over €200,000 made by the redress board or the review committee that have not been accepted is nil. It is working very sensitively and efficiently and that is what is important to the victims.