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

I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue and thank the Minister for Education and Science for being here to respond to the debate. She will be aware that this issue has been raised by a number of Deputies by way of parliamentary questions and on the Order of Business. Today on the Order of Business, three Opposition party leaders raised the issue of Ms Marie Therese O'Loughlin who is outside Leinster House on this very cold night. She has been out there for the past two months because she strongly believes that the institution she was placed in, namely, the Morning Star mother and baby home, should be included in the Residential Institutions Redress Act.

I realise that the window of opportunity is very short and that the deadline is this coming Friday, but I ask the Minister to take a final look at the two particular institutions I refer to in my Adjournment motion, namely, Bethany Home and Morning Star. I know a few others have been brought to the Minister's attention and mine as well. If the Minister decides to introduce a further order under the Schedule, I can assure her the Opposition will facilitate her fully before the end of this session. I understand the redress board has the power to extend its time should it need to.

The Minister has said she believes it is not legally possible to add these institutions. However, I again ask her to take a final look, because section 4(1) of the Act says:

The Minister may, by order, provide for the insertion in the Schedule of any industrial school, reformatory school, orphanage, children's home, special school which was established for the purpose of providing education services to children with a physical or . . . mental disability or mental illness in which children were placed and resident and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function.

I understand the reason the Minister says these institutions cannot be included is that there was no evidence of inspection or regulation. However, I understand that a function does not necessarily mean there has to be evidence. There could, however, be a power, duty or function that did not necessarily have actual evidence of inspection. When we were debating the matter of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, there was evidence that the Department of Education and Science did not have full records. There may have been documents in the Department that could not be found when the commission was doing its work. I suggest that just because records were not found does not mean that there was not a regulatory or inspection function.

I find it hard to believe that the Morning Star mother and baby home was never inspected by any arm of the State, and similarly with the Bethany home. I believe there may have been evidence of inspection and I do not know whether any has been given to the Minister. Should anything be produced or if the Minister might be able to accept that there could have been a function, I ask her, even at this late stage, to include these institutions.

Another home that was brought to my attention was a residential one in Kill o' the Grange. I understand people have initiated High Court proceedings and were placed in this particular institution by the relevant health board. That suggests the State had a direct hand in that institution. As for the Morning Star, people moved from that institution to Goldenbridge, which is included under the Schedule. People from Bethany home moved to the Smiley homes which are included as well under the Schedule. It seems that if those institutions are included, surely the feeder institutions could be.

Two other pieces of legislation might indicate the State had a function. One dates from before the foundation of the State, namely, the Children's Act 1908, section 25 of which says:

The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children ... supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose[.]

That legislation, which presumably could still have been used, seems to indicate that even where an institution was not directly listed or funded, perhaps, by the State, it could still be inspected. Similarly, the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934 suggests that mother and baby homes could have been inspected by the State as well. At this late stage I ask the Minister to reconsider, particularly in respect of the two institutions I refer to but also in respect of any others that might be relevant.

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

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for raising this matter. Every Member of the House will share the concern that anybody is sleeping outside Leinster House as a protest on these terrible evenings. It is not easy to resolve the issue, unfortunately. If it had been, it would have been done long ago. A number of people, including myself, spoke to Marie Therese and I explained the situation to her. The Department took the opportunity recently to double check in light of issues raised in the House by way of parliamentary questions, on the Adjournment tonight and on the Order of Business, whether anything had been missed. However, the situation remains that there is no evidence of the State's role in this home and it is therefore not possible to include it in the legislation.

I will set out the background to the case. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter on the Adjournment as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position. The Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 provides a statutory scheme of financial redress for persons who, as children, were abused while in residential institutional care. The scheme applies in respect of institutions specified in the Schedule to the Act and the Act allows a three-year period for submission of applications to the board. This three-year period ends this Thursday, 15 December 2005. I again urge potential applicants to the board to ensure their applications are submitted prior to that date. Applications will be accepted up to midnight on 15 December 2005. To date the board has received approximately 12,000 applications and has made approximately 4,500 offers of awards at a cost of €332 million. My Department is making arrangements to extend the terms of office of the members of the board and the review committee for a further period of two years to allow the board to deal with the remaining applications.

Section 4 of the Act provides that the Minister for Education and Science may, by order, insert additional institutions in the Schedule to the Act. This section is quite specific in relation to the type of institutions which can be considered for inclusion. The institution concerned must be an industrial school, a reformatory school, an orphanage, a children's home, a special school for children with a physical or intellectual disability or a hospital providing medical or psychiatric services to people with a physical or mental disability or mental illness. It must also be one in which children were placed and resided and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function.

A total of 128 institutions were originally listed on the Schedule as enacted in April 2002. Since enactment of the legislation, my Department has been contacted by individuals and-or solicitors in relation to a large number of institutions not specified in the Schedule. Following consideration of the matter and consultation with the relevant bodies, I signed an order on 9 November 2004 which provided for the inclusion of 13 additional institutions in the Schedule. A further order was made on 1 July 2005, adding three institutions to the Schedule. This demonstrates we were all anxious to ensure that as many of the institutions as possible would be included on the list, in the interests of those who had suffered abuse while living in them.

The redress scheme applies to industrial schools, reformatory schools and other such institutions for children where the State's duty of care arose from the fact that the children were separated from their families and were placed and resident in institutions over which the State had a regulatory or supervisory responsibility. On the two facilities specified in the Deputy's motion I make the follows points.

My Department was requested to place the Regina Coeli hostel on the Schedule of the Act. As hostels do not satisfy the terms of section 4 it is not possible to consider the placement of this facility on the Schedule. When this was explained, a further request was received regarding an institution called the Morning Star mother and baby home at the same address as the Regina Coeli hostel but described as a separate unit from the hostel. Officials from my Department raised the matter with their counterparts at the Department of Health and Children and other relevant bodies. No records were identified to indicate that the State was responsible for this home or unit. The majority of these types of homes were privately operated and not subject to State inspection or regulation. As a consequence, it is not possible to give further consideration to the inclusion of the Morning Star mother and baby home or unit in the Schedule.

The Regina Coeli hostel was established by the Legion of Mary in 1930 to provide shelter for homeless women, with or without children. A person who stayed at the hostel did so on a voluntary basis and usually paid a small fee for the accommodation.

Regarding the Bethany home, my Department has consulted the Department of Health and Children and no records have been identified to indicate that it was responsible for inspecting or regulating the facility. As a consequence, I trust the Deputy will appreciate that it is not open to consider further the placement of either of these facilities on the Schedule as it has not been established in the first instance that a State party was responsible for the care of the residents at these homes.

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

Surely where babies were born in these places, there had to be some responsibility on the part of the State.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must move on to the next matter.

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

The reality is there probably was no responsibility. People today still highlight the fact that there are not sufficient inspection facilities and they are talking about 50 years later. It was a different time. I assure the House if there was evidence of the State having placed people in these institutions or of having an inspection role, I would have liked and wanted to have them included in the interests of the people who were abused in them, or who believe they were abused in them. The lack of evidence means there is nothing to indicate the State had that role as set out in the legislation. At this stage it is not possible and it is not proposed to add further institutions to the Schedule.