Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to the House for this debate.

I recall clearly the time of day and circumstances in which I met the three people who came to me and told me they had been abused. I also recall the discussion I had with them as they did their best to describe to me the horror inflicted upon them and the impact it had on their lives. Those of us who have had the experience of engaging with survivors of this darkest period in our history could not help but be touched by their experiences and could not be anything less than humbled by the manner in which so many of them have endured their experiences and gone on to achieve so much, despite what was inflicted upon them in the past.

A number of years ago, I visited an institution which was previously an environment within which abuse and deprivation was inflicted upon children resident therein. I recall walking through long corridors, off which there were small rooms in which there were tiny beds stacked side by side. These were the rooms in which many children were abused and endured experiences which many of us cannot comprehend. Having met with survivors of abuse and visited an environment in which this abuse was inflicted upon people, I was interested in the proposals of the previous Government and in the work this Government is doing on how we respond to this issue, what we can do to ensure we reflect the horror of society at what happened and to recognise the diverse needs of the people with us now who endured these experiences.

I would like to make four points in regard to this Bill, some of which were touched on by other speakers in this House and by the Minister in his Second Stage speech, which I had an opportunity to read earlier. The first is an issue acknowledged by the Minister in terms of the process being created in the Bill focusing on people who have already engaged with an extensive redress procedure. As I understand it, this new process will be aimed at people who have already completed the redress process. However, an issue arises in respect of people who have not participated in that process. I know from discussing Bills like this in the past that a huge amount of work and publicity was put into raising the profile of what went on in the past to ensure everyone whose lives were touched by it had an opportunity to participate in the redress process. However, if people who did not participate in that process for whatever reason come forward we should do what we can to accommodate them and respond to their needs.

The Minister made the fair point that we need to use the money we have, which is a large amount, in the best way possible, which I understand. He also indicated that it would be a matter for the board of the new organisation created under this legislation to consider how it might respond to people who come forward, depending on the amount of money remaining. Given that the number of people who may come forward will, I hope, be small in comparison to the number who have already come forward, I would urge the Minister to ensure everything possible is done to meet their needs. We owe it to them to do so. I acknowledge there was a great deal of activity at home and abroad to ensure everyone was aware of the redress process. However, I do not want us to end up in a situation whereby any group of people or individual is excluded. They have gone through so much as a consequence of the State not exercising its duty of care and I do not want to see this compounded by their not being able to access the new system being created in the Bill.

This brings me to my next point, on the ease of access to the new system being established. The people involved in establishing and working on the board will do all they can to ensure people applying for services to be funded can do so easily through a system that is not too cumbersome. However, I am conscious that while no State organisation has been established with the objective to come up with difficult processes and forms we have many such forms and processes. It is very important that when this is up and running it should be well run and it should be easy for people to access funding for services to which they may be entitled. I do not want to see the three people I have met who have been touched by this having to fill out forms and go through processes which are cumbersome and too difficult when applying for funding for services to which they are entitled. We must avoid this.

As the Bill goes through the House will the Minister clarify the stance of the new organisation on means testing? The Bill makes reference to the circumstances of an individual and the hardship endured. We owe it to them to ensure the services funded by the scheme are open and available to everybody. In my short experience of dealing with this issue and meeting people affected by it, unfortunately they do not have such a level of means that the availability of this would not matter to them. The services being funded will make a real difference to the lives of those accessing the scheme being established by the Government. I would be very reluctant for these services to be means tested given where the funding is coming from, what these people have gone through and the impact these services could have on their lives. They have gone through enough. We know where the money is coming from and we should make it as easy as possible for people to access it and make as little reference as possible to their means.

The next point I want to consider is whether funding or grants should be provided for services or directly allocated to individuals. Various views have been expressed on this and those accessing the scheme will have already gone through the redress procedure. Even at this stage I have some unease with telling an individual who has gone through this that funding is being refused because what it was requested for does not meet the prescribed services laid out in the Bill or the State does not believe it is appropriate that the money is spent in a particular way. I urge those who will run the fund to be imaginative always and take into account the needs of those they meet.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the services prescribed in section 8 of the Bill do not meet the needs of those coming to the new organisation, or a significant minority of them, we should stand up and admit it and be willing to change the contents of the Bill. We should acknowledge their lives have been seared and damaged enough already. We should do all we can to be as imaginative and creative as possible to meet the needs they articulate.

I had a discussion with members of a family seared by this issue and they are aware of the services being provided in the Bill. They told me they understand how the redress procedure worked, that they were able to access some help from the State but that what is provided for in the Bill does not meet their needs. I struggle to understand why, given how their lives have already been touched by this horror, we should refuse a request they make. I read what the Minister stated on Second Stage and the Government has put much effort into examining all of the views of people who have come in. It is very difficult to achieve consensus on any issue let alone one that is so unbelievably difficult for the families concerned. With regard to section 8 of the Bill I urge the new organisation to be constantly vigilant in its administration.

I acknowledge the work done by the Department, the Minister and his predecessors in grappling with a truly horrific issue and the progress the Bill represents. None of us should state we have done our best and our best is enough. We must always be open to the views of those touched by this and do all we can to ensure the services we provide to them meet their diverse and unmet needs. I thank the Minister for being in the House and for acknowledging the strong feelings and interest articulated by everybody on this point. However, I also wish to register my unease. After everything that has gone on and a very extensive redress procedure, I do not want to find the needs of anyone touched by this horror to remain unmet. Constant vigilance on this point is very important and is due to the people involved.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister's presence in the House illustrates the commitment he and the Government have, and the commitment we all should have, to this very important Bill. I was struck by a letter in The Irish Times from a lady in Newport, County Tipperary published on 23 April. She wrote about being a second-generation survivor and that it is only through access to education that the cycle of poverty is broken. She wrote that she wants to provide her children with what she was denied, which is an education of choice. Deputy Donohoe is correct that none of us has any idea of the pain or the horrendous life of the survivors. We hear the term "survivors group"and it is great to have such an umbrella term but we are speaking about people. We are talking about our fellow citizens whose hearts thump and whose lives have been touched and changed. More important, they have come from the other side to illuminate and give us hope and inspiration. Everything we do must be to ensure these people's lives are enhanced and protected. I am very heartened by section 7 which states that the functions of the board will be based on the principles of equity, consistency and transparency. I agree with Deputy Donohoe that everything we do must be done not in order to exclude but to include.

While I do not want to be patronising, I am very heartened that this week under the Minister's watch the memorial committee met. That is not just about a memorial to the wrongdoing of our State and church, but also about the hope that the men and women who had to endure institutional abuse can find a better way and better life. I was touched to meet a number of the gentlemen on the plinth today, including people from my city of Cork and from Tipperary. They have lived such a life and are promoting an advocacy role to which we must all listen and I am very heartened that we will do that.

The Government is committed to the protection of children and all lives. I am Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, which is holding hearings on the draft heads of the children first Bill. I hope that a referendum on children's rights will be held this year. We need to listen carefully to the people who have come out of these institutions. I hate to use the term "survivors group" because it does not do them justice. These are citizens with rights and entitlements. Deputy Donohoe is correct in saying we should not exclude anybody if we can. I hope that those who have not come forward will do so.

Section 8 is very important in providing for the areas of counselling, health care, education, housing and other services for the victims of abuse. This cannot be a one-dimensional approach and needs to be a multifaceted approach across Departments and State agencies. While we are rightly very quick to condemn the church and the institutions, the State also failed people. The State has a duty of care and must live up to its responsibility. Our overriding concern as legislators and as citizens must be the protection and enhancement of the quality of life of the people. It is very important that the State listens and that the Government is not just committed in word but also in action.

I very much welcome that the Minister will pursue the 50:50 clause that has been inserted. In his reply I ask him to clarify of what it is 50:50. While 50:50 sounds great, it is important to spell out what it means in nuts and bolts. I have met some people I know in the religious orders. Some have been very clear in their intent, while others have obfuscated and been left to meander around, which should not be allowed anymore. I commend the Minister on his approach.

We are talking about fellow citizens of our country who were abused by our own people - that is the bottom line. The job of the State and church must be to take our responsibilities seriously. The Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports have revealed a legacy of abuse and an abdication of responsibility. The implementation must recognise the needs of the survivors and the responsibility of the State and the church. That is why we collectively must work with the Minister on this.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill which deals with people who were ignored for decades by the State and were repeatedly failed. They deserve what the Bill gives them and the protection it offers them. This small country of ours has been plagued by many scandals over the years but none has been bigger than the horrifying institutional abuse from which so many of our citizens have suffered.

The numbers of people attending this week's Eucharistic Congress compared with the one in the 1930s reflect the hurt many people feel following a series of damning reports. Not only has the continued institutional abuse destroyed many people's faith, but it has also destroyed lives. The church and State were complicit in this, side by side with each other. In recent years the people have repeatedly learned of the pure horror of what these people have gone through. We hear the stories, read about them, try to imagine what people went through, are sickened about what happened to them and then we forget and try to move on with our lives. It is not so simple for the victims and their families. They cannot forget and have to live with what happened to them which is why the services provided in this fund are so vital.

While I welcome the legislation, I cannot help feeling that the State continues to ignore some victims of institutional abuse as is happening in this legislation. The fund only applies to those who received compensation from the residential institutions redress fund. This only incorporates the victims of 139 different institutions. While it is easy to think that everyone who was institutionally abused is covered in those 139 institutions - owing to the vastness of that number - a significant number of additional institutions are not covered by the legislation. For example, those from the Magdalene laundries, among others, are not entitled to anything from this new fund. The Minister has said he may review who is eligible for the fund. Do we really need another review? We know who needs to be included and we know who should already be included. A painstaking review that will take months to be published and then delayed, as with most other reviews this Government has carried out, is not the approach to take on the issue of eligibility. We do not need a review for everything we do in this House given that they waste time, cost money and in the majority of cases give the expected result. All victims must be included and there is no viable argument to suggest otherwise.

The Minster has basically said that we cannot afford to open the fund to all victims of institutional abuse because the fund of €110 million would be depleted by the amount of applications, which is a sorry state of affairs and a shocking insight into Irish history. We must work to ensure all victims of institutional abuse have the services and funds they deserve available to them. We cannot fail these people again.

In addition, while I welcome that religious congregations are completely funding this new fund, along with many of my colleagues in opposition and government, I am concerned that the fund has only received €20 million of the amount due to it. The congregations have claimed they are waiting for this legislation to pass before they make their agreed payments. We all know this legislation will pass and while it is not perfect and needs to be worked on during the legislative process, why are the congregations holding on to their funds? Why have they not already paid so the services that are made available to the survivors in this legislation can be made available as soon as possible?

These people have been waiting for the services provided for in this legislation since the 2009 Ryan report and it is now 2012. They waited long enough for an apology and they waited long enough for compensation - we cannot make them wait any longer for the support that is rightfully theirs. The Government must ensure that the funding is in place as soon as the legislation is passed. It cannot be denied that the bureaucracy and red tape involved in this legislation only add to the pain of survivors. Many survivor groups have called for a simple, quick service that can serve them in the best way possible. The services that will be provided to survivors as a result by this Bill are necessary and appropriate, but the way they must be vetted and approved before the people can avail of them may cause some delay. Nobody can deny that approving the service will take a significant amount of time and in many cases victims might not have this time. Many are already struggling.

This is one of the reasons for the distrust between survivor groups and the State. Some feel the State should not be involved in this fund and that the groups should be given the funds directly so they can do what they believe is best for the survivors. Who can argue, indeed, that the survivors do not know best what is appropriate for them? The only way the State can prove to survivors that it is capable is by ensuring that a quick, appropriate service is provided. It is the least we can do for those who need it. The residential institutions redress fund cost €100 million more than was originally envisaged, nearly the entire cost of this new fund. That was attributed to a surge of late applications, third-party legal bills and expenses. All of this added more time to the process of distributing funds. In fact, some of these applications are still being processed. Furthermore, all donations of property must be approved by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. Again, this will take a considerable amount of time and place further time pressures on how the Government gets the €110 million required for the residential institutions statutory fund being established by this Bill.

My party is also concerned that family members cannot avail of this fund. Family members of victims are also victims. They have had to deal in many instances with their father or mother being emotionally distressed, depressed and mentally affected as a result of the failure of church and State to protect them. The Education Finance Board, which will be dissolved as a result of this Bill, made provisions to provide educational opportunities for victims and their family members. That is not the case with this new fund. Only former residents can avail of educational opportunities. We must work to ensure that the families of victims are also catered for by the State as they are also victims of our repeated failures. The Minister has said that education is very important for the survivors' families and that use of the fund for that purpose would be appropriate. Why is there no allocation of the fund towards victims' families? We must provide some assistance for the families as well as the victims.

We are also concerned about funding for survivor groups. Until now, survivor groups were funded by the Government, but that will no longer be the case after this legislation is passed. Without these groups, we would not be in the situation we are in today. We would probably not be discussing this legislation. In 1999, we would not have had the heinously overdue apology from the State. These groups have done more for survivors than we ever have and it would be wrong to stop supporting them.

Another aspect of this is the fact that the outreach services in the UK will no longer be funded by the Government. My party is particularly concerned about this. Our links with Britain are closer than with any other country. In every recession we have experienced, the UK has offered an escape route, somewhere the Irish could get work which their own country could not provide. However, for many, the UK was a much more serious escape route. Many victims left their hellish experience of the Irish State behind them to start a new life in Britain, never to return. Many were unsuccessful as the scale of abuse they suffered could not be altered, even though their country of residence had changed. For this reason, four outreach services were set up in the UK to help the people who left this country as a result of their experience of abuse in early life.

This legislation will mean those four outreach services will no longer be funded by the Government. I am concerned that the forgotten victims of the Irish State will be forgotten once more after these services close. How can the Government ensure that they will be able to contact these people and how will it ensure they know of the services that are available to them?