David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I regard him as an old friend and colleague and somebody with a compassionate heart and interest in these matters. I have had an amendment to the Bill disallowed on the grounds that it would cause a charge on the Exchequer. It undoubtedly would do so, but this is something that should be encompassed in reform of the Seanad. It is completely ridiculous that these types of serious amendments are routinely ruled out. My amendment clearly infringes the rules, but there have been many others where that ruling is marginal. The cost of printing an amendment was used on one occasion in this House to rule it out on the grounds of a charge on the Exchequer. If we take this to extremes, we will get no business done in the House. This bar should we be removed and we should at least be allowed to make recommendations. We are allowed to do so in respect of certified money Bills - a rather Jesuitical arrangement - and I have had three pages included in the Finance Bill in the past. What is the difference in allowing us to table recommendations for any legislation where the proposals involve a charge on the Exchequer? We are also precluded from sitting on select committees. I was a founder of the foreign affairs committee and the only Member who is there since its establishment. Yet I cannot even attend, let alone speak, at meetings of the select committee. This is a side issue, but I ask the Minister to consider it at Cabinet.

The Minister indicated in his opening statement that a notice regarding the closing date for applications to the redress board of 17 September 2011 will be published in Iris Oifigiúil. While this is a necessity, I doubt very much that many survivors of abuse read that publication. The Minister also indicated that notices would be published in two Irish daily newspapers and two British daily newspapers. I welcome the inclusion of the latter given that many survivors are in exile, partly because of their savage treatment by institutions of both church and State in this jurisdiction. Will the Minister indicate the two Irish daily newspapers in which it is proposed to publish the notice? There are at least three broadsheet newspapers of record, namely, The Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Irish Examiner. The latter is a very fine newspaper which has published detailed investigative analysis in areas not far removed from this issue.

I accept that a broader scope of publication would involve an expense, and I cannot, therefore, put down an amendment, but it is important that we reach as many people as possible. On the day on which Rupert Murdoch received a custard pie - I hesitate to gloat about it or to make any remarks about the lower end of the media - we must acknowledge that, regrettably or not, many people read those publications. It may well be that survivors of abuse, because they have had less opportunity for educational attainment, are more likely to read some of the more popular newspapers. The Minister indicated that a total of 1,540 applications had been received by the board at the end of June 2011, while the number of advertisements published was 1,492. In other words, there is approximately one application per advertisement. This shows the significance of advertising as widely as possible. This may not be a realistic proposition, but I am interested in the Minister's thinking on the matter.

While I usually seek not to personalise issues, I take the opportunity to acknowledge that I known the person appointed chairman of the redress board since university debating days. I have also had experience of his wisdom in the Irish courts. He is an eminent and most suitable person. The ten members are not named but are drawn from various sectors of society. However, I notice there is no provision to appoint a representative of survivors. I understand this might be difficult given that survivors are not all in the same camp, having different interests and being members of different groups. I accept that such a move might be impractical and lead to dissension among the various groups. However, I ask the Minister to comment on this omission. I hope to be here for his response, although I have other business of a different political nature to attend to. I expect the Bill to go through quite quickly, so I may well be in the Chamber until the end of the debate. I do not intend the slightest discourtesy to the Minister if I am obliged to leave and, in that case, I will read his comments.

The explanatory memorandum to this short Bill is not very interesting, simply setting out the contents therein, which we know from reading the Bill. It is something of a waste of paper, but at least no Senator can be held responsible for that charge on the Exchequer. I would have liked the explanatory memorandum to give a reason for the introduction of the legislation, that is, to set out that this is being done because of X, Y and Z. I do not wish to criticise the Minister's advisers and officials, but it is my experience that an explanatory memorandum will usually include an explanation of why a particular Bill is being introduced, rather than merely setting out its contents.

I take the opportunity on Second Stage to raise a matter which I will be precluded from raising by way of amendment. I am confident there is no bar on my raising it because it is a matter of general principle and suitable for Second Stage discussion. I assure the Minister that I am not making any subversive attempt to push the amendment into the discussion. The issue I raise is the exclusion of the Bethany Home from the provisions of the legislation. It is remarkable that the advice both of the Department of Health and the urgent plea of the Church of Ireland, in the person of the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. John Neill, was apparently completely ignored by the previous Government. That would not have happened had it been a Roman Catholic prelate making a similar plea. The situation of the Bethany Home in Rathgar, which operated between 1921 and 1972, is exactly analogous to that of the Magdalene laundries. I attended a service some time ago at the burial place of 200 children in unmarked graves. The naming of those children was marked with a ceremony.

In 1939, the State's inspectors reported serious cases of medical neglect at the Bethany Home. The State deflected that concern and publicly instructed Roman Catholic children not to be admitted. This was a sectarian response and people are now being penalised simply for being Protestant victims. It is quite astonishing. An eminent appointment to this House, Senator Martin McAleese, has been charged with examining the State's relationship with the Roman Catholic Magdalene laundries and other institutions of that type. Is it not possible for Senator McAleese to be permitted to extend the remit of his investigation to take into account the interactions between the State and the Bethany Home? The survivors are entitled to justice. They should not be neglected simply because they are not of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a gentleman called Mr. Derek Leinster in this regard.