John Crown (Independent)

I do not want to sound corny but believe it is great pleasure to have the opportunity to serve in the same Oireachtas as the Minister, Deputy Quinn. I have regarded him for some time as the perfect model of the modern social democrat and have great confidence in his ability to implement an important agenda. I hope he will not think me unduly personal in saying the skill and great energy he has brought to his new portfolio make me more convinced than ever that my campaign to end mandatory retirement at the age of 65 in the public service can be justified. I have not noticed any particular diminution in the Minister's output since his previous term in government. I base my remarks on what I have read in Wikipedia being correct. Were the Minister working as a doctor in the health service, he would be transformed from being a highly productive worker, carer and researcher into being involuntarily dependent on a bankrupt state.

Let us consider the specifics of this legislation. I echo the words of my colleague, Senator Cullinane, in that I wonder whether this is the right week or point in history for us to even begin to give the appearance of putting a time limit on the activities of a very necessary social function. The disclosure in the Cloyne report that was probably most surprising to those of us who observed the unfolding tragedy of various forms of organised abuse of children by those in whom we would have been expected to have greater trust over the years was that some of the abuses occurred very recently. One wonders whether there are still people harbouring awful memories of terrible things that happened to them but who perhaps lack the courage, motivation and confidence to come forward. Are we giving the right message by appearing to be drawing a line under the scheme right now?

I have been a great admirer of the energy that the Minister has brought to the task of attempting to assemble the wherewithal to fund redress through a fair-minded but somewhat more focused challenge regarding the assets of the organisations that bore the greatest responsibility. Without intending any disrespect, I no longer get the impression there is a game of football taking place between the religious orders and the Government in which both sides are kicking from the same goal, as appeared to be the case in the past.

It is important in looking at this matter that one consider carefully the portfolio of assets that some of the religious organisations had. Has attention been paid to the circumstances of and motivation for changes in ownership of non-academic, non-scholastic major religious-owned facilities, some of which, at corporate level, bore considerable responsibility for some of the worst abuses that occurred although they may have been staffed in many cases by very fine people? Without being too coded about the matter, one wonders about the exact circumstances pertaining to the changes of ownership of certain hospitals and health care facilities and whether they should be examined. I am not making any charges because I do not know the facts.

It always struck me as somewhat telling that there appeared to be major changes in the management and ownership structures of certain institutions just when they might have been regarded as potential assets on a balance sheet. Is it possible for the Minister, as the person responsible for this matter, to ask, perhaps on foot of consultation with his Cabinet colleagues, whether there was any questionable motivation? One wonders whether, in redress of this, we could have for the first time in this country a different kind of ownership of certain health care facilities, perhaps through the proxy of the publicly funded universities. The hospitals would be funded by the State, held for the public good and run by professionals appointed by universities. This is a model that has resulted in some of the finest hospitals in the world. I refer to the Harvard-run hospitals, the University of California-run hospitals and those run by institutions as diverse as Mount Sinai and Cornell, which exist for the care they provide in the context of academic medicine. Has the Minister had the chance to investigate some of the changes of ownership? Are some of the facilities in question ones that should be considered to be on the balance sheet? I will probably make myself very unpopular in my own hospital for making these remarks but believe they need to be made.