Seanad debates

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Residential Institutions (Redress) Bill 2011: Second Stage

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Ruairi QuinnRuairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I thank the Senators for their contributions and I will try to respond to the various points made. Senator Jim D'Arcy began by questioning the timeframe for this legislation. The original Bill did not provide for a clear mechanism whereby this temporary body could be deemed to have completed its work or to put a closing date on it. This very short Bill is necessary in the first instance. Societies such as ours are very good at starting organisations but any organisation seems to have an extraordinary reluctance to state it has done its job and will finish. Conducting the termination in the orderly manner set out by the Bill does not mean we will close the door forever on any subsequent responses to new revelations that come out. I heard what Senator Cullinane of Sinn Féin stated on his party's contribution. There is a broad degree of consensus on this.

This body was established in 2002 and was to have a window of three years after which it would close its doors for applications in 2005. We now propose with a precise legal mechanism to close its doors for new applications after 16 September. The publicity that has been generated in recent years has been substantial and was sadly compounded by the revelations about the Cloyne diocese and speculation about the approximately 30 other dioceses. Who knows what happens to be there.

This is a specific response to a specific set of happenings in which the State was complicit in that it subcontracted out to organisations, in this instance 18 congregations and others, to take people into incarcerated care by way of punishment or by way of society's response to people deemed to have misbehaved. It is a complex area and is horrible from the perspective of 2011. One only has to read the literature to get into the background of the way society treated itself and how we behaved as a people 50 years ago. In a number of residential institutions, people were involuntarily incarcerated by the State which contracted out the incarceration to institutions which clearly misbehaved according to the reports we have discussed.

It is necessary to bring this operation to a close. Publicity has been generated in recent days. Senator Power referred to the Government acting on this. In response to Senator Norris, it is the redress board which will decide what newspapers will be selected for advertisement, when the advertisements will be placed and how they will be run because it is an independent body. Out of the horror of the recent revelations will be a highlighted consciousness of what has happened.

Senator Cullinane made reference to the fact that once again people will be reminded they have an opportunity to make an appeal, if they wish. Last week, I attended educational conferences in Chicago and I took the opportunity to visit an Irish heritage centre in north-west Chicago. Generations of people emigrated from this country over many years. Some of the people affected may have gravitated towards the network of Irish societies and through it they will be informed of the possibility of redress. Sadly, some people were so traumatised and damaged that they left this country with hatred in their hearts and never mixed again with Irish people. They wanted to go and never have any connection. Inevitably, some will not have heard, or will not want to hear, of this opportunity. We cannot compel people to avail of it but we must bring it to an orderly conclusion. This is what I am doing and I will move on the termination date of 16 September. I will ask the redress board to ensure the advertisements they run are as effective as possible.

Senator Norris and others referred to Bethany Home. This Bill does not close the door to an appropriate response to the survivors of Bethany Home and the Magdalen laundries. A Member of the House has accepted an invitation from the Government through the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to chair the body that will examine this situation. I do not want to prejudice its outcome. However, by voting to terminate the work of this redress board, we will not close down any response to whatsoever else might happen and, specifically, the body to which Senator McAleese will respond.

Senator Norris and others also asked about the number of countries to which people travelled. The board has received applications from more than 30 different countries, including Great Britain, Australia, USA, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany and the Channel Islands and relatively obscure places in the context of the history of this issue such as Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, the Republic of Panama, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates. The total number of applications was just under 14,500. It is not clear whether there will be many more applicants but we will try to ensure anybody who can demonstrate he or she has a legitimate case will be properly heard.

I would like to turn to the issues raised about compensation and our discussions with the religious congregations. The previous Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and former Minister for Education and Skills, Batt O'Keeffe, met the congregations following the publication of the Ryan report and subsequent debate in the Dáil and they suggested that the congregations would be expected to come up to the plate in the context of a 50:50 contribution. A number of newspaper reports were inaccurate in that while that was said by the Taoiseach and the Minister, the congregations did not agree to it. It is my hope that when I meet them on Friday to reopen discussions that we can get some agreement on what their contribution will be.

When everything is finalised, this will have cost the taxpayer approximately €1.36 billion. Most of that money has been paid out on behalf of the taxpayer at a time the country has lost its economic sovereignty and faces extraordinary difficulties. It is hoped the shortfall of approximately €200 million on the €680 million contribution that one could have expected from the congregations will be found but I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of our discussions. I am strongly empowered by the sentiments expressed in the House to pursue them. As Senator Power said, this is not a matter of who is religious or non-religious. That has nothing to do with it. The issue is people taking responsibility to make a fair contribution to the cost of something that was jointly shared by the State and the congregations and it is in that spirit I intend to approach it.

I accept what Senator Crown said about not necessarily confining assets to buildings and properties used for educational purposes. We will certainly examine the possibility he has opened up. During the previous Dáil, I said this could be done by simply handing over the legal ownership of educational properties. This would mean the congregations making a contribution towards the 50:50 share and, as far as I was concerned, as the Labour Party spokesperson in opposition, they would continue to use the buildings as schools under their current form of patronage until they indicated they wanted to change it. My concern was twofold, and I wanted to ensure the taxpayer would see a fair response from the congregations. I have no intention, nor is it the Government's intention, to attempt to bankrupt these congregations, which have the responsibility of looking after their aging members. That is not my agenda or the Government's agenda. We are trying to ask them to make a fair contribution that does not bankrupt them while, at the same, time, recognises they have an obligation and, in return, the education infrastructure will continue as they choose it to continue until they wish to change it. That was the spirit in which I made those comments and that will be the spirit in which I propose to continue the discussions.

The shortfall was €200 million on the basis of the offers made following the publication of the Ryan repot. However, following the Government's consideration of the properties, only 12 of them with a value of €60 million are of immediate interest and that is why we have arrived at the current position.

Other points could be made but there seems to be a broad consensus to maximise the 50:50 contribution and to make sure there is a final opportunity for those who may have been victims to respond. Given the publicity that has been generated across the airwaves in Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere and the fact that 30 countries have been accessed so far, we can in all reasonableness bring this scheme to a close on 16 September for new applications. It will take the board some time to process the 1,000 incomplete applications and whatever new applications are received between now and 16 September. I thank the House for its support.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.