Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of the residential institutions statutory fund to support the needs of victims of abuse in residential institutions by the provision of a range of approved services. These services include counselling and mental health services, health and personal social services, and education and housing services. The establishment of the fund was proposed in the unanimous motion passed by Dáil Éireann when it debated the Ryan report some three years ago.

As we all know, the Ryan report catalogued horrendous abuse of children in residential institutions. The statements made in this House on the report reflected the shock felt by the nation at the findings of the commission. The litany and scale of the abuse recounted by those who suffered as children affected all of us. We, as a people, rightly felt shame for the abuse that we collectively perpetrated on innocent children. This tragedy was not perpetrated by the Vikings, Cromwell or the Sasanaigh; it was something we caused ourselves. Many of the victims continue to bear the scars of their experience. Consequently, the Bill before the House is intended to support those victims.

While I do not propose to address the Ryan report's findings and recommendations in detail today, I reassure the House that the Government is committed to implementing the recommendations fully. Significant progress has been achieved across the 99 individual actions and is detailed in the progress reports, which have been laid before the Houses. The new Department of Children and Youth Affairs has been established and will be complemented by the new child and family support agency. The new Children First national guidance was published last year, and the heads of the Bill to put Children First on a statutory basis have since been published. The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 has now been passed by both Houses. Preparations for the children's rights referendum are on target. Together, these initiatives will help protect our children and ensure that the horrendous abuse suffered by so many become a thing of the past. We all have a duty to protect children and to act when we know that children are at risk.

A comprehensive response has been put in place to address the abuse suffered by so many in residential institutions. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse afforded those who wanted an opportunity to tell their story to do so. The Residential Institutions Redress Board provided financial awards. While the board is continuing to process the remaining applications received, it is likely that some 15,000 former residents will receive awards. The national counselling service and the family tracing service provided by Barnardos are other important elements of the State's response.

As recommended in the Ryan report, the provision of a memorial to survivors is being pursued. In that regard, I am pleased to report that the announcement of the winning design is due to be made tomorrow. The memorial should be a place of solace and reflection as well as a significant reference to a very different Ireland to which we must never return. I hope it will serve as a constant reminder that we must never let such horrendous crimes against our children happen again. The memorial is not just for the survivors; it is a reminder to us all.

The establishment of the statutory fund is a further important element in the State's response. While the redress scheme deals with the financial compensation for victims of institutional abuse, the statutory fund will focus on meeting the ongoing needs of former residents who suffered abuse, although that abuse might have taken place many years ago, by funding the provision of a range of services. The statutory fund will be financed from the contributions offered by the congregations.

Senators will be aware that the Government believes that the cost of the response to residential institutional abuse, which is now estimated to exceed €1.36 billion and reach €1.5 billion, should be shared on a 50:50 basis between the religious congregations that delivered the services and the State, which asked them to do so. I have put this to all 18 congregations in the past year or so and, as yet, have not received formal recognition by them, collectively or individually, that they accept they should meet 50% of the cost.

Under the 2002 indemnity agreement, the 18 congregations contributed €128 million, bearing in mind the cost is expected to exceed €1.36 billion. They contributed in cash, property and counselling services. Following the publication of the Ryan report, three years ago, the then Government and Dáil Éireann called on the congregations to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. In their responses, the congregations offered cash of some €110 million and offered to transfer properties, mainly in the health and education sectors, which they at the time valued at €235.5 million, to various State agencies and voluntary organisations. The Government has identified 12 property offers, valued at approximately €60 million, as being of potential immediate benefit to the State and the transfer of these properties is being pursued. However, the contributions fall well short of the 50:50 target and with the cost of the response likely to rise, this gap is now widening.

Senators may be aware that I continue to pursue the 50:50 division with congregations. I have proposed the transfer of the ownership of school infrastructure at no cost to the State as one mechanism to allow those involved the opportunity to shoulder their share of the costs. I have given an assurance that the schools involved would continue in their ethos until they decide otherwise. I am also exploring the possibility of including health care properties in the ownership of congregations to be similarly transferred on the same basis.

I have made clear to congregations in my discussions with them that the Government has no wish to bankrupt them and I acknowledge the important positive role they have played in the development of Irish life, particularly in the area of education. I am a beneficiary of a superb education from wonderful men I encountered during my time. I am among the many lucky people who had this experience. However, it is not an experience shared by every young man and woman in the country. Having recognised all of this and the contribution they have made, I believe they have a 50:50 responsibility for the damage done and through whatever mechanism - I have offered one that will not in any way diminish their contribution to Irish life - they should discharge their responsibilities and the State can obtain a material good whose value is enormous.

The statutory fund to be established under the Bill is to be funded from the cash contributions received from congregations of up to €110 million. Contributions of €21.05 million have been received and are held in an interest bearing account in the Central Bank of Ireland. The Bill confirms the charitable status of these contributions and will facilitate the congregations' contributions to the fund and towards the costs of redress. While other congregations will forward their contributions on the establishment of the fund or at specified future dates, I continue to engage with some congregations on the timing of their contributions.

I will now address the key provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides that former residents who received awards from the redress board, or who received an award or settlement in court proceedings and who would otherwise have received an award from the redress board, will be eligible to apply for assistance from the fund. It is expected that approximately 15,000 former residents, whether living in Ireland or abroad, will successfully complete the redress process and be eligible to apply for services that they need.

Demands have been made to widen eligibility to include all former residents of scheduled institutions and to include in addition relatives of former residents. If eligibility were significantly widened to include, for example, all former residents of scheduled institutions, then the amounts available to fund services for individuals could be greatly reduced and the effectiveness of the statutory fund could be put at risk. Having regard to the maximum funds available of €110 million and the potential pool of 15,000 applicants, I believe the proposed approach is correct. I know people differ with me in this regard. I have always acknowledged that the question of eligibility could be considered following the establishment of the fund in the event of applications not resulting in a significant expenditure of the fund. Having regard to the views expressed during the passage of the Bill in the Dáil, I gave an undertaking earlier this week, which I repeat today, that the operation of the fund could be reviewed two years after its establishment and suitable adjustments made if this is the consensus on its operation. I believe this is a prudent approach. My priority is to establish the fund and to enable those 15,000 potential applicants already determined to be victims of the experience to access services.

There have also been some calls for the available money to be distributed on a simple per capita basis, while others refer to the possibility of a pro rata distribution based on the redress board awards, in other words equivalent to the amount of compensation received earlier. However, I must stress the purpose of the fund is not, and never was, a form of additional compensation. As far as we are concerned this issue has been dealt with by the redress board. The purpose of the fund is, as advocated in the original motion passed by the Dáil, intended for the support of victims. Eligible former residents will have a range of needs, with some likely to require more significant interventions than others. The approach set out in the Bill is intended to support these needs and I believe this is the correct approach.

Part 2 provides for the establishment of the residential institutions statutory fund board which will operate the fund. I will appoint the board, which will comprise nine members, four of whom will be former residents of scheduled institutions. The other members must include people who have knowledge of and expertise in the keeping of financial accounts and disbursement of funds; the management and administration of an organisation; or the provision of an approved service. It would be my intention to seek expressions of interest from suitably qualified and experienced persons for positions on the board and I will ensure the board is gender balanced, in so far as practical. Members of the board will not be remunerated although they will be paid reasonable personal expenses. The board will serve a maximum term of four years and individual members may and could be re-appointed but not serve more than two consecutive terms, in other words a maximum of eight years.

Section 7 provides for the functions of the board. These are that it will, in a manner that promotes the principles of equity, consistency and transparency, use the resources available to it to make arrangements for the provision of approved services to support the needs of former residents, and to pay grants to former residents in order that they may avail of approved services. The classes of services from which the board can determine the approved services to be provided are set out in section 8 and comprise mental health, counselling and psychological support services; health and personal social services; educational services; and housing support services, including adaptation or improvement of real property but not including financial aid for the purchase, mortgage or charge of real property.

Many of these services are already publicly available and eligible former residents may have an existing entitlement to receive them, whether living here or in other jurisdictions. The board will have regard to the availability of such services and it is charged with securing the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of the resources available to it. The fund will not be used in substitution for publicly available services, rather it will supplement such services or if there are restrictions on the availability of public services, for example if there are lengthy waiting lists or limits on grants, then the fund may arrange for services to be provided. The board will also provide information regarding its functions and will evaluate the effectiveness of approved services.

Section 9 provides that the board will set out the criteria by reference to which it will make decisions on applications to it and it will do so publically. In determining criteria, the board will take account of the individual circumstances, including personal and financial circumstances, of eligible former residents. It will also assess the likely effects of the provision of the service on the health and general well-being, personal and social development, educational development or living conditions of former residents. The board can apply financial limits to services or grants provided. It can specify minimum standards to be met by service providers and the supporting evidence to be provided by applicants. The board can also determine criteria for exceptional cases where the standard criteria may be disregarded to address cases of hardship. These criteria will be freely available and open to public scrutiny.

In response to applications made to it by eligible former residents, the board can undertake the following approaches. First, the board can make an arrangement with a person, irrespective of whether the person is resident in the State, for the provision of an approved service to support the needs of a former resident. Alternatively, it may pay a grant to a former resident, to assist him or her to avail of an approved service.

The board will set out the procedures to be followed when making applications, when considering applications and when communicating with applicants on decisions. Decisions on individual applications will be made by the chief executive or delegated staff member. An independent appeals process is provided for in sections 21 and 22. Let me be clear with the House. An application for a service will be made to the board and it will be decided by the chief executive or a person appointed by that person. If the applicant is unhappy or dissatisfied with the response then there is an appeals process and that is set out in sections 21 and 22.

The normal provisions relating to the conditions of employment for the staff of the board and the appeals officer are set out in the Bill. The chief executive is accountable to the board and can be called before the Committee of Public Accounts or any other joint Oireachtas committee. Standard accounting and reporting arrangements will apply to the board. As the administration costs of the board will be met from the investment account every effort is being made to minimise the administration overhead. I will, for so long as I have the responsibility, keep a tight account and oversight of that particular provision.

Section 24 provides that the Residential Institutions Redress Board will furnish the board with the name, address and date of birth of recipients of awards. The board can only use the information to determine if a person is eligible to make an application to the board. This is an important feature as it means that eligible persons will not be required to submit proofs of residency and abuse in an institution. We are not putting people through that process again. We believe that the measure reflects the wishes of many former residents to have an easy to use application process. They will not have to make that journey again.

The unauthorised disclosure of confidential information on a former resident is prohibited and constitutes an offence. Similarly, the making of a false statement or provision of false information to avail of a grant or service is also an offence. Section 25 provides that public authorities will co-ordinate their activities with those of the board. This is another very important provision and provision is made that when requested to do so by the board a public authority will nominate a liaison officer to deal with any queries that it may have. Many former residents have an understandable reluctance to engage with State services and these provisions should enable the fund to support applicants in this regard.

Part 3 deals with financial matters. It provides for the establishment of an investment account that will be established by the National Treasury Management Agency from which the board will be funded. The contributions already received, amounting to over €21 million, together with any accrued interest will be transferred to the account and further contributions received lodged thereto, up to a maximum of €110 million, excluding any associated interest. The agency will advance to the board the sums needed to meet its expenditure and the expenses associated with the appeals process. Any costs incurred by the agency will be met out of the investment account.

Part 4 dissolves the Education Finance Board and transfers its functions to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board with regard to the moneys remaining from the €12.7 million contribution provided by the congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. The current staff of the EFB will transfer to become employees of the new board. The statutory fund will prepare final accounts of the EFB that will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Bill does not include provisions for the winding-up of the new statutory fund board. While it is envisaged that the board will be dissolved when the moneys at its disposal are expended, the precise timing cannot be predicted and accordingly it would be preferable to introduce amending primary legislation to dissolve the board in due course and not anticipate in advance how long it will have to do its work.

Part 5 deals with three issues. Section 42 addresses the charitable status of contributions by charities that ran scheduled institutions. It allows those charities to make cash contributions either to the residential institutions statutory fund or as contributions towards the costs of the response to residential abuse and to transfer property accordingly to the Minister. Such contributions and transfers are charitable gifts and I, as Minister, can receive same with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and may direct that properties be transferred to other Ministers and other organisations, for example, to the HSE - soon to be abolished so that will mean properties are transferred to the Minister for Health and his Department - or to the VECs - soon to be abolished so that will mean the educational training boards. As congregations require the approval of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland to sell properties and use the proceeds to make contributions or to transfer properties, following detailed representations the Bill empowers the commissioners to authorise such property transfers and sales as contributions towards the costs of redress. These provisions will enable the congregations to make contributions towards the cost of redress.

Section 43 makes specific provision for the receipt of cash contributions that are in addition to those for the statutory fund. It provides that these contributions will be used towards the cost of the new national children's hospital. I shall explain the provision for the people in the audience. The fund has been established at €110 million. In my personal estimation we will be lucky to get that amount of cash. The motion of the Dáil was to fix the fund at €110 million. In the unlikely event that we get more than €110 million - and I want everyone to be clear that it is unlikely - that money will go towards the national children's hospital.

Section 44 amends the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to allow the redress board to strike out applications and requests to accept late applications where directions of the board are not complied with. The board is required to give at least 28 days notice of its intention to strike out such applications or requests. Provision is also made to allow an applicant to appeal a decision of the board to strike out an application under section 13 to the review committee. These provisions, in our view, will allow the redress board to finalise cases that it has on hand and will assist in the planning for its winding-up.

The Bill is an important initiative to support victims of residential institutional abuse. It is intended to provide compassionate support for those who continue to suffer the effects of abuse. This has been a long journey for all of us but the longest journey was travelled by the victims, some of whom are in the Visitors Gallery. There are no words of mine that can ever address the hurt that they endured. In my name, and in the name of every citizen of this Republic, I personally apologise to you. The Bill is one way of trying to compensate the victims but we will never fully do so and I want you to personally understand that. I commend the Bill to the House.