Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

These proposals seek to widen eligibility for the fund. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 propose that former residents who would have been eligible for an award from the redress board had they applied should be eligible to apply to the fund. Anybody who receives a court award or settlement in respect of an action arising out of circumstances which could give rise to an application to the redress board is eligible to apply to the fund. The effects of amendments Nos. 3 and 7 would be to include family members of former residents in the case of educational services.

The Bill's primary purpose is to establish a statutory fund to support the needs of survivors, in keeping with the all-party motion that was unanimously agreed by Dáil Éireann in 2009 in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan report. As I said yesterday on Second Stage, a maximum of €110 million will be available for the fund and it is estimated that there will be some 15,000 potential beneficiaries, that being the number who have received redress board or court awards. The Government has deliberately proposed this approach. If the fund were to investigate applications to establish residence and injury consistent with alleged abuse, as would be required if the amendments were accepted, then a considerable investigative structure similar to the Residential Institutions Redress Board would be required, thus expanding the role of the statutory fund and deflecting it from its intended focus.

The statutory fund is not designed or intended to consider issues such as abuse and will only take applications from those who have already received an award, either from the courts or the redress board. These amendments seek to entitle those who would have received awards had they applied to the redress board. The difficulty is that requiring the fund to examine such applications would inevitably occasion considerable costs. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that more than 900 applications to the redress board were withdrawn, refused or resulted in no award, generally on the basis that the person was not resident in the scheduled institution, there would likely also be applications to the fund that would ultimately prove ineligible. The Bill specifically allows the redress board to advise the fund of those who received awards, thus enabling the fund to confirm applicants' entitlements.

Extensive efforts were made to facilitate claims to the redress board. It undertook press, television and radio advertising campaigns and placed some 1,500 advertisements. It held information days throughout the United Kingdom in 2004 and distributed 15,000 leaflets to the network of Irish societies. It also placed advertisements in United Kingdom newspapers and in Irish publications in the United States and Australia. The initial closing date for receipt of applications was 2005, some three years after the board was established. The board continued to accept late applications in exceptional circumstances up until September of last year, when its power to accept such applications ceased. By that time it had received 2,766 late submissions. By the end of March of this year it had allowed 1,136 of these, disallowed 214 and had a further 1,256 to consider. Any former resident who did not apply to the redress board is entitled to avail of the counselling and family-tracing services available.

Extending entitlement to children and grandchildren of former residents who received awards from the redress board to educational services from the fund, as is proposed in amendments Nos. 3 and 7, would broaden the scope of the fund beyond that which is intended. As has been acknowledged, there is no unanimity on this proposal across the survivor community itself. I am aware that relatives of former residents were eligible to receive support for the Education Finance Board and I acknowledge that the latter has done excellent work in the context of distributing the €12.7 million provided by the religious congregations under the 2002 indemnity agreement. However, it was always clear that this particular fund would run out and we are now almost at that point. While I appreciate the sentiments expressed by Senators regarding the range of eligibility issues, I urge them to see the logic of the Government's position on this matter.

In view of comments by Members of the Lower House in respect of concerns expressed by some groups representing former residents and also by a number of congregations, I have committed to review the operation of the fund in two years' time. The eligibility issue could be reconsidered in the event that applications to the fund do not result in significant expenditure. While I note the arguments made in support of these amendments by the various Senators, I firmly believe that it is best to proceed on the basis proposed in the Bill. I must, therefore, oppose the amendments.

As I indicated on Second Stage, it is my intention to ask the new board - of which four members will either be survivors or representatives of survivors - when is appointed, to conduct its business in such a way that it will monitor its own decisions and own actions. This will ensure that at the end of the two-year period we will be able to take stock and see where we stand in respect of what has actually happened. It will not simply be a case of pressing the review button in two years' time. The board will be engaging in an ongoing monitoring process so that at the end of the two-year period we will be in a position to make a quick decision on whether we should respond in respect of the matters to which the amendments relate. For the time being, however, I am not in a position to accept the amendments.