Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, subsection (1), lines 19 to 22, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:

"(a) a person who was a former resident of a scheduled institution and who was eligible but did not apply under subsection (2) of the Act of 2002;

(b) a person who successfully obtained or obtains an award from a court or a settlement in respect of an action arising out of any circumstances which gave rise to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, and which proves they meet the interpretation of abuse as defined under section 1 of the Act of 2002, provided that he or she provides to the Board—

(i) proof of his or her identity,

(ii) that he or she was resident in an institution during his or her childhood, and that he or she was injured while so resident and that injury is consistent with any abuse that is alleged to have occurred while so resident.".

This amendment deals with the eligibility criteria. I remarked on Second Stage that the eligibility criteria as they stand severely limit the ability of those who have a right to avail of statutory fund to seek recompense. It fails to take into consideration survivors who, for many reasons, may have been unaware or unable to seek recompense from the redress board. It is clear from speaking to many of the survivors of the residential abuse redress process that the scheme should have been extended.

There are many reasons that victims of abuse felt unable or unwilling to apply to the redress board but it is wrong for them to be penalised for not meeting a deadline. Many of the people I have spoken to were too traumatised by their experiences in the institutions. Understandably, they had no wish to reopen the experience or to relive the past. Some people who went through the process regretted it and they were not impressed with the way they were treated. It is wrong that those only eligible for assistance from the fund should be former residents who were offered awards from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or who received awards pursuant to court actions and who would otherwise have received awards from the board.

I referred to the organisation Right of Place on Second Stage. It has stated that at least 150,000 children and teenagers went through orphanages, industrial schools and centres for young offenders. Many of these suffered abuse at the hands of religious orders and others in charge of their care. The organisation estimates that, of that number, 100,000 left Ireland and at least half are believed to have travelled to the USA. Only a fraction of this group are believed to have been aware of the existence of the redress board. This is the rationale behind amendment No. 1 and I urge the Minister to consider it. I realise he did not accept the amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil but he might consider it now.