Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 182: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the reason an institution (details supplied) in Dublin 6 was not included in the schedule of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 despite the institution being subject to a regulatory or inspection function, a fact recognised by the Department of Health and Children; and if he will include the institutions in a revised schedule. [22411/08]

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Residential Institutions Redress Board was established under Statute in 2002 and is governed by the terms of the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002. The Board was established to make fair and reasonable payments to persons who, as children, were abused while residents in Industrial Schools, Reformatories and other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection and who were placed in such institutions by the State. The Board is independent in the performance of its functions.

When the Act was initially established, the Schedule to the Act contained a total of 128 institutions. In compiling the list, the Department of Education & Science had cause to make enquiries from the Department of Health & Children, under whose jurisdiction some of the institutions operated, as to whether certain institutions could be considered for inclusion having regard to the criteria for eligibility. The intention was that all institutions which were brought to the attention of my Department would be considered and a decision made as to their eligibility for inclusion prior to the closing date for receipt of applications to the Board which was the 15th December 2005.

Since the enactment of the legislation, my Department received correspondence from both individuals and survivor groups identifying a number of other institutions which may warrant consideration for inclusion. Following consideration of the matter, an Order was signed on 9th November 2004 which provided for the inclusion of 13 additional institutions in the Schedule. A further Order was made on 1st July 2005 adding 3 institutions to the Schedule.

The question of including additional institutions has now been fully considered by my Department and it is not proposed to add any further institutions to the Schedule.

In making its initial enquiries in relation to the institution in question, my Department consulted with the Department of Health & Children to establish if it could be considered for inclusion on the Schedule to the Act. The response to my Department was that, following a review of papers available in the Department of Health & Children, they were unable to locate any documentation which would indicate that a public body had an inspection or regulatory function in relation to the institution. At that time, the Department of Health & Children was not in a position to recommend its inclusion in the Schedule. Given that we were not in a position to confirm whether there was a state inspection or regulatory role, the institution could not be considered to be eligible for inclusion.

Subsequently, the Department of Health advised this Department in May 2007 that certain papers had come to light which indicated a state regulatory and inspection role and that this Department may now wish to consider its inclusion on the Schedule to the Redress Act.

However, further enquiries made by this Department with the Department of Health & Children revealed that one of the papers in relation to the institution which prompted them to recognise a regulatory or inspection function was the report of an inspection conducted under the Registration of Maternity Homes Act, 1934. The expression "maternity home" means "any premises which are, either wholly or partly, used or intended to be used for the reception of pregnant women or women immediately after childbirth". There are several references on the papers held by the Department of Health & Children describing this institution as a Mother and Baby Home. It would seem that persons in this facility attended on a voluntary basis as opposed to having been placed there by the State.

Section 4(1) of the Act states that the Minister for Education & Science, may, by Order, provide for the insertion of any industrial school, reformatory, orphanage, children's home, special school which was established for the purpose of providing education services to children with a physical or intellectual disability or a hospital providing medical or psychiatric services to people with a physical or mental disability or illness.

It is clear from the information available to this Department that the institution to which the Deputy refers operated as a Mother and Baby Home and is therefore not eligible to be considered for inclusion on the Schedule to the Redress Act on the basis that it does not satisfy the criteria as set out in the aforementioned Section.

I should of course point out that ineligibility to be considered for redress under the terms of the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002, does not affect a person's statutory right to pursue other legal avenues which may be open to them.