Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In respect of the request that we review subsections 13(1) and 13(2) and the timeline set out there, I have made the point - I know that Deputies may not agree with it and that is obviously legitimate - that this scheme and the institutional payment scheme are one part of the State's response to what happened in these institutions. We have the 22 actions set out in the action plan. They encompass a range of responses, recognising that the priorities of survivors are multifaceted. Deputy Funchion spoke with great passion about an issue in respect of the need to find a family relative. Those issues are what we are seeking to address with the information and tracing legislation. We are seeking to address people's huge need to understand their own identities and to make provision and an allowance for the possibility of families being united through a statutory tracing service, which we have introduced. We are bringing forward the institutional burials legislation in response initially to the situation in Tuam. We are providing for commemoration, education, a children's fund and a range of health supports. There is the enhanced medical card provided for in this legislation. We are also looking at patient advocacy liaison, linking The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, TILDA, the health study of former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions, in order to understand the long-term health implications. This element is therefore one part of that overall response to those who were resident in mother and baby and county home institutions as either children or adults.

As for some of the specific points that have been made, in respect of overall costings, I inform Deputy Sherlock that the annex to the interdepartmental group report published last November sets out detailed costings of various constraints. I am sorry - I do not have them off pat. In respect of the costings for the scheme we are bringing forward today, it is one of the schemes that is costed in respect of that annex, so that is probably the best place to look. Deputy Sherlock made the point about former residents having been in and out of institutions, and I take that point. That was one of the changes we made between the heads and this legislation. Absences of up to 180 days will not disqualify somebody from making a claim. The reason for that is that we know there were people who, because of what happened in the institutions, the ill health they suffered, the poor conditions or the poor treatment, spent large amounts of time not in the home but in hospital, often returning to the home, and it would be illogical to double-punish them for having spent time out of the institution and then to deny them access to the scheme. Therefore, physical absences from the institution of up to 180 days can be discounted. That is significant and, particularly for people who may be on the cusp of various elements of eligibility, will be of assistance.

Ultimately, in respect of the proposal and the review, we need to review the scheme as it has been introduced, how it has functioned and how it has delivered for those for whom it was designed. That is the ambit of the review as set out at the moment.