Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for their time and for coming in. It is very much appreciated. They are probably aware that yesterday, the committee met with representatives of a number of survivor groups, including Fréa, which operates in the UK, Right of Place Second Chance, the Christine Buckley Centre and One in Four. I want to put to the officials some of the queries and concerns that they raised with the committee yesterday, one of which to my mind seems like a very real issue and something the Department should be aware of. Mr. Patrick Rodgers referenced the potential impact of receiving a lump sum payment on those living in the UK and asked how that would affect their eligibility to state payments there. He suggested that a solution could be found, or a mechanism for making that payment could be introduced, whereby the survivor would benefit from the payment as opposed to having their rental support or pension payments, which are means-tested, stopped because this could be deemed to be earned income. That is a very important issue. It is something the Department should take on board. We want people to be able to engage in this process. We do not want to be putting up invisible barriers. If they see this as something that is going to have a negative impact on their financial situation or as something that will be of no benefit to them, the obvious result will be that they simply will not apply. To my mind, that further compounds the trauma that they experienced as younger people.

Another issue that was brought up at the committee yesterday was the lack of reference to supports for those who may be seeking justice through the courts system. It was mentioned by one of the witnesses. I believe Ms Maeve Lewis from One in Four brought it up. It is something they would like to see referenced in the Bill.

The other issue that was spoken about at quite some length was the enhanced medical card. While the enhanced medical card will certainly give people an entitlement to access the service, given the waiting lists and the pressure that is on the health service it does not actually equate to treatment. That is a very serious concern for those we engaged with yesterday. Ms Carmel McDonnell Byrne said that the age profile of the people they work with is between 50 and 80. Certain medical conditions come with age. She pointed out that individuals could be paying €30 for a blood test or €35 to a practice that is not covered by a medical card. As a result of that, they make not be taking the best course of action when it comes to managing their own health.

I thank Ms Conduit for her opening statement. She referenced the role that could potentially be played by Sage Advocacy. One of the issues that the representatives of the survivor groups mentioned yesterday was the need for that point of contact and the equivalent of a one-stop shop to help survivors to navigate their way through the system. How does the Department view the role of Sage Advocacy? Is it just a service that people will be able to contact to be directed to the relevant Department, or will the organisation have lobbying powers? Will it be able to contact the Department on survivors' behalf, or will it just be providing information to the survivors? That is an important point to tie down.

I have a final question. I ask the witnesses to give us a brief update on the national centre for research and remembrance.