Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister finished by saying that the amendments will not affect anybody who is eligible for the scheme, but I will ask about the reasoning behind the "concluding year" provision. I support some of the Seanad amendments, even though, as the Minister knows at this stage, I do not support the Bill because of the fact it excludes anyone who was resident for six months or less in these institutions. It also excludes people who were boarded out. To describe this as a missed opportunity is a bit of an understatement; it is just totally unfair and totally unequal. If, however, "concluding year" can be amended if it is found to be wrong, what is the reasoning for putting it in?

The Minister will understand that people who are going through this situation or have been dealing with this their whole lives, in general, have been continuously failed by the State and understandably do not have a huge amount of trust. When we see a table coming out, such as the one in the Bill, which includes a list of the names of institutions and the concluding year, the cynical part of me, to be very honest, asks what that is trying to prevent happening. If I think like that, I can certainly understand why people who have been in the institutions, or have had experience of those institutions or experience of the State's response to them to date, would feel like that. I want to get clarity on that.

As this is probably the last opportunity to do so, I again put on the record that the Bill is a missed opportunity. People who were resident in the institutions, regardless of timeframe, should be included. The boarded out should be included. The arbitrary six month cut-off has only served to create this hierarchy that is totally and utterly unfair. For people to think that because they were in an institution for six months they are somehow entitled to the payment, but if they were there for six months or less they are not entitled to it is cruel. I want to again put that on record, even though I have said it on several occasions at this stage. In particular, I do not fully grasp why "concluding year" has to be in the Bill, if it turns out it can be amended.

See this speech in context