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

I want to acknowledge and be associated with the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the level of abuse and the impact of that abuse, not only on the survivors at the time but in the decades that have passed since. Some of them still carry very deep scars today.

When the Residential Institutions Redress Board was established the scheme was limited to 139 institutions. We know that exclusion caused further trauma and distress to some of the survivors. I know, for example, that people who were in Westbank Orphanage have been in contact with my colleagues, as have others, to express their concerns about this scheme and their also being excluded from it. To qualify for Caranua when it was established, people had to have been covered by the residential institutions redress scheme.

I thank and honour those who came before the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. They gave freely of their time. Some travelled significant distances to be with us to discuss a topic that was not easy for them to discuss, and never will be, but which is very important to us as a State. The committee heard from a representative of One in four who said survivors of abuse in institutional care were abysmally failed by the Irish State in their early years. It is now incumbent on us as a society to ensure that, as they age, the survivors are afforded the highest quality, appropriate services they so richly deserve. Does the Bill before us deliver the dignity, respect and support those survivors need? They were not just victims of institutional abuse, cruelty and neglect.

They were also neglected by the State. Some of them speak of very negative experiences of dealing with other State redress schemes since then, that have left a deep sense of distrust in the State. These are people who have been selfless, resilient and dignified in their perseverance and they have been explicit in their requests. Their requests were explicit when we carried out pre-legislative scrutiny.

The committee recommended a significant number of areas to be further considered but I will only speak about a few of them. One of the recommendations is that the legislation should ensure all survivors of the residential institutions covered by the Bill have equal access as outlined therein. A representative of the Christine Buckley Centre stated clearly that we have to be mindful not to exclude people who did not apply for redress. They discovered after the redress closing date that many survivors thought redress was only to do with sexual abuse and not emotional or physical abuse. Will the Minister review that part of the Bill?

Many survivors also believe the proposed one-off payment of €3,000 is simply not enough. Sinn Féin strongly supports examining whether this payment should be increased, given the substantial rise in the cost of living we have all seen in the recent past. The value of the amount will be reduced due to inflation.

One of the significant issues that was raised at those meetings was the potential impact redress may have for those who live in the UK. We know approximately 30% of those eligible live in the UK and if they happen to be on means-tested payments, this redress scheme payment may be taken into account and reduce their entitlements. That represents a real barrier. A representative of the Minister's Department said that this matter is on the radar. Will she provide an update on what engagement has taken place to ensure this does not happen?

Survivors have asked that the professional advocacy service be set up as a statutory body and that it would essentially be a one-stop shop for all potential supports that are available to them. They have asked for a clear pathway to access medical, housing, financial and other supports and it is incumbent on us to ensure we do all we can to make that happen. That includes advertising in areas that are most used by survivors who are hard to reach. Whatever that looks like, it must take different forms. One contributor mentioned the possibility of GP surgeries being a way to reach those who do not get their news from local newspapers or online.

Another serious request of survivors is that the high-level interdepartmental group be reconvened by the Department of Education as an urgent priority to co-ordinate, not only the delivery of the supports outlined in the Bill, but to ensure there is full implementation of the Bill. This is a very important step to take. We are talking about people who have lived with trauma, experienced abuse and at this stage are quite elderly. They deserve our support. They have asked for it and have engaged with us in a manner that is very open and that needs to be recognised. We cannot erase the mark of distrust in the State I spoke of. We cannot turn back the clock or undo the abuse and pain these people suffered, but we can ensure at this point we do our very best to deliver what this Bill sets out in the best possible way.

It is incumbent on the Minister to look at the requests made by survivors at the committee. There are quite a number of them and they are all based on their lived experiences and what they see as necessary at this point in time, regardless of what may have come before.

Will he please review who is eligible to apply to the scheme? It has been raised, not only at the committee, but also by other survivors who have been in contact. They wanted it to be raised and I am happy to do so because it is important their voices are heard. They are the ones who lived through this and experienced it. At this point if their voices are not heard, it will further compound the pain and trauma they have experienced and that is grossly unfair.

I have a few minutes left, which, with the discretion of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will use to address to address another issue. While addressing a serious issue in my constituency in the Dáil the week before last, namely the Mullingar hospital paediatric service, I said, based on incorrect information provided to me, that a temporary replacement nurse did not have the adequate training to provide the service. I am happy to correct the record. I fully acknowledge this individual does have the necessary training. I never intended for my remarks to be taken as a slight on anyone; rather I was highlighting a serious issue in a vital service in Mullingar hospital. It is up to me to own that and I intend to do so.

See this speech in context