Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)

I do not have an issue with the technical amendments the Minister has brought forward. However, I have a significant issue with the overall hue of the Bill and some of the technical amendments give rise to some of that. It is still the case that many people have been unfairly and unjustly excluded from the scheme and supports. For example, those who are eligible for the initial scheme but were not aware of it and did not apply, those who did not take cases and, of course, those in institutions not included in the scheme initially have been excluded.

I read the Committee Stage debate and contributed to the Second Stage debate on health supports. The reference to an enhanced medical card should drop the word "enhanced". It is not an enhanced medical card. The vast majority of people who will be in receipt of such medical cards are not of significant means and are over the age of 70. It is a medical card the same as everybody else over the age of 70 has. The idea that it is an enhanced medical card falls way short of the Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card that is needed.

The Bill does not refer to the recognition of survivor status for social housing applications, for example. In my county, there is recognition of medical disabilities and other medical conditions. There needs to be recognition of survivor status. The idea that the people involved would be re-institutionalised at a late stage in their lives is simply unconscionable.

I refer to the Minister's reference to education and youth. In terms of the education fund, there should be an acknowledgement of intergenerational trauma, such as, for example, the impact on the lives of parents who have lived in one of these institutions and experienced everything that went with that and which also had an impact on their children. We and others brought forward an amendment in that regard, but it was ruled out of order because there would be a cost to the State.

I refer to the level of funding for people living abroad. I understand the rationale of the Department and successive Ministers in respect of the figure, but it does not take into account inflation or the cost of living crisis here, in Britain or elsewhere. That figure should have been index linked. We brought forward an amendment in that regard, but it was ruled out of order because it might create a cost to the State.

The Minister has a responsibility to pursue the religious orders in respect of these funds. Anybody who watched the "Prime Time Investigates" programme on the Christian Brothers in recent weeks can see exactly what is happening in terms of land hoarding and orders using systems to their own advantage to generate very significant private wealth. At the end of the programme, I was struck by the need for the State to intervene in the public good. That is something we sought in our amendment, which was ruled out of order yet again. It is something the Minister should take on board, arising out of Report Stage. I have no issue with the technical amendments, but I have a very significant issue with the Bill overall.

See this speech in context