Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)

I have no difficulty with the technical amendments, but I will use my time now and at the end of the debate to say that I am most unhappy with the Bill. I cannot support it in its present form.

The Minister said she is responding to the needs of survivors. We have a special advocate, and when that special advocate was appointed there was a press release which stated the Government would value and listen to survivors. I will refer to a little part of that press release. It stated the role of the special advocate would be to promote the collective interests of survivors, as expressed by them, and to amplify their voices. It went on to say how important the role was and that the appointment of a special advocate for survivors fulfilled a core commitment in the Government's action plan, which recognised that the response of the Government to the legacy of these institutions must be directly informed by the voices of those centrally affected. I say, reluctantly, that this was empty rhetoric. This was the start and end of the story. The special advocate wrote to all of us and wrote to the Minister on 25 May, setting out clearly what is not in the Bill and what, after the consultation process, should have been in the Bill. It is worth noting the scepticism with which survivors met the consultation process but they still gave it their trust. Despite initial scepticism about the purposes of the scoping exercise, survivors and their advocates were very clear on what the ageing population of survivors need and want in Ireland and the UK, not only for themselves but for all survivors. They do not want talks about talks. This directly bears to the amendments and the legislation going through the House.

It was very good the Government put the advocate in place but what does she tell us? She says there should be inclusion of all survivors, a very limited number of whom are still alive. Most of them are aged over 70 and 80; we have all of the percentages. The advocate asks for access for all. At present the Bill is limited to those who previously received redress under the Residential Institutions Redress Act. A significant number of survivors, including those living overseas, in prisons and in other institutions, were not aware of or were unable to apply for redress. They are all excluded. Giving the ageing survivor population, it is unfair and exclusionary to further discriminate. When I speak again I will speak about this discrimination and the harm the Government keeps perpetuating in the guise of fair procedure. Scheme after scheme, other than the scheme directly run by the Department of Education which I will come back to, every one has been unfair and discriminatory. I will not read out all of what the special advocate says as I do not need to, but she states the Bill should refer to any person who was resident in an institution specified in the Schedule of the redress Act 2002. That is not too much to ask. I would be asking for more but that is what is being asked for.

Then we go on to housing needs. The special advocate proposes a novel, innovative and cost-neutral initiative. I do not know whether she is being ironic. Imagine, to reassure the Minister she is describing as novel, innovative and cost-neutral the request that survivors be given additional weighting on the social housing waiting list. It is something as simple as that. The health service has been mentioned already. Let us stop calling it an enhanced medical card. The survivors are asking for the HAA card, introduced in legislation for another vulnerable group. The special advocate states that in her role she has spoken to more than 1,200 survivors and affected persons. She states the very limited and less than effective impact of the proposed enhanced card has been consistently raised over the past 12 months by the Magdalen survivors and those receiving the medical card under the mother and baby homes scheme. That is another unjust discriminatory scheme. The HAA card is the required card for all institutional abuse survivors, as it guarantees their rights to full and speedy access to health provisions and support for an ageing and marginalised group. May I say, they are marginalised by what was done to them by the State. Often they are vulnerable groups. With regard to the health needs of those overseas, they ask specifically that the payment to them be increased to at least €10,000. We have tabled amendments for a figure higher than that. All of my amendments have been ruled out of order. I have tried to work the parliamentary system but all of my amendments were ruled out of order.

The Department of Education commissioned a report in 2019. It was published and utterly ignored. The special advocate refers to this report. In the final report the top two priority issues for survivors were a request for the HAA card and prioritisation of housing needs of survivors. Neither of these two requests, nor the other requests, have been included. I speak as somebody with personal and professional experience of institutions. I have watched 22 years of apologies and there has been more than 100 years of institutionalisation. I will come back to this. Each scheme has been defective. The Magdalen scheme led to the Ombudsman absolutely castigating its discriminatory nature and maladministration. We are here today doing the exact same thing, telling survivors we have listened to them and then absolutely ignoring them, and ignoring the special advocate the Minister put in place to tell us what survivors want, all to save a few euro. It would have been much simpler all along just to give a payment to every survivor and their families in terms of education.

See this speech in context