Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. There is nothing we can say or do that will change what happened to so many young people. That is not what we are trying to do here at all. With the introduction of a redress scheme when parameters are put in place, the challenge is that someone will always be outside them. It is difficult, whether we are talking about this particular scheme or the mother and baby homes or Magdalen laundries schemes, to have an open-ended scheme. Parameters have to be set to make sure the redress gets to those who are entitled to it or who are within the parameters set and agreed by the Government and the Houses. I appreciate there are people outside the scheme who have not got anything along the way, but those parameters were put in place a number of years ago.

Those who received settlements from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or similarly court settlements are the people we are discussing today and those who will be in receipt of the various different elements provided for in this Bill. Some 15,600 survivors received that redress. It was open from 2002 to 2011, which was quite a long period. I appreciate that some people might have moved abroad and might not have been aware of it, but every effort was made to try to ensure people were aware of the scheme, could partake of it and engage with it at different stages. This Bill is linked to that and the Residential Institutions Redress Board scheme is closed. It is therefore not open for anyone new to come under this Bill.

On the ethos, it has been made clear to me that there is no issue of ethos or any suggestion that one particular ethos was excluded or not. The Deputy mentioned the Bethany Home and the Westbank Orphanage, but a number of other Protestant ethos institutions were included in the scope. Religious ethos was certainly not a factor in deciding which homes were chosen.

On the health supports, it is not to exclude. The role of the representative and the advocate was to make sure survivors' voices were heard, but it is also important that we do not have a hierarchy or levels of survivors between those who survived Magdalen laundries or the mother and baby homes and the survivors we are discussing here. Therefore, the health supports provided are in line with other schemes for survivors who went through traumatic experiences as children or young people. The HAA card was only provided to one group, which was a group of people with significant health needs. It was a particular group of individuals who had contracted a serious and life-threatening illness. It was under the hepatitis C scheme. No one else has received the HAA card. I am not saying it is an advanced or any other type of medical card. It is a medical card that sets out exactly what it provides to those individuals. For me what is important is that they get it. Until this Bill is passed, they will not have access to it, nor to the educational supports or any other element of the Bill. It is therefore important to me that this legislation is passed and the people we are talking about can have access to these supports.

The educational supports are in line. I acknowledge we need to support those who were in the institutions. I know it is not in line with it, but I wanted to come back on some of the points on the commitments and funding. Funding came from two separate strands. One was the legally binding agreement and the other was a voluntary offer. Both of the funding streams have finished, but that is not to say there are not other ways in or times at which we should be engaging with institutions on other types of abuse. There may be other redress that needs to be sought as well. We certainly need to keep that open.

Overall, I appreciate colleagues' engagement with this. The most important thing here is that we make sure those who are entitled to these supports receive them as quickly as possible.

See this speech in context