John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 20 are related and will be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 10, after “Education” to insert “and Youth”.

I will speak broadly as I know this is the first time the Bill has been back in the House with this Government and this is the first time I am taking it as Minister. I am pleased to be before the House to progress Report Stage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. The Government is deeply conscious of the trauma that has been experienced by all survivors of abuse, including those who were resident in institutions such as industrial schools and reformatories. Nothing can ever make up for the pain and suffering which was endured by survivors.

As Deputies will be aware, in June 2023 the Government approved the provision of a package of supports and services for survivors of abuse in residential institutions, comprising a number of elements relating to health, education, advocacy and trauma informed practice. This marks a new phase of the State providing ongoing supports to survivors and builds on the response to this issue to date, which has involved expenditure of approximately €1.5 billion, including direct payments and support to survivors totalling €1.1 billion.

The Bill has two main purposes: to enable the delivery of ongoing health and education supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions such as industrial schools and reformatories; and to provide for the dissolution of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, also known as Caranua. The development of the new package of supports was by consideration of reports of the survivor-led consultative forum, along with other relevant reports and submissions.

Subject to the completion of Report and Final Stages in the House, it is my intention to progress the passage of the Bill through the Seanad in the coming weeks to enable the delivery to survivors of the health and education supports outlined in the Bill. It is intended that access to the education support and health supports payments for former residents who were resident outside of the State will be available from 1 August this year. The roll out of the health supports for those resident in Ireland will be in the third quarter of this year, following consultation with the Minister for Health and HSE.

The subsequent amendments are technical amendments, the purpose of which is to amend the Bill to reflect the change to ministerial responsibilities which have recently taken place. Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 20 replace the term "Minister for Education" with the term "Minister for Education and Youth". Amendment No. 2 replaces a reference to the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with a reference to the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious that the Minister is new to this brief, as am I as a first-time Deputy. The Bill went through the House before I was elected. I am concerned by the proposed amendment to section 4(1)(d) of the Bill, as drafted. It might appear to be an attempt to water down the services available to survivors. Even less home help is on offer compared to the Magdalen and mother and baby institutions schemes. Section 4(1)(d) of the Bill, as it stands, reads identically to the legislation underpinning the Magdalen and mother and baby institutions schemes. In those schemes, and in this Bill, public home help services are to be provided upon an assessment of need made by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. The Minister wants to amend this so that the entitlement to public home health services will arise only where an assessment of needs is made on behalf of the executive, that is, the HSE.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy referring to amendment No. 7?

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are on amendment No. 1.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apologies.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are way ahead of us.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Deputies Connolly and O'Rourke on their amendments to the proposed legislation. Many younger Deputies, myself included, may not be too aware of the State's involvement in residential institutions, which finally closed in Ireland from the late 1980s up to the mid-1990s. I have watched recordings of Deputy Connolly in previous Dáileanna setting out, or painting a picture if you like, of the conditions that survivors endured. I want to say go raibh míle maith agat to Deputy Connolly for all the work she has done.

A number of weeks ago I received an email from Sage Advocacy, as did many other Deputies, flagging to us that this important legislation was due and to inform us of the free one-to-one advocacy and support services it carries out on behalf of survivors. I subsequently looked into this issue further, with the help of a book, Suffer the Little Children, by Professor Eoin O'Sullivan of TCD and the late Mary Raftery. Then I looked at the 2009 Ryan report online. I was deeply shocked, moved and somewhat annoyed by what survivors had to endure. As young children they were taken from their families. When I say young I mean starting from one, two or three years of age. They were taken from their families, brought to a court and sentenced by a judge to be confined to an industrial school until they were 16 years of age. In the schools they were often physically, sexually and emotionally abused. When that was not good enough, they were sent out to work for no pay in deplorable conditions, often hungry and with the loss of their education. Many survivors today have literacy issues.

The former Artane industrial school is in my constituency. I remember once speaking to the daughter of an industrial school resident, who recalled the day of the State apology. She told me her father and the family thought his life would change for the better but really, looking back now, there was so much damage done. She wondered how anyone could recover. In the State apology in 1999, the State acknowledged the appalling failures of care. A redress scheme was set up and the legislation today is adding to the much-needed supports and money provided 20 years ago to some of the residents.

In recent days, I have studied the amendments tabled by Deputies O'Rourke and Connolly. They want to expand the eligibility criteria for accessing the supports to those who experienced the industrial schools and not only for those who received redress. They want to provide a contributory old age pension in lieu of the unpaid work carried out. They are also asking, as Deputy Connolly just mentioned, for the HAA medical card to be provided.

These requests seem minimal and it is the least the State can provide. It is all very well to blame the church, which has not done nearly half its fair share, but we, the State and our society, turned the other way and let these people down unbelievably badly. As legislators, we have the opportunity to fix these wrongs today. We are the only people who can do so. Everyone else outside this Chamber only plays a supporting role.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have any difficulty with most of the technical amendments, but I will make a few points about the wider issue.

This is the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024 and it has the word "support" in its title, but it includes little in the way of practical support for former residents in its contents. It is more virtue signalling and promising something while delivering nothing on the part of the State. In fact, the State is washing its hands of some vulnerable citizens. The Bill contains provision for complex health needs of infirm former residents who apply for certain payments, but nothing relating to contributory pensions, end of life care or support for spouses. The Minister will fund psychological support and chiropody services, so, as one writer put it, residents can be told about the aches and pains in their bodies and heads while their toenails are being cut, but there is nothing about the exclusion of thousands of former residents of mother and baby homes from the payment scheme.

I refer the Minister to Patrick Anderson McQuoid's letter to The Irish Times last August. He was sent by the Bethany Home which was open until 1972 to a nurse mother where he was kept hungry. He was then sent by the Irish Church Missions to a family in the Six Counties who beat him until he escaped to England at the age of 16. What does the Minister's payment scheme offer to Patrick under this or any other Bill? Nothing. I think of James Sugrue from Kerry who was one of the children boarded out in some of the schemes. They have received nothing as well. I have to wonder. It is easy for the State to blame the Catholic Church and other religious bodies and institutions, but why are the boarded out children, the people who were in Bethany Homes and Westbank Orphanage in Wicklow, which was connected to the Church of Ireland, excluded from the scheme? It is worrying that they are. It is easy to find a scapegoat in one particular church because that kind of absolves the State from the overarching responsibility it had to the children. The Bill does not offer former residents of Wicklow's Westbank Orphanage anything as they are excluded. It is a collective stain on our history and a source of deep shame that those people are being ignored. They include people like Patrick Anderson McQuoid. They had similar horrifying treatment under the watchful eye of the State.

The Bethany Home was inspected by the Department also but, strangely, it has been excluded. The State is in effect washing its hands of a lot of these survivors, but their struggle will go on to be given treatment equal to the people dealt with under the other schemes. It is unfairness that has not been dealt with. The struggle of Mr. McQuoid and James Sugrue and the other boarded out children is unbelievable because at every stage from the moment James Sugrue was put into the boarded out home in Killarney, he was under the care of the State. When he was boarded out he received horrible treatment. His two brothers are now both deceased. At every stage, the State was responsible for him and it has washed its hands of him and that is not fair.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, lines 27 and 28, to delete “Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth” and substitute “Minister for Children, Disability and Equality”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Catherine Connolly is out of order due to a potential charge on the Exchequer. Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy O'Rourke is out of order.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, line 15, after “Education” to insert “and Youth”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy O'Rourke is out of order.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I got a bit ahead of myself the last time. I have been a new TD for six months now and this is the first time we are debating any legislation.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, Deputy. Will the Minister move the amendment first?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, lines 12 and 13, to delete “by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse” and substitute “on behalf of the Executive”.

This is a technical amendment to section 4. It was raised on Committee Stage by the Minister, Deputy Foley. Section 4(1)(d) currently provides for the provision of a home help service following an assessment of needs made by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. Assessments of need for the HSE home support service may be carried out by a wide range of health professionals, however, including public health nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The purpose of this amendment is to simply reflect the manner in which such assessments are carried out by the HSE and to ensure this is incorporated in the section and that it is understood that the assessment of need can be carried out by different individuals in the HSE and health service, rather than just one specific group.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am still concerned about this proposed amendment. It appears to be an attempt to water down the services available to survivors so that even less home help is on offer compared to the Magdalen and mother and baby institution schemes.

As I said, section 4(1)(d) reads identically to the legislation underpinning both the Magdalen and mother and baby institution schemes. In those schemes and currently in this Bill, public home help services will be provided upon an assessment of need made by a registered medical practitioner or nurse. The Minister wants to amend this so that the entitlement to public home help service would arise only where an assessment of need is made on behalf of the Health Service Executive. What does that mean and how will this be implemented? It seems far too vague a definition to be workable or suitable for a Bill like this. For this reason, we have a problem with the amendment.

I emphasise, as Deputy Connolly and others have done, that this Bill is already a huge breach of trust because it ignores entirely the survivors' repeatedly stated need for the full HAA card. Instead, under the Bill, people will receive little more than the regular medical card. We know from the special advocate, Patricia Carey, that survivors of Magdalen laundries and mother and baby institutions who are already in possession of this enhanced medical card find it to be wholly inadequate for their needs. They remain on interminable waiting lists for desperately needed services in housing and, lest it be forgotten, they have experienced the worst forms of abuse possible at the hands of the State and the church.

The Minister said the HAA card has only ever been given to hepatitis C survivors but the enhanced medical card is not what Justice Quirke recommended for Magdalen survivors. His first recommendation was explicitly that the full range of HAA card services be provided. This is not what survivors of mother and baby homes requested in their hundreds through the OAK consultation commissioned by the Government. They clearly requested the HAA card. It is also not what industrial and reformatory school survivors requested in yet another consultation, which the Government duly ignored. The Department of Education commissioned the Walshe and O'Connell consultation in 2019. The survivors need and explicitly requested the HAA card. This is particularly shocking because re-institutionalisation in nursing homes is the consequence many will face when home help and home care is unavailable. This is something the special advocate, Patricia Carey, has been at pains to make clear. Having been in touch with more than 1,200 survivors of Ireland's institutions, she is speaking from people's direct lived experience. I call on the Minister to withdraw this amendment.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make another point regarding supports available to survivors who are not living in this jurisdiction. I recently visited the Coventry Irish centre, which provides all the supports for survivors in the English west midlands. Unfortunately, the Government only commits to funding schemes. The centre has difficulty in that it funded its own premises, which is on Eton Square near the railway station in Coventry. The London Irish centre and the centres in Leeds and Liverpool have better premises which allow for private consultations and survivors can speak with greater privacy when this great work is being done outside the jurisdiction. The Coventry Irish centre has had to move five times in the past ten years. It helps survivors and older Irish people to whom we owe a great debt. They are the people who emigrated, particularly in the fifties. One of the workers in the Coventry Irish centre is a survivor herself. The centre has no funding, or very limited funding. I ask the Government to consider giving it some extra funding and supports so it can have a secure home for the people who need help or are getting counselling and other supports. The centre needs to have a permanent or semi-permanent place where it can speak to clients in a confidential manner. It needs some extra supports for a building, a capital project.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a first-time Deputy, I welcome the Bill. The supports it provides are very much necessary. The original residential institutions redress scheme was very transactional and survivors had a really hard time applying for redress.

As Deputy Heneghan mentioned, the Artane industrial school was in our constituency. I am acutely aware of the trauma endured by those who attended the school, both while in the school and for many years afterwards. That hurt and the impact of the school are still very much felt in the area. I hope the country has acknowledged and learned from previous redress schemes such as Magdalen institutions and mother and baby homes scheme. While there are questions about exactly how the net is cast, they are not as adversarial and applicants are less likely to have to relive their awful trauma and hurt.

I am aware of the advocacy work being done by groups, such as Sage Advocacy, on behalf of survivors. I have had very positive feedback from some of my former council colleagues and Dublin City Council regarding the passion of these groups and the efforts they make, particularly on housing advocacy because housing is an issue for survivors, with local authorities on behalf of survivors. I ask and encourage survivors to continue to come forward so they can be supported. It is the least we can do for them after all the trauma they have endured.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak specifically on the amendment but first, regarding what the Deputy Ó Muirí just said, the Ombudsman's report on the Magdalen scheme was utterly scathing. It is worth reading what was said. While I am not going to read it again, it was utterly scathing of the way the scheme was administered. Prior to that, Mr. Justice Quirke, a High Court judge, had recommended that the special medical card be given to the Magdalen survivors. That was not done either.

On the amendment, I had not spotted the issue but I am glad the Deputy raised it. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the matter. As it reads, I do not know whether it is good or bad. If I read it one way, it is a good amendment in the sense that it seems to be opening up possibilities by changing the assessment of needs on behalf of the Health Service Executive and taking out the reference to who specifically will do it. Why is that necessary? Does the Minister wish to broaden it out to allow other people to carry out the assessment? The Minister might clarify and explain this further.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a similar point - and I hope the Minister can clarify this - my understanding from reading the transcript of the Committee Stage debate was that the then Minister had indicated she would bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that would broaden this out to provide that it would not restrict those carrying out assessments to a GP or a nurse, for example. We know from dealing with constituents that these are done by occupational therapists, social workers and so on. I hope that is the intent of the amendment. If so, I do not have an issue with it but if our Labour Party colleague's concerns are correct, I would share them. I thank him for bringing them forward.

On the Minister's point that this legislation provides supports for people who are desperately in need of them and it should be welcomed on that basis. For me, the question is whether it goes far enough and does enough for these people. By that measure, it falls a long way short. The Minister and I will disagree on that point.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies. To clarify, it is for exactly that reason that this amendment is being made. It is to ensure it is not so narrow that it would exclude other practitioners who could make these recommendations. It is not to make it more difficult but to make it broader - I will not say easier as it is never easy - by allowing more medical practitioners within the HSE to make these recommendations and an assessment of need.

To the Deputy's point on the Coventry Irish centre, I am aware of the fabulous work it does. I will raise the issue with my colleagues, whether that be the investment made in these types of centres through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or other types of funding.

We need to look at ways in which we can support our Irish abroad, particularly where they are providing a service for people who might have left at a very difficult time and maybe do not have the close network that others would have at home.

Because others have mentioned it, I want to acknowledge the work of Sage Advocacy. It does unbelievable work in dealing, not just with the survivors we are mentioning here, but in so many other spaces as well. I know it has been engaged on this legislation. I appreciate that Deputies feel that we are not going far enough here but it is important that we get this Bill across the line. This will allow the payment for education this coming August and the medical card and other elements to be provided as quickly as possible.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 8 to 19, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 15, after 11, to insert "and Youth".

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can I speak on this? I was not sure what the format was. I want to support any Bill that gives supports to survivors. I am now in a dilemma as I cannot support this Bill. I will outline why this is the case. I will go back over 22 years of apologies. As usual, I thank the staff in the library for their wonderful work setting this out. I recommend it to any new TD. The library can set out the whole background to a topic. I have been here for some of that background. I am no expert but, I repeat, I have both personal and professional experience. The Minister says that other schemes have done this and we are staying with the other schemes. All of the other schemes have been found to be badly defective in many ways. Let us start with the apologies. We have had 22 years of apologies. It is very important to remind people of this. The Government says things like "We are doing this and it is very important that we put it through for the survivors". Nothing was to happen like this without the survivors being involved. Despite the scepticism of the survivors, the special advocate, on their behalf, produced a report, as I have said already. I am allergic to repetition, but it is really important. This was the scheme that was going to be different. In this scheme, we were going to listen to the survivors and the advocate and have an inclusive scheme, because that is what they asked for. Really, in the scheme of things, it is very limited. I accept the Minister's bona fides but I cannot accept what she is saying, because the system is failing to learn. It is just perpetuating the injustice over and over again to save a few pennies. I find that unacceptable.

Let us look at the apologies. In 1999, this apology did not come from a proactive Government but rather from some of the work by Mary Raftery and Donal O'Flaherty subsequently, in the book States of Fear, and all the other books and documentaries. Finally, in 1999, we got an apology, after a century and more of incarceration. In May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern apologised on behalf of the State to survivors of child abuse in institutions. Following that, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was set up. This was chaired by Mr. Justice Sean Ryan. He published his report in 2009. I will read out what he said. It is really important because we forget:

... an outdated system enabled by the funding model. The system of funding through capitation grants led to demands by Managers for children to be committed to Industrial Schools for reasons of economic viability of the institutions.

This was not for the children's sake but for the economic viability of the schools.

Mr. Justice Ryan mentioned a fundamentally flawed system of inspection by the Government. He also noted the Department of Education's deferential and submissive attitude towards the religious congregations compromised its ability to fulfil its statutory duty of inspection. He noted that the inspectors lacked the power to insist on changes. I will not read it all out but it is on page 16 in the digest. It is worth reading the summary. Mr. Justice Ryan went on to note a systemic use of corporal punishment and a climate of fear created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most institutions and all of those run for boys. Complaints to the Department were not properly investigated.

Mr. Justice Ryan noted that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and referred to predatory sexual abuse against girls. I have difficulty reading the fact that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions but I have a duty to read it out. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and I will come back to the religious orders that have failed to live up to their responsibilities. Sexual abuse was not systemic in girls' institutions but they were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees, visitors and in outside placements, which we have not dealt with at all. The report noted that sexual abuse by religious staff tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures of canon law. Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions that the Department of Education was informed, it colluded in the silence; it colluded in the abuse of innocent children. All children are innocent. This is the Ryan report.

Prior to that, we were fully aware of what was going on because we were told. Fr. Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town, back in the mid-20th century was disgusted by what was going on and set it out. We had the Kennedy report in the 1970s and the Cussen report in the 1930s. We knew what was going on. If we go forward from the apology in 1999, we got more apologies. We got an apology for the mother and baby homes and we got an apology for the Magdalen laundries. The UN committee said that the apologies were good but were undermined by subsequent actions of the Government and subsequent schemes. We look at them and ask what schemes were set up. As regards the 15,000 survivors of the redress scheme, I was there in a professional capacity. It remains a crime for me to say what the settlement was. It remains a crime for the person who got an award to say so. That is what we did in the 20th and 21st centuries. We are making it a crime to disclose. Survivors were subjected to an adversarial system. They were subjected to letters coming from religious orders that did not have the courage to turn up but sent their legal teams in with a letter.

That letter was put to the applicants by way of cross-examination, with nobody there to assist them. That is what happened with the redress scheme. In all of this consultation, survivors and their families tell us that it was more abuse. We are now putting a scheme through based on that utterly flawed system.

If we move to the Magdalen laundries legislation, we can see that, if nothing else, it sets out clearly that the Government and the State had a duty to inspect and they did not do so. Then a scheme was set up. We asked Mr. Justice Quirke to set out the criteria for the scheme. One of the things he said was that, at the very least, those involved should get the Health (Amendment) Act, medical card, but that did not happen. Subsequently, it was found that quite a number of women and institutions had been left out. Those women had to fight the whole way to the High Court. The Ombudsman issued a damning report on the scheme the Government had gone to all the trouble to ask Mr. Justice Quirke about. Although he set out clearly what should happen, what he said was ignored.

Then we go forward to the report on the mother and baby homes, which the Government got in October 2020 but did not disclose until the following January. It was only afterwards that the Government told survivors on a Zoom call what was in the report. The narrative was shaped, just like the executive summary.

I am using the time available because this might be the last time I get a chance to speak on this subject. It is extremely important to put this on the record now in a new Dáil with many new TDs. There is a whole background to this Bill. The Government has never been proactive in coming forward, despite its apologies.

The report on the mother and baby homes was not made public until January 2021, after the Zoom call to which I referred. I remember speaking about it in the convention centre. I did my best to read the executive summary over an afternoon and a night with the help of my staff. It turns out that I was the only TD who got a copy of it. I stood up the following day thinking all TDs had it. We had a discussion on the mother and baby homes report without anyone but me having it. I pay tribute to the researchers who did the work in respect of the report. The executive summary, with its particular narrative, is appalling. Nothing was learned.

One good scheme was set up by the Department of Education. The latter provided limited funds of €12 million, which quickly ran out. The €12 million came from two tranches of money from the religious orders. I will come back to that. I have heard no complaint about the Department of Education in regard to that scheme. It gave money to provide some redress and to help people return to education, but it also did it for the children, grandchildren and stepchildren. That element is completely absent from this legislation. We did not learn from the good schemes and we continue to perpetuate the bad schemes.

We can fast forward to Caranua, which means new friend, but really it was the old enemy in disguise. I have said that about five times now in different speeches. Its board was set up without proper regulation. In fact, the CEO went out on paid leave because of something she said that I will not repeat. Her comments about survivors indicate that she was clearly not fit for the job. The comments she made were absolutely appalling. The sum of €15,000 was given out. Then, in the middle of the scheme, Caranua felt it was running out of money and stopped the payments. There were arguments over white fridges and so on. The point I make is that Caranua was defective, just like the Magdalen scheme had been defective.

Before I finish, I wish to refer to the religious orders. After the apology and the Ryan report, some of the findings of which I read out, the religious orders were forced to give €128 million. In return, they were given an indemnity. They never had to worry again about a single case being taken against them because the State gave them an indemnity. The €12 million for the superb education fund was taken out of the €128 million. The only drawback was that the amount involved was limited to €12 million. The finding of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that the Government paid a total of €125 billion for redress.

If we fast forward to 2009 when the Ryan report was published, some of the religious orders were embarrassed to come forward again. The Christian Brothers reneged on it. The religious orders gave another €125 million or thereabouts. That is all that has ever been given. The previous Government told us that it had a negotiator talking to the religious orders to see if they would make further contributions. That has not been mentioned here today. The religious orders have not come forward at all. They have got away with holy murder.

I have never blamed the religious orders because successive Governments and politicians colluded. The middle classes benefited from workers from the Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. There is blame on the religious orders, who have a higher duty, because they practice Christianity. They were forced to come forward through being given an indemnity. Can one imagine that? If we fast forward, they then gave €125 million. We have survivors struggling and then we bring in the mother and baby homes redress scheme, but we exclude all babies under six months on the basis that babies under six months do not feel or see anything – they are a tabula rasa. One can let one's baby cry. More than 20 psychotherapists wrote to the previous Minister and Government asking them not to do this because it was arbitrary. That is all on file. They asked the Government to please not exclude babies under six months because the first six months of life are fundamental to child development. The scheme ignored the advice on babies under six months, as well as ignoring all those who were boarded out and those who suffered because they were of mixed race.

That was the mother and baby homes redress, and this is the latest one. We ignored the survivors, the special advocate and the women and men who came forward and put aside their disbelief and scepticism for one last chance for the system to listen to them. In the overall scheme of things, we are talking about a limited number of people. We should give them reassurance that they will not end up in institutions again, because I know the fear they have of ending up again in an institution in older life. It is devastating for survivors that they would ever again be under the control of officials or those in power. I do not think it is that hard. We have put aside billions. We have apologised repeatedly, yet we keep bringing up defective schemes for survivors, to which we are supposed to give the thumbs-up.

I accept the Minister's bona fides but, as a mother and a woman, I question that a mother and baby homes scheme would be brought in on an arbitrary basis to save money, particularly as the Department said money needed to be saved following the numbers that were crunched. The religious orders got away with holy murder – forgive the use of bad words – while their assets increase in value all the time.

It is too late to appeal to the Minister not to put this Bill through, but those are my reasons for not being able to support it. She might address the consultation process we set up when we put in place a special advocate who had a very special background that gave her great understanding in all the roles she has played. She set out clearly what is to be done. The Minister and the Department ignored that, however, all to save a few pence. I cannot support the Bill.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo Deputy Connolly's comments in respect of the previous redress schemes and this one. I think our party is going to find it difficult to support it as well.

I wish to make one final point about exclusion, to which Deputy Connolly referred. I believe it is unfair to limit this legislation’s healthcare provision to people who have already received a payment under the residential institutions redress scheme in the past. This discriminates against an already doubly marginalised group, those who could not or did not apply in the past for a payment. The deadline for applying to the redress board was short and many did not realise they were entitled. We know the process was horrendously intrusive and distressing, and it may be that some people chose not to apply precisely because of the health impact of doing so. I feel it is unjust in the extreme to exclude them now from these very limited health measures. It is beyond debate that the industrial and reformatory school systems were abusive per se. It should not be necessary for someone to have demonstrated anything about their particular experience under examination by the redress board in order to qualify for health supports under this legislation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies. A number of points were raised. The criteria that were agreed previously for the redress board focused on the abuse that was suffered within the institutions as opposed to those who were in the institutions. Deputies might say that, irrespective of this, someone was in an institution and suffered abuse, and I do not dispute that. However, what we have here has the same parameters and is what had been agreed, that is, it referred to those who received redress in the previous scheme. That is what we are acknowledging here. As I said at the outset, I appreciate that the minute we put parameters around any type of redress scheme, there will be somebody outside of it. However, if it is an open-ended scheme, not just for this but for any other type of scheme, it is an even greater challenge to ensure it gets to those who need it most.

I do not for a second disregard what the Deputies have said, in particular Deputy Connolly, for whom, as she said, this is very personal. What happened to so many people across so many different institutions in so many different ways was and is a blight on our history, and it is nothing that we will ever be able to change, just as we cannot change what happened to so many others.

I have listened to what was said. In terms of housing in particular, it is very important that we work with the local authorities. As far as I am concerned, given my engagement with them, they take into consideration the individual circumstances of individuals, so it is not just somebody who might be part of this scheme but somebody who might be part of another scheme or might have had abuse in the past, be it through Magdalen, the mother and baby homes or any other type of abuse. They take into consideration the personal circumstances of the individual insofar as possible. Our overall objective is to make sure that nobody is left without a home and nobody is put in that position. I do not think that is going to change following our discussion here today. Local authorities are very mindful of the individual circumstances people find themselves in.

What we have tried to do, and what my predecessor did is reflected here also, is to take on board everything that has been said by victims, by survivors and by the rapporteur. I appreciate it does not go to the same lengths as some of the individual proposals, whether in regard to the medical card, the threshold or the individual figure that has been provided either to those abroad or regarding support from an educational perspective. However, it is reflective of the individual asks, whether on health, education or other areas. I acknowledge and appreciate it is not to the level or extent that some of the survivors had hoped or asked for.

As I said at the outset, it is important that we pass the legislation to ensure survivors can access this and support it. I agree with Deputy Connolly. I am not saying that what happened in the past and the schemes that were put in place worked well or effectively, or that they were not overly complex for people to apply for. We need to learn from what we are doing and try to improve every step of the way. I am not saying everything here is perfect but I certainly think we have learned over time and we are better at engaging. I accept that is not going to change what has happened. Ultimately, it is not going to erase what is, as I said, a blight on much of our history over the past 100 years or so.