Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has a big problem with wasting public money. Yesterday, I raised with the Taoiseach that taxpayers will stump up €100,000 for another bicycle shed and the never-ending catalogue of waste on the watch of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The Government is pouring millions of euro in people's hard-earned money down the drain.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report published yesterday raised serious concerns regarding the spending of taxpayers' money across the board, including the Office of Public Works, OPW, paying €20 million to rent offices that were left empty. One of the loudest alarm bells was sounded on the spending on the International Protection Accommodation Service, IPAS, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. The damning report points to a lack of due diligence and payment control in the awarding of IPAS contracts, on which the Government will spend €1.2 billion this year.

Some of it is breathtaking. There is evidence of overcharging by private operators, including companies charging for beds that were not provided and charging VAT when the accommodation is VAT exempt. One operator overcharged the State by €7.4 million for VAT and it still has a Government contract. The report shines a light on other serious issues, including incomplete due diligence records and unverifiable invoice rates. Signed contracts could not be found in more than one third of the cases examined. Proof of ownership of the properties or a copy of leases was provided for only 5% of the properties examined. Astonishingly, the prepayment system used by IPAS did not include a check to establish capacity or occupancy levels. We are talking about billions of euro of public money and the management around it is utterly incompetent and wide open to abuse.

Even before the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, we knew there were serious issues with spending on IPAS. We knew that two directors of a café-turned-IPAS-accommodation paid themselves €4.6 million in 2024 when only three years earlier, that same company made a profit of a mere €2,092. That is some pay hike. This is cowboy stuff and the big fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Government has allowed a small number of private operators to become multimillionaires overnight at the expense of the taxpayer and this cannot go on. Faoi stiúir an Rialtais seo, tá airgead poiblí á chur amú go scannalach ar bhrabúsaíocht atá ar bun acu siúd atá ag tabhairt faoi sholáthar sheirbhísí lóistín d’iarratasóirí ar chosaint idirnáisiúnta. Caithfear stop a chur leis. This squandering of public money is happening on the watch of the Government and on the Minister's watch and it is his job to sort it out. It is time to end the extreme profiteering from IPAS accommodation. Does the Government accept responsibility for this scandalous waste? Will the Minister urgently initiate a thorough review of every IPAS contract?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for her question. I welcome that yesterday the Comptroller and Auditor General's published his report for 2024. One of the items in it, as she identified, was a chapter on the management of IPAS contracts. That report is helpful because it sets out, what no doubt the Deputy believes as well as I believe, how spending on IPAS has increased significantly in recent years. In 2019, we spent €129 million on IPAS accommodation. Last year, we spent €1 billion. As the report indicates, however, the real driver of expenditure in this area is the number of residents in the system. In 2019, 7,683 residents were accommodated by IPAS. Last year, there were 32,700 and the real driver of the number of residents coming into the system is, being frank, the number of people applying for international protection. In 2022, 2023 and 2024, a total of 25,000 people came to Ireland and applied for international protection. That was significantly in excess of the numbers in the years prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. We also have to take into account that, as well as dealing with those people, we had to provide accommodation for 114,000 Ukrainians who had arrived. The effect of the arrivals and the increase in the accommodation requirements was that we went from a situation in 2019 when the State had 78 centres to a situation in 2024 that it had 324 centres.

The Deputy correctly identified that issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General were precontract due diligence, precontract compliance and the VAT issue. I want her to know, however, that I have taken steps to ensure we are getting better value for money. This year, I renegotiated over 100 contracts. I have been informed that the saving to the State resulting from those renegotiations is in the region of over €50 million. I have also terminated 12 contracts for a variety of reasons, including inadequate services being provided and inadequate quality. We need to recognise, in respect of the VAT issue, which was brought to my attention by the Department, that the overpayment of VAT was brought to the attention of the Department and Revenue by the provider. It indicated that there had been an overpayment because of charges being imposed on accommodation that is not VATable, while food is VATable. My understanding is that the money has been reconciled and repaid and that no further moneys are outstanding.

However, to ensure we can reduce our expenditure in this area, I am seeking to move from commercial enterprise provision to State enterprise provision. I had a good engagement with the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Carthy's committee on the subject of IPAS. The reason I want to move to State provided accommodation is that at present it costs €30,000 per annum to accommodate an asylum seeker in private accommodation, whereas it costs €12,000 per annum in State accommodation. That is why this year I have been able to increase the number of State units from 900 last year to 4,000 this year. The objective of the Government is to get to 14,000 accommodation units by 2028. Steps are being taken. However, I have sympathy for Deputy O'Gorman who was the Minister when the surge happened and had to provide accommodation. I have no doubt the pressures on the Government at the time resulted in contracts being entered into that we would not enter into now.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked the Minister two questions. Does the Government take responsibility for the scandalous waste and lack of accountability and proper management I have set out?

By way of response, the Minister reached for everyone else bar the Government. He should attribute this waste to those who are in the accommodation. That is simply not an accurate reflection. That is not what the Comptroller and Auditor General found. What the Comptroller and Auditor General has found is utter incompetence and an incredibly cavalier attitude by the Minister's Government. What the failures in due diligence and compliance actually mean, just to decode it, is that the Government has created a golden opportunity for people to turn a fast buck courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

I ask the Minister again to take responsibility for this situation. Will there be a review of every IPAS contract? I fear that what the Comptroller and Auditor General has revealed - as shocking as it is - is only a fraction of what has actually been going on. The Irish taxpayer wants to know whether the Government has played fast and loose with billions and billions of their hard-earned money.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All of the contracts are being reviewed as they are come up for expiration. That is why I have managed to bring about a situation where we have achieved savings of over €50 million this year as a result of renegotiating 100 contracts. The Deputy asked whether or not I accept the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is apparent from the report and if the Deputy read it she could see-----

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, responsibility for the state of play.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----that in respect of each recommendation, the response of the Department of justice is agreed. We agree with the findings set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report.

What we need to do, however, is to try to ensure that we can reduce the cost on the State. We have a new rate card in place which will ensure we pay lesser amounts for the accommodation. The new average is €71 per person per night. That is significantly down on what it was previously. However, we need to recognise what is the driver of it is the number of people seeking accommodation.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not responsible for the Minister’s incompetence. That is on him.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will certainly ensure there are efficiencies in the system. I am achieving efficiencies in the system. I want to get more State accommodation purchased but we need to recognise that when the contracts are coming up for negotiation, I and my Department will ensure that we get the best deal possible for the State.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The recent RTÉ “Prime Time" programme into the purchase of mobile phone location data was shocking. For very little money, and with very little effort, journalists were able to buy data which tracked the journeys of smartphone users across Ireland, based in different locations. They even tracked naval vessels, people in Irish prisons and they tracked phones here in Leinster House. Using this data, as we know, they were able to trace the residential addresses of political representatives. The Minister and Deputy Barry Ward were featured in the programme.

It was particularly chilling - and the findings were chilling - given the recent reports of very serious online abuse and threats of violence against the Tánaiste, Simon Harris and his family. I want again to condemn absolutely outright those threats. Threats against public representatives and their families represent a threat to democracy. They undermine our political system and they deter people from entering politics.

This is a very serious issue but it is not new. It affects the civil liberties of all our citizens and not just those in public life. As long ago as 2020, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, undertook a similar exercise to RTÉ’s “Prime Time” team. It purchased data, identifying 200 Irish people who had been tagged as survivors of abuse but despite handing those findings to the Minister's predecessor and the Data Protection Commission, no action was taken at the time to protect the privacy of individuals.

Following the recent “Prime Time” programme just last month, the Data Protection Commission, DPC, has pledged to look into this matter at last but it seems that the best response the Government could give was a watery commitment to looking at the possibility of vague new laws. Frankly that is not good enough nor is it appropriate.

As I made clear, the GDPR already contain the safeguards necessary to enable the DPC to take the action that is needed to prevent the sale of data where no meaningful or informed consent has been given as it could not be given when we see this absolutely brazen use of data in this way. As the Minister knows, the DPC has the statutory powers it needs to protect the privacy of smartphone users in this country and we know this but, to date, it has not taken necessary action to protect people whose smartphone data is up for sale right now. It is welcome that the DPC has announced it will commence investigations with a view to taking enforcement proceedings against two of the companies featured in the “Prime Time" programme but the question remains: why did the DPC not use its existing statutory powers sooner to protect people’s privacy? Why has the Government taken such a hands-off approach to this?

I raised this in this Chamber two weeks ago in advance of the “Prime Time” programme. The Tánaiste offered me only a holding response and nothing of substance and the Government did not put up a spokesperson on the “Prime Time” programme that evening.

What is the Minister doing to protect the privacy rights of our communities and, because we are an EU tech hub, what is he doing to protect privacy across the EU? Let us be clear: this poses not only a risk to individuals but also to our national cybersecurity. We know that Ireland lacks an adequate overarching strategy to guard against cyber attack. We saw that with the HSE ransomware attack recently.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for her question. I did see the “Prime Time” programme two weeks ago and I thought it was very concerning. It was an issue of considerable concern to me, not that fact that I or, indeed, other politicians were identified in it, but the potential that was there for brokers, of whom we were unaware, to sell on the market details about an individual’s movements. Obviously, from a security point of view, that could be an extremely serious matter if it was the case that individuals could identify the movement of individuals such as gardaí or prison officers. I am extremely concerned about it. In the aftermath of the programme, I met with officials in my Department and asked them to engage with the DPC which, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, has statutory responsibility for this area. My information is that the DPC has used the statutory powers it has already to investigate this matter. As a result of its investigations, it has been able to identify that one of the two entities identified in the “Prime Time” programme is based in Ireland. I understand the DPC has visited its offices for the purposes of continuing its investigation. I am also aware that the other entity that was identified in the programme that is selling what is personal data is based not in Ireland but in another EU country. I am informed by the DPC that it has contacted the equivalent of the DPC in that country and notified it of it.

The Deputy asked why I did not do anything sooner. Just because I did not announce it does not mean I am not doing something. I have given her an indication of what has been done in the two weeks since the programme. It is important to point out that the Data Protection Commissioner has very considerable powers under the data protection legislation that this House has enacted. Under those powers, they are responsible to protect the personal data of individuals in this country. If one looks at what was revealed in the “Prime Time” programme, what was most concerning was that individuals' movements could be so readily identified and also sold on. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where that type of personal data as to where a person is going on a daily basis is available for sale on the commercial market.

On what the commission is continuing to do, it is, as the Deputy knows, fully independent in the exercise of its functions but it does engage with officials in my Department. I am satisfied that the investigation that has commenced is ongoing and we will get to the bottom of who these data brokers are. Personal data is very clear when we identify it. It is unquestionably the case that the movements of an individual - whether he or she is a TD or not is irrelevant - being sold on the market for the purpose of commercial enterprise or more nefarious activity is unacceptable.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that response. It is welcome to hear that his officials are engaging with the DPC on this and that the DPC is using the statutory powers. I am also glad that the Minister confirmed to me what I had said at the start which is that the DPC does have adequate statutory powers and that the issue is about the usage and application of those powers.

The Minister said that one of the brokers is based here in Ireland. That is welcome because clearly enforcement proceedings will be more straightforward. He said there is another in another EU country. He might clarify which EU country that is. It is vital that there is follow up here in relation to data brokers who are acting in flagrant disregard of GDPR and of our own data protection laws. However, individuals still have concerns. Appeals Centre Europe, which is based Ireland, issued a transparency report today. It says that only 78 eligible disputes emerged from Ireland between November 2024 and August 2025 and only 50 decisions have issued.

Given the widespread proliferation of online abuse, toxic language and horrible threats, it is extraordinary that so few decisions have been made by this body, which is supposed to be safeguarding citizens' rights. The decisions it makes are not even legally binding on platforms. What are the Government's plans to reassure citizens that our data will be private?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not going to identify the other EU country as of yet.

Deputies:

Why not?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to put the focus on that country or the entity. In terms of the issues that arise, one of the difficulties is that many of us have granted permission to use apps to gain certain services on our mobile phones, for instance weather apps, location apps or maps. This can have the impact that we are giving information out about our location. I am not suggesting all responsibility should rest on the individual but certainly since that programme aired, I have turned off any of the location apps on my phone and I recommend to other Deputies that they do the same. We can turn them on when we need to use them or when we need to use a map.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But the consent does not cover sale.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it does not but notwithstanding that, if we manage to put ourselves in a situation where we are not making the information available it cannot then subsequently be sold on. This is a recommendation I make. It is certainly inappropriate for it to be sold on and I know the DPC is looking at it. Further engagement will take place in respect of it.

Holly Cairns (Cork South-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is less than a week to go before the budget is announced and it is apparently "elbows out" at the Cabinet table, or at least that is what the newspapers are reporting. We are told there are battles going on behind the scenes as Ministers try to secure money for their Departments. You would swear this was a Government that made every single penny count. Of course, then we read the latest damning Comptroller and Auditor General report about enormous levels of waste across government and public bodies. A total of €20 million was wasted on renting unoccupied offices and €248,000 on unused hotel rooms for gardaí for one event. Tens of millions of euro of public money have been flushed down the drain because of the same old story of no controls, no oversight and no accountability. Never before has a Government had so much money to spend and achieved so little. The opportunity those record budget surpluses represented were wasted by the previous Government on one-off measures. What do we have to show for it? We have an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, a worsening housing disaster, threadbare disability services and crumbling infrastructure.

What is most alarming is that it seems no lessons have been learned. We do not hear anything from the Government that indicates it wants to change course. This is why the kite flying about this year's budget is so concerning. If leaks are anything to go by, this will be an uninspiring budget which just tinkers around the edges. What strikes me is the lack of ambition and the absence of any imagination. The disconnect is staggering. Where is the understanding of how much some people are struggling? Where is the ambition to do better? Where are the big ideas? Where are the radical measures that can make a real difference in making this country more affordable and more equal?

This afternoon the Social Democrats will announce our alternative budget to show people that there is another way and that it is possible to drive down costs for families and target money wisely. Our plan includes a second tier of child benefit that would lift 40,000 children out of poverty; a weekly cost-of-disability payment; abolishing the means test for carers; a reduction in childcare fees of €200 per month as well as finally rolling out a public model; plans for the State to acquire a modular housing factory to turbo charge the delivery of affordable homes; and a €400 energy credit for households in the bottom 40% of income. Does the Minister support any of these ideas and, if so, why the Government is not adopting any of them?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not noticed any elbows out at Cabinet when it comes to budget negotiations. In fairness to Ministers, their objective is to try to ensure they can get sufficient resources to fund their Department for the year ahead. In my area of justice, it is something I am seeking to do but I also have to be conscious and responsible that we need to keep restraint on public spending. Notwithstanding that, we find ourselves in a unique position in this country whereby we have a very large surplus. We are not in the position that other countries find themselves, whereby they do not have a surplus. Many countries cannot agree spending in any specific area.

It is also important to point out that this did not happen by accident. The surplus we have arises as a result of political decisions that were made by Governments of the past. When Deputy Cairns is criticising this Government, she should just recall the fact that the reason we are in such a sound financial state is decisions made by previous Governments, and they deserve credit for them. We decided we would try to adopt an open economy that would attract in outside investment and have the effect of creating large surpluses that we could spend for the benefit of our citizens.

I agree with some of the Deputy's criticism regarding what the Comptroller and Auditor General identified in his report. I previously replied to Deputy McDonald in respect of the chapter on IPAS. Deputy Cairns identified another chapter in the report relating to wholly unnecessary expenditure by An Garda Síochána in respect of rooms for the Europa League final last year that subsequently were not used. This type of spending should not have occurred. The Garda has accepted the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report and recognises it should not book rooms that far in advance and, if it does so, that it does not need to book them all. It also needs to ensure it has an appropriate cancellation policy in place to ensure the State and the Garda are not left in a position whereby they have to meet such a large bill for unused accommodation.

I am very pleased that the Social Democrats will launch its prebudget submission late. I have no doubt that the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, will give careful consideration to it. I note what the Deputy said about some of the proposals the party is putting out there. I have no doubt that, together with Deputy O'Callaghan, she has carefully crafted the expenditure to be spent on them. However, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, this comes down to a matter of choices. The choices that Deputy has identified may all be creditable and appropriate but they will have an impact on other types of expenditure. I can assure her that the Government will give consideration to the Social Democrats budget. I cannot give any assurance that we will adopt the policies put out in its budget. It is not the case, however, that simply because they are in the Social Democrats' budget, we will not give them consideration. The Ministers will, and the Deputy will be able to find out what is in the budget next week.

Holly Cairns (Cork South-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do recognise the big surpluses, and something the Social Democrats highlight every year at budget time and, indeed, throughout the year is that they need to be spent wisely because they are not necessarily forever. It is exactly a year ago today since the previous budget, a giveaway on steroids basically to try to buy the election. Now that there is no election on the horizon, the Government has suddenly realised that untargeted one-off measures are not a good idea, as if giving €100 million in energy credits to owners of holiday homes ever made sense. Meanwhile, last year the number of children living in consistent poverty doubled. I will repeat that. There were record budget surpluses, €100 million was given to holiday homeowners and the number of children living in consistent poverty doubled.

This Government and the previous Government have consistently squandered opportunities to make a real difference to those children's lives. Budgets are about choices and the Government has a big choice to make next week on how it spends public money. The Social Democrats has outlined a number of suggestions and new ideas that would alleviate child poverty. Will the Government reconsider introducing a second tier of child benefit payment?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unfair of her to describe the budget introduced last year as "a giveaway on steroids". When the one-off measures were introduced, I do not recall anyone in opposition describing them as that. In fact, they were wholeheartedly accepted and there was no criticism of them by Opposition Members.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not true. We clearly called them out.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Child poverty is an extremely important issue from the point of view of the Government. I have no doubt that when Members see the budget that will be announced next week they will see recognition given to the importance of child poverty from the Government's point of view. In terms of a second tier of children's allowance, as the Deputy identified, I cannot give an assurance or confirmation as to what will be in the budget.

I am sure the Deputy will have costed such measures and will appreciate that they will have significant consequences for expenditure elsewhere. I assure her that, as I identified before, the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, will give careful consideration to what is contained within the Social Democrats' pre-budget submission.

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

Le 11 lá anois, tá ceathrar - triúr ban agus fear amháin - i mbun stailc taobh amuigh den Dáil agus éilimh thar a bheith bunúsach acu. Tá siad ag iarraidh rochtain a bheith acu ar phinsean ranníocach agus ar chárta leighis speisialta, an cárta HAA. Ceapann siad nach bhfuil an dara rogha acu ach leanúint ar aghaidh lena stailc ocrais. Is mór an náire é go bhfuil orthu é sin a dhéanamh agus muidne inár suí anseo gan tada a dhéanamh.

For 11 days now, four people have felt they have no choice but to go on hunger strike. They are drinking but they are not eating. I am extremely worried about those three women and one man who feel they have no choice but to go on hunger strike to have the most basic requests met. They are asking for a HAA medical card and access to a contributory pension. Nobody from the Minister's Government met them until Monday. They are standing there and I am ashamed, as I would say most of my colleagues are, that those four people feel they have no choice but do to this to achieve something as basic as that.

There has been a mean-spirited approach from this Government and previous governments in relation to redress for people who have been in institutions. We saw this in the mother and baby home redress scheme, where babies under six months, those who were boarded out and those who suffered because of their mixed-race background were excluded. These four people have been in institutions and suffered intergenerational trauma. They have also worked in those institutions. What they are asking for is very reasonable.

On every occasion, each government has been held to account but there have been no consequences. To go back, the special advocate for survivors, Patricia Carey, has said that the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Act is not fit for purpose. The Justice for Magdalenes group has said "the denial to institutional abuse survivors of the HAA medical card is an intolerable injustice". To go back further, Mr. Justice John Quirke's primary recommendation for the Magdalen survivors back in 2013 was exactly that, but this was ignored. Coming forward to the mother and baby home report and the various processes that were set up following that, the OAK consultation said clearly that a HAA card should be provided. The Department of Education and Youth's consultation with residential survivors under Barbara Walshe and Catherine O'Connell said that this is the most basic request and should be satisfied.

I ask the Minister to take action, to meet those four brave and courageous people who feel they have no choice, to look at this and to resolve the issue as soon as possible.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist a chuir sí orm. Is ceist an-tábhachtach í. Bhí imní orm nuair a chonaic mé na daoine taobh amuigh den Dáil cúpla lá ó shin agus iad ar stailc ocrais. Beidh mé ag caint leis an Aire oideachais faoin gceist sin.

I am also very concerned about what I have seen recently. This issue was raised with me last week by Deputy Michael Cahill. It is a matter of extreme concern that there are individuals who are making such dangerous efforts to make their point. It is a point they are making admirably but I urge them not to make it through hunger strike. Like the rest of us, the Deputy will be aware of the dangers such a strike poses to health. I ask those involved to try to engage.

The Deputy made the point that there has not been engagement. However, I understand that officials from the Department of Education and Youth recently met directly with the group to listen to their concerns. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, also spoke to members of the group who were present during the passage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Act 2025 in July.

One of the points the Deputy made is that she wants the survivors to be provided with the HAA card they are demanding. I will point out that the supports for survivors Act enables the HSE to provide a package of ongoing health supports and services to survivors. This entitlement will be for life and will not be subject to means tests or periodic reviews. However, I acknowledge that some survivors have sought the provision of what they refer to as a "HAA card". It is important to note that the HAA card provided under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 was introduced specifically to meet the very significant health needs of a particular group of individuals who contracted a serious and life-threatening condition. I believe it was individuals who had contracted hepatitis C as a result of the negligence of the State. The package of health supports to be provided under the supports for survivors Act is the same as that previously provided to survivors and former residents of the Magdalen laundry and mother and baby home institutions. The Act therefore provides that survivors of industrial schools and reformatories will be treated consistently in this regard.

I am also aware that another of the concerns of the survivors is that they want a pension top-up payment. Again, it is acknowledged that there have been calls for the State to provide this pension payment to survivors and that payments of this type are made to survivors of the Magdalen laundries. However, it should be noted that those payments reflect the very particular circumstances involved, where the women in the Magdalen laundries were engaged in commercial work as adults, in some cases for many years, without appropriate contributions.

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

I appreciate the Minister's concern but four people have had to take this action. I have asked them to stop. It is very difficult to watch four people on hunger strike. The Minister talked about consistency. All of the governments have been consistent in their mean-spirited approach to this. They have been saving pennies while spending other money foolishly, as was outlined earlier on. The requests are basic. These people want access to a contributory pension and to a special medical card, the HAA card. I know the background to that card and the specific Act it related to. I also know why it was brought in. I will go back to Mr. Justice Quirke, who specifically asked for a HAA medical card for Magdalen survivors. I have mentioned all of the other processes that were set up, the special advocate, Patricia Carey, the Justice for Magdalenes group and the Department's own report back in 2019. We cannot continue with this mean-spirited approach. There is a finite number of people involved. It is time we made our apologies mean something. We have had 26 years of apologies and different redress schemes, all of which have been unjust, exclusionary and unfair. Let us finally learn.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in respect of the matters the Deputy has raised. It is unfair to say that the State does not face up to its financial responsibilities arising from terrible events that happened in the past. It clearly has done. I identified the Magdalen laundries scheme and other redress schemes that have been introduced. People have been provided for. I am conscious that the specific ask here relates to the pension and the HAA card. There are obviously consequences to decisions such as this. It will have an impact on other areas. I suspect the Deputy would join me in urging the individuals who are on hunger strike to come off it and to recognise that they can have engagement with the Government without the necessity of exposing their health to such danger. It is a very damaging experience for them. I urge them to end their strike. I will speak to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in respect of the matter.