Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “Report on operation of Scheme

2.(1) The Minister shall produce a report which will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 12 months after the Scheme has commenced.

(2) A report under this section shall consider the following matters:

(a) whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act;

(b) whether the 180 days residence requirement provided for in section 18(1)and (4)should be amended or repealed;

(c) whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons;

(d) whether there is a need to provide for additional institutions in Schedule 1;

(e) whether the requirement imposed on applicants by section 32(3)should be removed;

(f) whether the duration of the Scheme should be extended;

(g) whether payment rates under the Scheme should be increased;

(h) whether assistance or support such as reparations could be offered to those who were subject to drug trials;

(i) whether funds from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth in Ireland, could be allocated or reallocated to provide assistance, support or reparations to persons mentioned in this Act.”.

I move the amendment on behalf of Senator Boyhan. As people will be aware, Senator Boyhan has taken a very deep personal interest in this scheme and the question of the institutions in our State and the abuse that has taken place in them. He would like to be here himself but he is attending the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in the UK so he cannot. He has asked me to move the amendment. It is a comprehensive amendment that looks for a report on the operation of the scheme, a report which would engage with a number of crucial matters: first, the question as to "whether and to what extent persons engaged in the management, administration or operation of relevant institutions should be permitted or required to contribute to the cost of making payments under this Act"; the question about the 180-day residence requirement, as provided for in subsections 18(1) and 18(4), and the question as to whether that should be amended or repealed; the question as to "whether the Scheme should be extended so as to make provision for recognising persons who were boarded out as children as relevant persons"; and the question - we will come to this in later amendments too - about the need to recognise that there may be additional institutions that need to be recognised under Schedule 1. Although I believe the amendment in question may have been ruled out of order, we will come to the question as to whether some of our maternity institutions and maternity hospitals might need to be recognised in that regard. There is also the question as to "whether the requirement imposed on applicants by section 32(3)... [needs to] be removed" and the questions about the duration of the scheme and whether it needs to be extended. That is particularly relevant, given that we have seen the delays in access to records that will affect some people in their applications under the scheme. There are the questions as to "whether payment rates under the Scheme should be increased" and "whether assistance or [specific] support such as reparations could [or should] be offered to those who were subject to drug trials". That is another issue Senator Boyhan has highlighted in particular as something that is currently not scrutinised properly under this Bill and should be. There is also the question as to "whether funds from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth in Ireland ... [should] be allocated ... [in order] to provide assistance, support or reparations to persons mentioned in this Act".

Again, this is a comprehensive amendment from Senator Boyhan.A number of these individual issues, as the Minister will be aware, will be coming through in individual reports, which we are individually looking for. I have similar composite amendments. I will be looking further in my amendments at reports on the operation of the scheme. However, the fact one is seeing these themes coming through from Senator Boyhan, myself and many other Members of the House is that these are the gaps. They are the gaps with regard to knowledge, and who the scheme is serving, and I urge the Minister to consider favourably this request for a report from Senator Boyhan.

I will speak to amendment No. 15, which is an amendment from myself and my colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group calling for a full and comprehensive review of the operation of the scheme. It is a far more substantive review than the review proposed under section 49 of the Bill, which has a very limited scope. The review of the scheme currently proposed is largely a mathematical exercise. It asks for a review mainly of the extent to which people availed of various aspects of the scheme. It asks how many people required or received payments. It does not allow for any substantive qualitative review of how the scheme was devised, how it operated with respect to those included or excluded, and whether those exclusions were justified or not justified. It does not look to the question of the injustices which may have arisen, and which we are strongly signalling to the Minister may arise as a result of the operation of the scheme as it is currently designed.

Amendment No. 15 would insert a different kind of review provision, one which calls for a review of all of the key gaps, exclusions, shortcomings, choices made and not made in respect of the Bill, which have been highlighted by survivors since the beginning of this process, and in all of the reports and consultations with survivors. It calls for a review of the exclusionary minimum residency requirements for both general and work-related payments. It asks the Minister to consider whether there may be scope for people to get additional payments in recognition of the impact of forced family separation, which again was signalled by survivors to be one of the great traumas and impacts which the institutions have had on their lives. It talks about additional recognition regarding the medical trials and involuntary participation in vaccination trials. It talks about additional recognition and scope for racial discrimination, which many experienced in these institutions as a layered form of discrimination. It asks the Minister to look at the potential for religious orders and pharmaceutical companies involved in the operation of these homes and the medical trials to be required or forced to contribute to the scheme.

This review would be far more substantive than the one currently proposed by the Bill, and would demand a serious examination of the fairness of the scheme, whether it has achieved its primary goal, which is redress for those who have suffered in these institutions, and whether it has gaps. Later I will look to the fact that even in the quantitative piece, we need to look to those who apply to the scheme and who are not successful under it, and look to the issues around that.

Our amendment would look to the question of the time and duration of the scheme, which is crucial in the context of ensuring that all those who are entitled have the opportunity to avail of it, and the question of the adequacy of the payment levels. One of the issues I wanted to highlight relates to the boarded-out and nursed-out persons within the scheme, and the question of adequacy around the medical supports. Again, the Minister will be aware that I have highlighted before that anyone who had to give birth within these institutions deserves the enhanced medical card.These are questions we have. It would be wonderful if the Bill actually solved them and if it closed all the gaps that have been collectively identified across this House. However, at the very minimum, we need a review or a report which allows for the future closing of those gaps because, sadly, this Bill, if it passes in its current format, will leave us with unfinished business.