Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Higgins and the other Senators for their contributions on this group of amendments. Unfortunately I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 33 to 36, inclusive. As we know, these amendments require the preparation of reports on the adequacy of the health support payment and the potential to make supplementary payments in certain conditions. In dealing with the second, third and fourth reports it comes to a fundamental question about the approach we adopt in this particular piece of legislation and the scheme. The introduction of supplementary payments would represent a departure from the non-adversarial approach to the scheme which we want to deliver for applicants. A significant number of reports are requested in the amendments we will be considering in the coming days. I do not believe the Bill is the correct place to locate such reports.

Amendment No. 33 speaks to assessing the adequacy of the €3,000 health support payment. This is a payment provided to applicants living abroad. The report as set out in the amendment would be incredibly complex. It would be extremely difficult to compile such a report. It would be very difficult to measure and monitor the information requested in the amendment. It would be very complex to administer any recommendation arising out of such a report. An interdepartmental group was tasked with developing proposals for the scheme. It was very explicit that it is not feasible to legislate for access to health services overseas. This is not something we are in a position to do here. This is a challenge in terms of recognising that a significant group of survivors lives overseas. A decision was made to give that an option. They have the option of availing of the enhanced medical card if they come to Ireland to visit, to stay for longer periods of time, or to return home. Recognising that many will not take up this option it was felt it was important to recognise them in terms of a degree of contribution to their health needs and their health costs. It was with this in mind the interdepartmental group proposed a €3,000 payment in lieu of access to the enhanced medical card, recognising that an individual has the right to choose either.

Amendment No. 34 concerns a report on the potential to make supplementary payments to relevant persons who experienced forced family separation. Amendment No. 35 concerns a report on the potential for supplementary payments to those who have previously received an award from a court or a settlement valued at less than the potential value of their entitlement under the scheme. Amendment No. 36 relates to those who may have additional needs derived from their time in the institutions. As I said in reference to amendments Nos. 1 and 15 in the previous grouping, the scheme provides an all-encompassing general payment to eligible applicants in recognition of the time spent in harsh conditions in these institutions, the emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced by a person when they were resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. This approach is intended to facilitate a non-adversarial scheme whereby applicants will not be required to bring forward evidence of abuse in order to qualify.

A fundamental approach of the scheme being adopted by the Government is the idea that applicants do not have to show individualised impacts on them. We know from previous schemes the difficulties that such an approach created. This means the scheme will not cater for individualised assessments. It is the intention that an all-encompassing general payment will be made to recognise all the harm, stigma and trauma a person experienced on an individual basis. Therefore, where a person receives an offer following an application to the scheme, this offer will be calculated based on a person having been resident in an institution for a certain length of time and will be made to recognise everything the applicant experienced while resident in that particular institution.

With regard to amendment No. 36 specifically, it is important to note there are other services provided to former residents. For example, the national counselling service is available free of charge to all former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions and former residents are a prioritised group in terms of accessing these important counselling services. Amendment No. 36 also speaks to the potential of the recovery of moneys from religious congregations or pharmaceutical companies connected with the institutions.

A number of Senators have referenced the announcement we made earlier today on the appointment of Sheila Nunan to engage with the religious congregations on seeking a meaningful contribution from them. As I have said before, I have met six religious congregations, a religious lay organisation and the Church of Ireland archbishop in Dublin on the scope of this. It is important these negotiations are progressed. This is why we feel someone with the negotiating skills of Sheila Nunan, who is a well-known trade unionist, is appropriate to bring an offer forward to the Government. The Government will have the final say on whether the particular offer is accepted.

Senators spoke about engagement with GlaxoSmithKline on drug trials. As Senators know, I wrote to GlaxoSmithKline following the publication of the report. I outlined again my view that it needs to examine the making of a meaningful contribution. Subsequently I met representatives of that organisation and I urged them to reflect on what the commission's report had laid bare about its predecessor organisations and an approach to take.Following that, GlaxoSmithKline did make certain information available to people who were forced to undergo medical trials as children. I expressed my view to the company that I did not feel this was enough and that more could have been done by that organisation. Ultimately, though, it is a matter for GlaxoSmithKline to decide what action it takes or what remedy it provides in terms of the commission's report. I am not in a position to be able to conclusively address the responsibility of GlaxoSmithKline in this legislation. I do not believe the amendment being proposed, while I understand its motivation, would be effective in doing so.

Another point concerns these reports. Even if they were acceptable, I refer to the idea that so much would be done within six months of the passing of this legislation. When this legislation is passed, the most important thing we will need to do is to get the redress scheme up and running. My Department is working to put in place the administrative infrastructure. It will have to be significant because up to 34,000 people will be applying under this scheme. This is why it is so important that we get this legislation passed and passed before the end of this term. It is also important then that the focus of my officials is not on writing reports but on ensuring all the administrative structures are in place in order that we can start processing the claims.