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

I thank Senator Boyhan for his amendment and detailed contribution. I also thank the other Senators for their contributions. This Bill already provides for a review of the operation of the scheme, with an overall review under section 49 and an annual review under section 12. I am not in a position to accept these two amendments; however, I will bring forward my own amendments, related to matters a number of Senators have already spoken about. They take account of some of the issues raised on Committee Stage and I hope I can provide additional clarity on them. I also hope, in the context of my remarks, that I can provide some degree of clarity on other elements.

As I outlined in committee proceedings, the development of the proposals for this scheme has been a complex task. It has taken time to get to the point where the Bill is close to being passed by both Houses. Work is ongoing to put in place significant infrastructure to run this scheme because tens of thousands of people will apply. Due to the complexity of the legislation, it is important that reviews, both at the end of the process and annual, are focused on what the legislation is about and to ensure it operates properly. I spoke particularly on Committee Stage when there were calls for reviews to be undertaken on other issues outside the scope of this scheme. I felt that in the first year of the scheme, we need to focus on making sure it operates effectively and delivers these payments for the people who apply.

I also discussed, at length, I believe, on Committee Stage, how the Government arrived at the particular categories around eligibility for this particular scheme. I have always made the point that this scheme must be seen as one part of a range of Government responses, which are set out in the action plan. The Bill recognises that different survivors and former residents of these institutions have different priorities in terms of the actions they want the State to undertake. That range of responses began with the Taoiseach's State apology and include the opening of a dedicated counselling service for former residents and survivors at no cost. It has involved two crucial pieces of legislation passed last year, the first of which was the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022. More than 5,000 people have had their queries for information addressed under that scheme. The second was Institutional Burials Act 2022, on foot of which I recently appointed a director of the authorised intervention agency to intervene in Tuam. This will allow the process for excavating that site to be started, as well as identifying the remains of children interred and returning them to their families. We are also working on a dedicated records and memorial centre, acting as a site of conscience and of memorialisation where the history of these institutions can be told and records can be contained, maintained and provided to individuals and to those looking to write the history of this period of our nation. I am also in the process of appointing a special advocate, whose role will be to amplify the voices of survivors, particularly in the delivery of services. That is a broad, State-based response of which this Bill forms one element.

Regarding some of the specific points raised, I will particularly try to address as many of Senator Boyhan's points as possible. Senator Boyhan referenced in his amendment that the extent to which those involved in the management and operation of institutions should be required to contribute to the costs of the scheme should be examined in a review. I recently appointed an independent negotiator, Sheila Nunan, to undertake this role to engage with religious institutions and orders involved in running these institutions. I met seven of these orders and the Primate of the Church of Ireland in this context. It is important that these negotiations are allowed to take place in a confidential context. The provision of payments and enhanced medical cards to former residents should not be dependent on the outcome of these negotiations. I have prioritised the delivery of this Bill, for which I make no apologies. Getting this Bill up and running is the most important thing. The other set of negotiations is ongoing. An end will come to those negotiations and whatever the conclusion, the Houses will be informed of the outcome. Regarding the points about the payments rate for the scheme, they are modelled on the approach taken under the Magdalen restorative justice ex gratiascheme. I secured, in the process of bringing this legislation forward, I secured Government agreement to improve the overall approach to payments. We introduced more refined payment bands. I also introduced an amendment to the Bill in order that a temporary absence from an institution of up to 180 days can be included when calculating a person's total duration in an institution, recognising that people were often sick and in hospital and therefore out of an institution on foot of the poor treatment they received within that particular institution.

We have discussed the legal waiver in some detail in this House. A legal waiver is provided for under this legislation but only at the point when the applicant accepts an offer of financial payment is that legal waiver required. The applicants will know exactly what they are being offered beforehand, which will allow them to make their determination as to whether to sign the legal waiver. There is provision for some legal aid to assist in legal advice in order that an applicant receives legal advice before he or she makes that determination. Unlike in previous schemes, the legal waiver is not tied to any restriction on the ability to discuss the amount awarded or anything like that.

With regard to the addition of other institutions, this Bill contains a provision, in section 50, which allows for the insertion of additional institutions, in accordance with certain criteria. That followed on from a recommendation of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. On the scope of general payments under the scheme, I previously outlined that the approach to the scheme is to provide an all-encompassing, general payment to eligible applicants in recognition of the time spent, the harsh conditions, emotional abuse, other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma individuals experienced while resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. We designed the scheme in that way so it can be non-adversarial, learning from previous schemes and redress processes in which there was an individualised element and an element of cross-examination. In reviewing those schemes, that process was regarded as re-traumatising. We did this to provide as straightforward a scheme for survivors as possible. As we made a decision not to provide for individualised examination, we cannot undertake an individualised examination of the experience of boarded-out children when they were boarded out. Senator Boyhan spoke about how those experiences were very mixed; some were positive, while some were absolutely shocking. We also must recognise that people were not just boarded out from these institutions - they were also boarded out due to other circumstances. I wish to clarify, as I have put on the record previously and is important to reiterate, that any child who was boarded out from a mother and baby or county home institution and was in that institution for more than six months prior to being boarded out qualifies for this scheme.Many children were boarded out from mother and baby institutions at a young age of four, five or six, and were in that particular institution for a significant period of time and will be able to qualify under this legislation. That taxation issue, which is maybe narrow in the overall context, is being looked at.

The report proposed under amendment No. 44 seeks the consideration of the extent to which the scheme is in compliance with any determination by a judicial review or an international human rights treaty body. As stated in committee proceedings, I am not in a position to accept that particular amendment, but I can put it on the record that should an examination of the scheme be required with regard to its compliance with any matter, particularly if there is a ruling of an international body, that will obviously be taken seriously by the Government of the day. I can only assume it will be. We know many significant changes to Irish law have taken place as the result of decisions of international or European human rights bodies.

I assure Senator Boyhan that we have spoken about the issue of the vaccine trials. I very much hear what he says about a specific line of payment being provided for those who were subject to non-consensual vaccine trials. As the Senator knows, I have engaged with one of the companies on this. I have not come back with a successful outcome, to be frank. All I can say is that I am happy to continue to engage with the Senator on this issue. I cannot give an absolute commitment on what the outcome of that will be. I said on Committee Stage and will say again that I am happy to continue to engage with the Senator on that particular issue.

Finally, it is important to say that, notwithstanding the outcome of any of the reviews of the matter raised in these amendments, it is of course open to any subsequent, future government to make relevant changes to this legislation as it sees fit.

The amendments that I am proposing are on foot of points raised on Committee Stage. I said there were two particular issues. Officials engaged with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in respect of those. The first relates to the outcome of the scheme. Many of the Committee Stage amendments were seeking reports which included information on the number of applications to the scheme which are unsuccessful, particularly because an applicant does not meet the requirement of having spent 180 days or more in an institution. It was always anticipated that any reports prepared on the scheme would include information on outcomes, both successful and unsuccessful. However, amendment No. 11, in respect of the annual report, and amendment No. 42, on the review of the operation of the scheme, provide that it is now specified in the Bill that these reports will include information on applications and determinations, both successful and unsuccessful.

I hope I will answer Senator Ruane's point here. If anybody who applies to the scheme is unsuccessful for the particular reason that they do not meet the 180-day criteria, that will be recognised in the report. Obviously, where a person does not apply to the scheme, we cannot measure that, but if anyone applies and is unsuccessful for that reason, that will be recognised in the report.

The second issue that came up on Committee Stage was our legislative requirement for trauma-informed training for those who will be operating the scheme. I discussed that with officials. We just felt that a mandatory, very specific training requirement in legislation was the right way to go. I spoke on Committee Stage about the fact that we are already providing for trauma-informed training for those who will be operating this scheme. What we think helps to address this is that the annual and final report will set out the training that people operating the scheme undertook. It will be both the annual report and final report, so it will be clear to everybody that training has been provided for those who will be operating the scheme.

I thank Senators for raising these issues. The changes that we are proposing will strengthen both the reporting mechanism and indeed the overall legislation.