Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

There are a number of amendments, and I will go through them one by one. Amendment No. 16 relates to something we have previously discussed. I restate and stress again that the payment of €3,000 is in line with the previous payments of the other schemes. It is something that does not require an individual apology to show where it is being spent. It is a payment directly to the individual, but it is obviously under the heading of a health payment. I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 19 is somewhat different. This is not something that has been in place before. It is a different type of payment specifically for education. I do not think it should be reviewed on a yearly basis, but I am happy to say it should be reviewed. While I cannot accept this amendment, I suggest to Senator that we work together for me to bring something forward on Report Stage that would ensure there is a review. It is absolutely the case that if a payment is being provided for education, that people can use it for education, that it is enough for them and that it helps them get that education. I am happy to bring forward an amendment that would incorporate a review and to work with the Senator on that between now and when we come back to the House, if that is okay,

Amendment No. 20 essentially says that the special advocate would set out supports that can be provided. It is not the role of the special advocate to set out supports. That work has been done and that is what we are discussing, but it is neither within the remit nor the role of the special advocate to set out what types of supports would be provided. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 21 states that further supports would be recommended and provided through Sage. I again stress that Sage Advocacy is an advocacy group, and it is not within its remit to recommend what types of supports might be provided outside of what has already been agreed and what we have been discussing for survivors.

Amendment No. 22 discusses how Sage Advocacy can be empowered, supported and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act. This essentially says that we want to empower advocacy groups and, in particular, Sage, which I agree with. We want to ensure they are supported and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act. I am not sure we need a report to do that. In fact, we should be acting on that more quickly. I am happy to work with Senators to set out how we make sure Sage has the resources and supports it needs and how we make sure survivors are aware of what is being provided by Sage Advocacy. I can come back to Senators on that. There is a way of wording something that does not just result in a report but sets out how we can engage further with Sage to make sure it has the resources and supports it needs. I might come back to that on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 23 is about a report on increased supports for all former residents. I again stress that what we are agreeing today is what has been set out in terms of the supports, and this is what we are voting on. Therefore, a report in a number of months' time to change that is not something that would be possible. Amendment No. 26 touches on a number of elements, but I turn first to the specific points it mentions, particularly on waivers. It is common for there to be a waiver in many redress schemes simply because the redress scheme is there in place of a legal challenge or legal pathway that may have taken place or may take place, that there is not one or the other. It is common practice in lots of ways, not just in redress schemes, and that is not going to change. That will be in situ in terms of the restriction to survivor qualifications. There has been a lengthy process over many years setting out the criteria. I say this with the greatest respect, and not to sound harsh. Unfortunately, when you have a redress scheme there will always have to be criteria. There will never be a situation where you have an open-ended redress scheme. When you put parameters of any kind in place, you will unfortunately always have somebody outside of it. What we are discussing today is a follow on from those who were included in the initial scheme, the subsequent educational payments and others, and now obviously including Caranua. We cannot have a report in six months' time. We have already gone through this process and set out exactly how the criteria have been applied.

I turn to the establishment of a special advocate. I stress that we have a special advocate. This person was appointed by the Minister for children in recent times. The first report is with the Minister for children, as we have discussed. I have given a commitment previously to engage with the Minister for children to see if there is anything further we need to do. I am not under any impression that the role will change, move or be demoted in any way. It is about making sure the role works for all of the survivors and those who need it most. I am committed to that, separate from anything here.