Victor Boyhan (Independent)

Amendment No. 3 seeks to create a new section after section 6, which is entitled "Educational service support for former residents" in Part 2, which is entitled "Supports". This is a repeat of what we just had. I engaged with the Minister on this issue. I will also speak about amendment No. 4 before I read into the record some correspondence from the Minister. Amendment No. 4 reads: "In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Supports for the excluded" ". Perhaps before I move on to that, I will speak about amendment No. 3. I made the case strongly about advocacy. It is open to the Minister to correct my interpretation of our engagement, but my understanding is that she had an issue with naming a specific agency because agencies come and go. There are many setbacks. There are agencies I strongly commended and recommended a few years ago in the provision of housing services. I would not be doing so now in light of new arrangements, new discoveries and issues that were exposed about them. We therefore have to be careful about tying down in primary legislation a particular organisation that may very well not be in place in the future. I raised this issue with the Minister, and I will read into the record a letter I received from her about both Sage Advocacy and supports because it sets the context. I hope the Minister does not have any difficulty with that.

Dear [Senator],

Arising from our engagement on the passage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024, I am writing to you to outline the nature of my Department's arrangement with Sage Advocacy to provide crucial advocacy supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions.

As you are aware, in June 2023 Government approved the provision of a package of supports to survivors of abuse in institutions which had come within the scope of the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme, and who had received an award of redress or a similar court award or settlement.

This package of supports includes the health and education supports which are provided for by the Bill, but also includes the provision of advocacy supports.

Unlike the health and education supports, the provision of advocacy supports to survivors does not require a legislative basis as it is not necessary to confirm survivors’ eligibility for that support. For that reason, my Department was able to engage with Sage Advocacy, an independent advocacy organisation with a strong track record in supporting vulnerable adults, healthcare patients and persons with disabilities, in relation to the provision of such a service, even in advance of the passage of legislation.

Arising from this, the Department entered into a grant funding arrangement with Sage Advocacy in November 2023, which is underpinned by a detailed Grant Agreement. Sage has, since that time, developed and rolled out this service across the country and is supporting survivors in their engagement with existing mainstream services which are of relevance to them, including in areas such as health, housing and social protection.

Sage currently employs 13 staff [that was all news to me] to provide this specific service for survivors, including regional advocates who are based around the country. My Department has, to date, provided approximately €1.7 million to Sage to support this work.

All such grant funding arrangements are required to comply with the relevant rules and requirements, which are set out in DPER Circular 13/2014, including requirements relating to financial performance and reporting. It is also necessary to provide that such arrangements are reviewed from time to time to ensure that the funding provided is being utilised effectively and is achieving the purpose for which it has been allocated.

The current grant agreement with Sage is effective until end 2026 and the arrangement will therefore be subject to review in the coming period. Because of this, and because the arrangement between the Department and Sage is non-statutory in nature, it is not possible to refer specifically to the arrangements in legislation or to include in the Bill a legally binding commitment to fund Sage Advocacy on an ongoing basis.

However, it is clear from Sage's work to date that it has made a significant and positive impact on the wellbeing of survivors with whom it has engaged, and I can assure you that the service provided by Sage Advocacy is a critical element of the overall package of supports being delivered to survivors.

I would be happy to work with you and colleagues in the House to ensure that the survivors are aware of the assistance which Sage can provide to survivors.

I look forward to engaging further with you in relation to this important matter.

[Signed Helen McEntee, Minister]

I am glad to be able to read that into the record because clarity is absolutely crucial to all of these issues.

In summary, and the Minster can contradict, challenge or put me right if I am wrong, Sage cannot be included in the primary legislation given the nature of how things move and move on, but the Minister is committed, there will be a review and that, as of now, it is working well and why would we change it. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of the Minster and the funding. It set a different context for me. I was not aware of how many people were working in Sage. I was not aware of the level of funding that has been committed to Sage. I have said it time and again that money is not the issue and can never be the issue. It is about justice, it is about fairness, it is about redress, and it is about acknowledging the wrong and giving the necessary care and supports that the survivors, the affected people, need to progress and move on in their lives.

One of the reasons behind my proposing these amendments was that we talked about Caranua. It is funny that this fell out of a file today, relating to applications and deadlines for Caranua. This was their wonderful thing, our new friend, this organisation that we are now winding down. What victims, people who lived in institutions and survivors of this institutional abuse say is "When can we believe anyone? When can we trust anyone?" Caranua was held out to be a helping hand. It was set out to be an organisation that would support them in navigating through the mire of bureaucracy that is always associated with these systems. Suddenly, it is being pulled from under them. Will Sage disappear in a few months or a year or two because the spotlight will be off it? That is the concern. That is what the people are telling me. They are deeply concerned about the uncertainty of another support organisation. All their life they have been set up and trapped into a false sense of security, promises and hopes only for people to pull the rug and not deliver. Naturally, they are concerned about a new regime and a new change. One of the reasons cited for the Caranua wind-down in this ad, this infographic, which is date Wednesday, 1 August 2018, is more or less that it had run out of money. It had insufficient moneys and was closing up. The problem is, does another Minister roll in here in a year's time or two years' time and say we have no more money for Sage? That is the genuine concern. To allay those fears in relation to that is what was spurring me on in this amendment.

I will move on to the next amendment, No. 4, which is to support the excluded. One of the great difficulties when it comes to supporting legislation is that, at the end of the day, we will have to vote on this legislation. My proposal in this amendment is to support the excluded and I am going to speak about it, but I do not know what the outcome of this will be or what the Minister's response is going to be until I hear what she had to say. I propose that "Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be able to make recommendations to the Minister so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded". Today I talked about Westbank. I had a letter today from a senior cleric in the Church of Ireland in relation to Westbank. I thought it was really interesting. I will share it with the Minister and the Senators later. There is a lot of support for Westbank. A lot of politicians in Dáil Éireann committed to supporting them. Yet, today they are looking in and they are not supported. People who were in Bethany Home are not supported. How many other institutions are there that are not getting support? If we are talking about including people, I am not comfortable going away here today supporting any situation where people are excluded. I spoke about the farmed-out children. I spoke about the young women who were due to give birth within a matter of weeks who were slave labourers in our laundries in our city and all over this country, sons who were farmed out to farms to pick potatoes and pick stones, to live on swill and live in barns. That is shocking and that is what happened. What do you say to those people? In every situation it is always a difficulty, but are we excluding too many people? There is no one saying today there is another piece of legislation coming down the track. Yes, we realise the narrow scope of this legislation and, yes, we have to contain this to do with the redress scheme. It is interesting that I saw the other day that there was a statutory instrument signed last year by Roderic O'Gorman through the redress scheme. It had not come to my attention but it did yesterday. I saw that four institutions in Clare, Mayo, south Tipperary and Wexford have been included in the Schedule. I do not know how they get a door opened up for them. This was dated 11 September 2024. That will come up later when we talk about section 49 and that is the piece I am reading into.

Regarding advocacy groups approved by the Minister, what I am seeking in this amendment is that the Minister should have the ability to make recommendations. I am proposing in amendment No. 4 that, "Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided under Section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.” I have given an example of this that was only in September 2024. We know the then Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, put his little monocle, so to speak, at the end of this and four institutions were added. We were in here talking about institutions around the same time. That certainly was not brought to my attention or anyone else's in here. We could achieve a lot here today if the Minister could commit to amendment No. 4, which is doing nothing other than empowering her with powers she has but embedding them in this legislation in order that she will be able to exercise her prerogative under section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act to address those excluded whom we know of now and those excluded whom we simply do not know about now but may know about in six weeks' or six months' time. It is a reasonable move. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to that.