Victor Boyhan (Independent)

There are two issues and two amendments. I will talk about the first one. The Minister sent the letter. That is on the record of the House. I will circulate it to all the Members later. She makes a valid point about Sage. Could she engage actively with Sage to promote the service? We should at least have a report from the Minister's office once a year on Sage, provided to the Dáil. It would be very easy for that to happen. We could do that either through the committees or by tabling parliamentary questions. There are ways of flushing out a Minister to account to the Dáil if not to this House. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment. I want to be practical. There is no point in bringing people in and out of the Chamber, having votes and achieving nothing. We have made the point. The Minister has given a commitment about Sage, which is important. I will monitor it and keep an interest in it.

The other issue is not easy, in particular the second section that refers to advocate groups approved by the Minister. She would have been aware of the amendment because it was on her desk and would have been brought to her attention but she did not use her prerogative to come up with another amendment that would in some way reflect some of the core issues I raised in it. She only tabled one amendment to the Bill on this Stage, which we have already dealt with and supported. There were no amendments from other Opposition parties or the Government, despite some of them telling people they were looking at amendments. None of the amendments we brought from this side of the House were supported. That has been par for the course with every Ministry on every proposal in this House for some years.

To return to the issue at hand, I looked at the Bill and said that I could not support it if it excluded people. Survivors speak about being excluded for all of their lives. The Minister had an opportunity to bring a proposal that would address the exclusions within her remit, but we do not have that before us. This amendment seeks to make recommendations. All we are asking for is advocacy groups.I did not prescribe any advocacy groups. The Minister herself made a very strong case as to the importance of advocacy groups in general rather than naming groups. The amendment provides that advocacy groups of the time approved by the Minister, rather than by me or anybody else, shall be able to make recommendations - it is only recommendations - to the Minister "so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded from this Bill". That is plain English. These are people who are excluded from this Bill and previous redress schemes. It also provides that the Minister shall have the ability, rather than being mandated or obliged to, approve the recommendations made. That is simple. The Minister is still empowered. There is no attempt to disempower the Minister as regards her ministerial functions and responsibilities. I go so far as to specify that this shall be done "on a case-by-case basis". I am not talking about bringing in hundreds and hundreds of people. I am saying that, if a case lands on the Minister's desk, I want her to look at it. Then advocacy groups that have been approved by the Minister rather than being prescribed by anyone else shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister. This is about making recommendations - they are just recommendations and that is all - to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided to the Minister under section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.

I am really disappointed with this. I am going to press this amendment because it is important. It speaks to the core of how we are going to address the people listening here and those who have not had that opportunity and who are excluded. Too many people have been excluded in this legislation and in past legislation. I cannot in good conscience support any legislation that does not seek to bring more people into the fold and to include more people. This is an opportunity. I see no reason not to accept it. It was not ruled out of order and the Minister made no case against it on the basis of costs. It was in order and put before the House despite other amendments having been ruled out of order so there was no issue in respect of costs. It is a reasonable and simple ask for the Minister to consider exercising her powers under section 49, which is within her gift. I have talked about the provision used last year. It is not unreasonable. I am interested in hearing the Minister's final response.