Lynn Ruane (Independent)

This amendment is related to but an amended version of the amendment we tabled on Committee Stage looking for a report to be drawn up. We have further refined the proposal to be specific to Caranua so that it does not take in other institutions. To paraphrase, the response was that the Minister cannot take in a report that takes in other institutions. This is a new amendment to take that comment into account. This amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to prepare a report on the adequacy of supports provided to survivors of residential institutional abuse through Caranua; examine the use of waivers in the redress schemes that allowed residents of those institutions to access supports; examine the general appropriateness of the criteria for survivors' qualification for supports; and make recommendations for best practice to be applied for any future redress schemes. We have submitted amendments specifically to address the adequacy of healthcare supports, the use of waivers and the appropriateness of the criteria. I will address those issues in relation to the relevant amendments.

Unfortunately, some of our later amendments about waivers were ruled out of order. Obviously, this amendment speaks to waivers so I will speak to that somewhat. I know it is not the Minister who rules amendments out of order, but one of the later amendments makes the use of waivers illegal and provides that they would no longer apply. When we get to that stage, I guess it would be implied that there would be a cost to the State. However, that cost to the State is seen through a crystal ball or based on a hypothetical that somebody would take a case but nobody may ever take a case. An amendment on whether a waiver should apply has been ruled out of order on the basis of guesswork that there would be a potential cost, which is very different from the establishment of an office or service or the hiring of an employee or civil servant. It is a hypothetical scenario where a survivor may take a case. For that reason and because of the ruling of that amendment out of order, this applies more than ever in terms of reviewing the use of waivers within the report.

Last week, the Minister stated that waivers were not required in this legislation. When I reflected on this when I went home, I realised there was something not sitting right with me at the time. Waivers actually apply because you have to sign a waiver to be able to apply to the redress board. You have to have met the criteria for the redress board to be able to apply to Caranua. I do not think is accurate to say that waivers do not apply for this Bill because the waiver is already in place. You cannot apply for this scheme unless you meet the criteria of the redress board, and therefore Caranua and therefore this. Waivers apply because we are not carving out a space where anyone who did not sign waivers can come into the scheme at this point. It is important to say this Bill includes waivers because they are actually baked into the very criteria by means of which somebody was able to go through the process from start to finish in the first place.

I ask the Minister to consider this amendment so we can at least look at the use of waivers within those schemes, their appropriateness and the appropriateness of the supports. I understand that some people will say that a waiver from being able to sue the State is in place but we have to remember that many survivors who went through the scheme, especially in Caranua, were not happy with the support they received from it. At the start of this week, I went back on old communications I received and one of the pieces of communication about the cut-off point from Caranua to a survivor in essence said - I paraphrase because I am worried I will not get it word for word - we were happy to be able to provide you with whatever supports, and it mentions the cut-off point. The final line, which was the most worrying in it, was we hope you are happy with the benefits of what we have given you. We hope you are happy with the benefits of what we are giving you as if it was some sort of gift from the pocket of Caranua and this person had not been through horrific circumstances. It was like it was some sort of additional benefit from the State, like a bonus or something for them to enjoy when they were actually applying to Caranua to be able to meet their needs and get what they needed. Obviously, Caranua was set up to deal with a person's ongoing needs. Those ongoing needs can change and grow, depending on the person's age and circumstances.

I ask the Minister that we clarify that waivers are needed for this Bill. It is important that is corrected from last week. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment, which will give us greater insight into the impact of those waivers and the adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports, and look at the recommendations for best practice going forward.