Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on adequacy of payment for health services to relevant persons not ordinarily resident in the State

19. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the adequacy of the payment to relevant persons referred to in section 18(5) who are not ordinarily resident in the State, and options for expanding entitlements under section 18(5) to ensure that the costs of certain health services incurred by such relevant persons outside the State do not exceed the value of their entitlements under this Act.”.

Amendment No. 33 calls for a report on the adequacy of the payment to relevant persons referred to in section 18(5) who are not ordinarily resident in the State, which would also look at the options for expanding entitlements under section 18(5) to ensure that the costs of certain health services incurred by such relevant persons outside the State do not exceed the value of their entitlements under the Bill. This is about expanding entitlement to certain health services for relevant persons outside the State and the adequacy of that payment.

The provisions of the scheme in respect of medical entitlements for those residing outside the State are, in general, deeply inadequate. Some of those residing within the State may have access to an enhanced medical card, allowing them to receive many services without charge. Persons outside the State will receive a once-off payment of only €3,000. We know the very severe psychological and physical trauma that was inflicted on survivors in the institutions. In many cases, this trauma has had a lifelong impact on health. In his engagement with survivors, the Minister will have seen and heard about the long-term impact the experience of the institutions and of giving birth within them has had on many survivors' health. This is partially acknowledged in the scheme but many of those who were deeply distressed and hurt by their time in the institutions and by their treatment within them chose to leave Ireland and travelled abroad. It is a very sad indictment of our State that they no longer regarded Ireland as a place where they could feel safe and where they could continue their lives. It is unfortunate that the maximum allowance for those who were so hurt by their time and experience within the institutions that they left Ireland is only €3,000.

For people who need to receive lifelong counselling, therapy or physical therapy or who need daily medication, €3,000 may not even cover a single year of their health expenses, depending on the part of the world they are living in. This once-off payment of €3,000 could be replaced by a system whereby survivors residing outside the State could provide proof of particular health services obtained and the State could then contribute at least a portion of the value of those services, up to a reasonable upper limit. An appropriate upper limit could be €30,000 or €50,000. This two-tier system whereby the value of health services that can be accessed by those resident outside of the State is drastically reduced in comparison with the provision for those residing inside Ireland is difficult when we look to the trauma.

The Minister will be aware that I have highlighted another aspect of the issue of health payments and inequity, which I will speak to again. It is a very serious concern of mine. I refer to the fact that the enhanced medical card is not being made available to women who gave birth in the institutions but who spent less than a certain amount of time there. I have previously highlighted and read into the record some of what was heard in the confidential committee with regard to the incredibly difficult experience of childbirth for many of those in the institutions. They were intentionally denied pain relief and, in many cases, they were told that this was effectively punishment for having been pregnant. We know the deep trauma and difficulty for women that can result from childbirth in such circumstances. The fact that women who gave birth in the institutions but who did not happen to spend the required number of days there subsequently are to be denied an enhanced medical card when they went through the most serious and potentially damaging health experience they have ever had, one of the most difficult any woman may have in her lifetime, within that institution is another issue.However, that is not the subject of amendment No. 33, which specifically relates to medical entitlements for those living abroad.

Amendment No. 34 calls for a report "on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments ... to relevant persons who experienced forced family separation". This is the core trauma for many and we know this because of the extensive work on psychological trauma that has been done. The impact of forced family separation is well known internationally. We see it around the world where forced family separation is happening, for example in Ukraine and on the Mexico-US border. We know the damage of forced family separation and how difficult and traumatic it is for people. It is a known fact.

Here in Ireland, following consultation with the survivors, the OAK report found that 64% of survivors agreed that forced family separation should be among the key criteria determining the amount of redress received while 61% indicated that the psychological trauma related to that should be a factor. This is in notable contrast to the fact that only 28% of the survivors who were consulted thought that the unit of time spent in an institution was an appropriate way to determine the amount of redress. Very clearly for survivors in Ireland, forced family separation is a major issue. When we all read the commission report and were discussing it, one of the things that gave rise to a wave of distress that went across Ireland, not just for those affected but among the public, was the core denial of the issue of forced family separation. It is not acceptable that the scheme should pass without any provision for forms of redress for forced family separation, which is clearly identified as deeply traumatic. On Second Stage I highlighted some of the harrowing stories, including the story of Carmel Larkin who was born in a mother and baby home and who learned that her mother had spent a dozen years in a psychiatric hospital not far from where she was raised but had never had a visitor in that time.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has recommended a two-track approach to the scheme. Track one would be a modified version of the time-based approach while track two would look to the individualised assessment of harm. The commission has suggested that there is the potential to look at individualised assessment. To say that the only way we can avoid an adversarial process is to simply use the unit of time is not an argument that I can accept. Under that argument, one could have no unit of time or one could have only one day or one hour as the unit of time. The idea being put forward is that the unit of time would avoid an adversarial approach but there is an important issue here. A basic payment should be given to everybody, regardless of the time involved but there is also the issue of specific experiences, people's own individual stories about what happened to them in their lives and these being recognised. IHREC has suggested that it is important, even if there is a basic payment, that there would be an option for an application for an additional award, even if that involves an additional process, that recognises specific traumas and ill treatment, including the impact of forced family separation.

I hope when the Minister responds to this group of amendments he will be bringing information back to the House on this. There is a concern at the moment that the scheme is a basic scheme based on time and that there is no space in it currently for an acknowledgement of the impact of forced family separation, among other issues. In that context, there is a need for clarity in relation to the waiver. It should not be the case - and I hope the Minister will assure me of this - that somebody who accesses the scheme based purely on a period of time spent in an institution would be expected to forego his or her individual right to seek redress or to take action in respect of a specific experience such as forced family separation if that is not covered by the scheme.

There are two options here. One option is to include things like forced family separation in the scheme and recognise them within it, either within the core scheme or as a second level that can be applied to within the scheme, as suggested by IHREC. The other option is to ensure that individuals are clearly informed that they retain the right to take action in respect of experiences and circumstances which the scheme does not address and which their application for payment does not recognise in any way. Anything other than one of those approaches puts the State in a position of being adversarial and effectively using the fact that people may need to access the basic payment as a reason to tie their hands behind their backs in respect of other areas where they may seek justice. Many survivors, because of the impact of their time in institutions, are in economic distress and they should not be put in the position of having to choose between their basic need to address their economic distress and the right to justice. They deserve both redress and justice.

Amendment No. 35 calls for a report "on the potential to provide for supplementary payments for relevant persons ... who had previously received an award from a court or settlement in respect of an action arising out of any circumstances relating to a period of residence in a relevant institution, where the value of the award or settlement was less than the value of their entitlement to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act". I may revise this amendment and reintroduce it on Report Stage because it should be clearer. Effectively, any compensation that people may have received previously should not cancel out this basic redress scheme, particularly if that compensation is in relation to specific circumstances which are not addressed by the scheme. Some survivors have historically, and heroically in many cases, taken proceedings against the State around their time spent in an institution, which was their right to do. It was a burden they should not have had to undertake but was a result of the failure of the State to provide avenues for meaningful redress. Those who took such cases took on a huge emotional, financial and psychological burden in doing so. They forged the way for many others and did the State a service by shining a light on these issues. The scheme currently excludes those who have previously successfully taken cases and I am concerned that there may be a gap there. We do not know, and cannot know in some cases, what the amount of these private settlements may have been but there may be circumstances where the amounts received are less than the amounts these people would be entitled to under the scheme. These individuals should not be punished for the fact that they led the way in demanding that the State would take responsibility and step up. I ask the Minister to clarify whether there is information available on this and how this intersection would work. There are gaps in the knowledge that is publicly available in respect of this and in that context we are happy to consider how we might nuance this amendment further on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 36 calls for a report "on the potential to make provision for a support fund for persons who developed additional needs as a direct or indirect result of time spent in a relevant institution". It also asks that the report would consider how relevant parties would contribute to this fund. We have defined relevant parties in this amendment as "persons, organisations, the estates of persons, or other entities involved at any time in the operation, management, administration or ownership of relevant institutions, or in the operation or administration of illegal vaccine trials or any other medical experimentation on relevant persons".We may bring versions of these amendments again, because the phrase "relevant person" will be changed within the Bill at a certain point so we will look to where that comes in. This comes back to the idea of the length of stay criterion being woefully inadequate and that it does not reflect the many-layered harms that resulted from time spent in the institutions, which in some cases included lifelong disabilities or additional needs as a result. If the Minister will not accept the amendments relating to the additional payments, at the very least we should explore the idea of creating a fund to which religious orders and pharmaceutical companies will be required to contribute and which could be drawn on for survivors with additional needs.

I note the announcement today in respect of a new negotiator. The fact we are still in a position where we are negotiating endlessly with religious orders and others in respect of their contribution or their recognition is disgraceful. It is disgraceful in a couple of ways. First, because the State still seems to be in a position of asking, rather than moving to requirements, levies or harder measures in terms of ensuring that those who played a systemic role in these institutional abuses are required to contribute. It is also a disgrace, and should be recognised in respect of certain religious orders, that the abuse is not historical. If we are still in a situation where over the past decade they have been creating complicated company structures to move money and resources around in order that they are less reachable, where they are in hardball negotiations with the State and where they require the State to send in negotiators to them, let us not pretend that this is historical in terms of the abuse that is being visited on women in Ireland. The failure to step up, contribute and recognise responsibility on the part of those actors, both religious orders and large pharmaceutical companies, is a continued abuse. It is an abuse of a position of power, a position of financial comfort and a position whereby they can afford all the lawyers they want. They will not be signing a waiver against anything for a couple of thousand euro. They are abusing that position of power to avoid their responsibilities. Those are actions that are happening now, in 2023. That still needs to be recognised. The State needs to have a much harder and strong line on these issues and proper pressure, rather than a "Do the right thing" plea needs to be applied.

Lastly, I refer to the provision regarding illegal vaccine trials in amendment No. 36. This is another example of an issue that is not addressed in the scheme. No additional compensation or redress payment is provided in respect of the experience of illegal vaccine trials. In that context, it certainly should not be the case that actions should not be allowed to be taken in respect of such trials. I know there will be issues around the Statute of Limitations in terms of individuals taking cases against some private companies. As for the complicity of the State in respect of such trials, that is an issue whereby any individual, whether or not they avail of this redress scheme, should be able to take a separate action because they clearly are not being recognised in respect of that experience in the redress scheme. It should not be covered and must not be covered by the waiver and I seek clarity on that.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I endorse all those excellent amendments. They are logical, fair, they make sense. All those issues were echoed and touched on in the excellent report by the children's committee of which Members of this House were members, which is teased out to a great extent in the Bill digest on the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022. I hope we will hear from them at some point in these deliberations because quite frankly, sitting in a committee room and making recommendations and then coming up here where we make the real legislation is somewhat disappointing but there is time yet to run.

I will deal with each of these amendments. On amendment No. 33, which deals with reports on the adequacy of the payment for health services to relevant persons who are not ordinarily resident in the State, Senator Higgins set that out clearly and I agree with all the points she made and fully support it.

I note we are dealing with these four amendments at this point. Amendment No. 34 provides for a report on the provision of additional payments for those who experienced forced family separation. The Minister is long in this business, understands it in great detail and has great empathy and sympathy on this issue but many families were forced to be separated. It was illegal. The State was complicit in taking children from their legitimate parents for all sorts of spurious reasons, sometimes motivated by other family interests or conflicts. They went into State care and while many did not stay for many months, we are effectively saying that anyone who was in an institution for less than six months is not entitled to any redress. If we know anything about children and institutional care in the more modern times of the 1980s and the 1990s, we saw the litany of abuse children were subject to. Are we suggesting that no child who was in any of these institutions for less than six months was not somehow the subject of some form of abuse, be it emotional, physical or sexual? It is not tenable, realistic or right. Therefore, something has to be done about it. This sort of clear-cut, clinical legislation that excludes groups of people is exceptionally disappointing. I noted that children are excluded. While I do not particularly like to cite my own case, I am the seventh child of seven and I lived in an institution. I had legitimate parents who were both married. I do not need to explain any more but the State was complicit in the exclusion and division of those families. I am conscious that when I speak here and speak about myself, I speak about others and that is a sensitive issue. I do not have their consent to talk about their personal experiences, hurts, or disappointments. That is something that families appreciate, respect and understand. What I can say is that I grew up with many children who came in and out in very strange circumstances in an institution that was not run by the Catholic Church but by the Church of Ireland. We do not hear too much about them but they were huge. They had big institutions in Dublin at the time. Therefore there are situations where children, through no fault of their own, find themselves as pawns in a whole range of situations when in care and that is exceptionally disappointing. It is insulting and hurtful and I have been in touch with many of them and many of them have been in touch with me and no doubt other people.

Amendment No. 35 provides for a report on top-up payments for those in receipt of inadequate settlements. Again, Senator Higgins went into detail on that. Amendment No. 36 provides for a report on the creation of a support fund for those with additional needs and Senator Higgins touched on the illegal vaccine trials. I too was in an institution where illegal vaccine trials were carried out. There is no dispute about it. Following years and years of denial by various Government agencies and people saying it did not happen, we have full sight of the vaccine trials that were carried out in these institutions through contacts within RTÉ and within the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Bessborough in Cork was another one. Ironically, many years ago when Deputy Micheál Martin was Minister for Health, I came to this House and the Dáil when he commissioned Dr. Kiely, the then Chief Medical Officer of the State to carry our random samples in different institutions because clearly they did not cover them all and there was no doubt about that report. There was a very moving sharing of the content of that report by the now Tánaiste but then Minister for Health and there was an acceptance that these drug trials took place. What will we do if they are not included in this scheme? How will we address and police GlaxoSmithKline and others who carried out illegal vaccine trials? One of the things that is clear is that in institutions and orphanages where children were detailed, there was no parental consent. Who was in loco parentis? Who made the decision? We know the drug trials took place. There is now no denying that, subject to the State saying it for years, and who will compensate those people?Alan Shatter of Gallagher Shatter approached me then. At the time, I had done two or three interviews with "Prime Time" or some other current affairs show on RTÉ. He contacted me and said he would like to initiate or represent a group in a group litigation case. Unfortunately, we did not have the sort of money that Gallagher Shatter was looking for at the time. The tenet of his argument, rightly so, was the right to bodily integrity enshrined in our Constitution. We have the right of bodily integrity enshrined in our Constitution for all citizens. However, these are children and there is constitutional provision and special mention of children in our State.

The question is whether the Minister has any other proposal to run in parallel. I am a reasonable, pragmatic person. It is not about me. I just so happen to have lived the experience so, therefore, I am perhaps connected more than most to it. What is the alternative? Will the Minister bring a parallel process of redress or investigation?

He wrote to GlaxoSmithKline and there was a situation where they would not put their hands up and admit it. I know they have confirmed with individuals. I am aware of bits of litigation, some successful and some not so successful but it would not be responsible of me to share that with the Members because it is relates to individuals. What is the Minister’s intention to square this up? How can we as legislators square up and walk outside the gate here tonight or tomorrow and say that we are not doing anything of it? I have seen too many tears in here and too many emotions. Too many people have told us that it is all terrible, troublesome and sad. This is a parliamentary democracy. We have the opportunity to polish up this legislation. The Minister will bring amendments back to the Dáil - he might correct me on that – on the matters to do with the legislation. We have that opportunity to bring in amendments. As the Taoiseach said many times, Seanad Éireann is a place to home in on and polish up legislation.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s proposals on the administration of illegal vaccine trials on children. A lot of evidence was gathered on this. As he knows, there was a tribunal of inquiry, which was found to be ultra viresultimately, and ran into the sand, not going any further. The then Government did not appeal it to the Supreme Court, which it originally indicated it would. They are, "Events, dear boy, events", and we just have to move on. I am particularly keen that the Minister tells us because we have heard so many stories of medical interventions and experimentation that nobody authorised or sanctioned on children who were vulnerable in the care of the State. As experts say, they did not kick the doors in; they were welcomed in to carry out these trials. We do not have a definitive list of the adverse reactions of some of the children. We know some of these children died in State care and these drug trials took places in the 1950s, 1960s, into the mid-1970s and perhaps beyond that point. Many of these institutions were funded by the State. The State had some sort of oversight on them, though perhaps not as much as it has now or should have had. The reality is we have to be able to explain what we are going to do about it. That is why I like the idea that we can be some way open to an early review of this legislation. I am open to the idea or suggestion that the Minister would set up a parallel process immediately to deal with it. However, to suggest that they are doing nothing, when he says that, he is saying “Nothing” to me. He is saying “Nothing” to Victor Boyhan, a person who grew up in State care where the State had responsibility and an institution administered drug trials. The Minister is not saying "No"; I am saying the Minister is saying “No” to me and many people. I do not doubt for one moment his commitment to these issues and I know the difficulties of having to operate within a coalition Government and getting consensus across Government partners.

I particularly welcome the Minister’s statement today. It was interesting that Senator Higgins touched on accountability and contribution by the religious orders. I note from the Minister’s statement that he had ongoing engagement with the religious organisations and congregations. However, there comes a point where he has to stop having ongoing negotiations and recall that a previous Administration signed up to an indemnity scheme that was nothing short of a bloody disgrace. They sold out for paltry contributions of money and bits of promised land that were all entailed – I think most have never been built on. No new school or hospital has been built. We were sold a pup. The time has now come. I accept the Minister has always made the point that he wanted to run this strand slightly separate to this process and I understand and respect that. However, by golly, when this legislation is through – and I have no doubt the Minister will get it through and I would like to think with some amendments but that is perhaps a lot of hope on my part – we must commit to following up, getting accountability and getting the money off the religious congregations that were responsible.

Finally, I return to the vaccine trials. We now know that some of these institutions received money. It was not just dishing out kids to advance new forms of medicine or vaccines; it got money for it. They were paid for it, which makes it even worse.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to put on record Sinn Féin’s support for all of these amendments. These are important reports. I hope the Minister is not wasting our time. I hope he has not come here with a fixed mind to reject each and every amendment that has been tabled.

On amendment No. 33, I highlight that since last week a number people have asked me where the Government got these financial figures. The Minister might explain where the calculation of the figure of €3,000 for people who had to leave the State and are not ordinarily resident in the State came from. It seems woefully inadequate, frankly. I am thinking in particular of the experience of so-called pregnant from Ireland, PFI, women, that is, women from Ireland who were pregnant who went to England and were then effectively forced back to Ireland and into one of these horrific institutions, particularly the one in Castlepollard, because that is where I grew up when I came home. We used to go to mass there as children. How bizarre is that, given it was effectively a place of torture. Women were humiliated when they arrived. Their clothes were taken from them and they were put into horrible brown nylon clothes and had their hair cropped. They did manual work, such as chopping and carrying logs and digging potatoes. They were treated like slaves. This was all as punishment from the Almighty, apparently. After they were forcibly separated from their children, many of those women fled back to Britain. These are the people referred to in amendment No. 33. We know that amount is for effectively suffering torture at the hands of the State and these religious institutions. That is what effectively went on and I do not think the Minister disagrees with me on that. I wish to understand where that figure of €3,000 comes from, if possible please.

I cannot agree more with Senator Higgins on amendment No. 34. The issue of forced family separation is absolutely crucial. At the moment, the Minister seems to be ignoring that and doing this bizarre time-based scheme whereby if somebody spent 179 days in an institution, they get nothing, whereas if they spent 180 days, they might get €5,000. I once again ask him to explain that because he has not yet done so. I believe those watching at home and our guests in the Gallery want to hear an explanation from him. That is not too much to ask.

Amendment No. 35 requires a report on top-up payments for those in receipt of inadequate settlements. Clearly, that will be important because, as it has been described, this is a very basic redress scheme. We know that payments will not be adequate in many cases and, therefore, why not, at the very least, call for and sanction a report in that regard?

Finally, I support amendment No. 36, which requires a report on the creation of a support fund for those with additional needs. It is a reasonable and important request.

It is funny because when Senator Boyhan was talking about that horrific deal done by Michael Woods, the disgraced Fianna Fáil Minister, whether we are going down that road again with the drug companies was in my mind.It is absolutely crucial that the Minister details what actions he will take in this regard. It looks like these companies are getting off absolutely scot-free, as are the religious institutions at the moment by the way, in the ongoing talks and the new negotiator. It is entirely unacceptable. The Minister might give us as much clarity as he can on how he intends to tackle the horrific wrongs that were done by these drug companies and how he intends to extract adequate compensation.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak on amendment No. 36 in support of the concept of going after those responsible for the drug trials. All of us in the House agree that illegal vaccine trials were done. The Bill is not the place for it and this amendment is not the amendment for it. However, I am in agreement with Senator Boyhan that we should look at the next steps and how we can work. I know the House will support the Minister on it. Fianna Fáil will do so absolutely and I will do my very best to support the Minister on it. There is a case where we have these massive organisations that made money on the backs of little children and illegal vaccines. I know this is not lost on the Minister or the Department. Whatever we can do to support the Minister, I am sure we will do.

I hope the House will indulge me for a moment. We are all speaking about a lot of survivors, victims and people. I want to put on the record the name of Tony Kelly. He died seven months ago. He was born in a mother and baby home. He died seven months ago but he is only being buried on Thursday. Because of many complications, he has not been able to be laid to rest. It is because he was born in a mother and baby home. He did not have support or people around him. On Second Stage I spoke about looking after people and thinking about those who have no one to miss them. We need organisations and local authorities to make sure there is a register and people to look after them and look out for them. Lord have mercy on poor Tony Kelly. He was an absolute gentleman and it was my privilege to get to know him. He will be laid to rest on Thursday morning.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Higgins and the other Senators for their contributions on this group of amendments. Unfortunately I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 33 to 36, inclusive. As we know, these amendments require the preparation of reports on the adequacy of the health support payment and the potential to make supplementary payments in certain conditions. In dealing with the second, third and fourth reports it comes to a fundamental question about the approach we adopt in this particular piece of legislation and the scheme. The introduction of supplementary payments would represent a departure from the non-adversarial approach to the scheme which we want to deliver for applicants. A significant number of reports are requested in the amendments we will be considering in the coming days. I do not believe the Bill is the correct place to locate such reports.

Amendment No. 33 speaks to assessing the adequacy of the €3,000 health support payment. This is a payment provided to applicants living abroad. The report as set out in the amendment would be incredibly complex. It would be extremely difficult to compile such a report. It would be very difficult to measure and monitor the information requested in the amendment. It would be very complex to administer any recommendation arising out of such a report. An interdepartmental group was tasked with developing proposals for the scheme. It was very explicit that it is not feasible to legislate for access to health services overseas. This is not something we are in a position to do here. This is a challenge in terms of recognising that a significant group of survivors lives overseas. A decision was made to give that an option. They have the option of availing of the enhanced medical card if they come to Ireland to visit, to stay for longer periods of time, or to return home. Recognising that many will not take up this option it was felt it was important to recognise them in terms of a degree of contribution to their health needs and their health costs. It was with this in mind the interdepartmental group proposed a €3,000 payment in lieu of access to the enhanced medical card, recognising that an individual has the right to choose either.

Amendment No. 34 concerns a report on the potential to make supplementary payments to relevant persons who experienced forced family separation. Amendment No. 35 concerns a report on the potential for supplementary payments to those who have previously received an award from a court or a settlement valued at less than the potential value of their entitlement under the scheme. Amendment No. 36 relates to those who may have additional needs derived from their time in the institutions. As I said in reference to amendments Nos. 1 and 15 in the previous grouping, the scheme provides an all-encompassing general payment to eligible applicants in recognition of the time spent in harsh conditions in these institutions, the emotional abuse and all other forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma experienced by a person when they were resident in a mother and baby or county home institution. This approach is intended to facilitate a non-adversarial scheme whereby applicants will not be required to bring forward evidence of abuse in order to qualify.

A fundamental approach of the scheme being adopted by the Government is the idea that applicants do not have to show individualised impacts on them. We know from previous schemes the difficulties that such an approach created. This means the scheme will not cater for individualised assessments. It is the intention that an all-encompassing general payment will be made to recognise all the harm, stigma and trauma a person experienced on an individual basis. Therefore, where a person receives an offer following an application to the scheme, this offer will be calculated based on a person having been resident in an institution for a certain length of time and will be made to recognise everything the applicant experienced while resident in that particular institution.

With regard to amendment No. 36 specifically, it is important to note there are other services provided to former residents. For example, the national counselling service is available free of charge to all former residents of mother and baby and county home institutions and former residents are a prioritised group in terms of accessing these important counselling services. Amendment No. 36 also speaks to the potential of the recovery of moneys from religious congregations or pharmaceutical companies connected with the institutions.

A number of Senators have referenced the announcement we made earlier today on the appointment of Sheila Nunan to engage with the religious congregations on seeking a meaningful contribution from them. As I have said before, I have met six religious congregations, a religious lay organisation and the Church of Ireland archbishop in Dublin on the scope of this. It is important these negotiations are progressed. This is why we feel someone with the negotiating skills of Sheila Nunan, who is a well-known trade unionist, is appropriate to bring an offer forward to the Government. The Government will have the final say on whether the particular offer is accepted.

Senators spoke about engagement with GlaxoSmithKline on drug trials. As Senators know, I wrote to GlaxoSmithKline following the publication of the report. I outlined again my view that it needs to examine the making of a meaningful contribution. Subsequently I met representatives of that organisation and I urged them to reflect on what the commission's report had laid bare about its predecessor organisations and an approach to take.Following that, GlaxoSmithKline did make certain information available to people who were forced to undergo medical trials as children. I expressed my view to the company that I did not feel this was enough and that more could have been done by that organisation. Ultimately, though, it is a matter for GlaxoSmithKline to decide what action it takes or what remedy it provides in terms of the commission's report. I am not in a position to be able to conclusively address the responsibility of GlaxoSmithKline in this legislation. I do not believe the amendment being proposed, while I understand its motivation, would be effective in doing so.

Another point concerns these reports. Even if they were acceptable, I refer to the idea that so much would be done within six months of the passing of this legislation. When this legislation is passed, the most important thing we will need to do is to get the redress scheme up and running. My Department is working to put in place the administrative infrastructure. It will have to be significant because up to 34,000 people will be applying under this scheme. This is why it is so important that we get this legislation passed and passed before the end of this term. It is also important then that the focus of my officials is not on writing reports but on ensuring all the administrative structures are in place in order that we can start processing the claims.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I believe six months is a reasonable period, it may be, of course, for this reason the amendments do not get accepted. I am sure others in the House may wish to seek to bring forth reports after 12 months, or another period, and this may prove more acceptable. I am sure this is something we may see proposed on Report Stage. I refer to amendments looking to different periods of time, if this is the problem. Again, I suggest the availability of certain officials and their work programme is not the central focus in this regard and, if necessary, additional resources need to be allocated.

I will go through some of the responses and I am pretty concerned about one. On amendment No. 33, concerning those abroad, I refer to the context of there not being a desire to take on board the kinds of proposals I have suggested. My call for a report concerned looking at exactly what options might be appropriate in this regard. The example was given regarding the very large numbers of people we know who travelled to the UK. In some cases, these people were forcibly dragged back to Ireland, put into mother and baby homes and other institutions and then saw that they needed to escape again. These people, of course, need to be recognised. This is another example of an unnecessary mean-spiritedness, not from the Minister personally but in terms of the design of the scheme, in respect of people being given the choice of getting €3,000 where they are now or the enhanced medical card which they could use when they travel back to Ireland. If people end up in situations where they do accept the €3,000 and then their health deteriorates further and they must return to Ireland, why should these people not be able to get the enhanced medical card at that stage?

I do not believe anybody who simply goes to get the enhanced medical card will hold it against anybody else who has had to come back and receives it then. Why make this a choice? It is just adding to the layered, painful choices we are placing on people who have already suffered enough. We are forcing them to choose between the compensation and their right to seek justice in other ways and between getting a small payment now where they reside or perhaps being entitled to enhanced medical cards or medical services in the future. For some, the journey home is something they have to undertake very reluctantly, given the distressing memories it causes to arise. It should not be the case that these people will be told they received this €3,000 previously. They may have used it for one operation or, if they were coming from America, for example, one hour in their health service and it was gone.

The point I wish to focus on that I am quite concerned about, however, is the language that was used in respect of amendment No. 34, and more generally. I note the question I raised with the Minister in our previous discussion in respect of the waiver and the clarity I was seeking regarding issues not covered by the scheme not being covered by the waiver, as they should not be. This query was not addressed. What I did see in the Minister's response, though, was a lot of new language being used that is not reflected in the Bill but which to me sends a worrying signal about the potential intentions of the Government in respect of that waiver. Regarding the phrase "all-encompassing general payment", there is no such all-encompassing general payment referred to in the Bill. There is a "general payment" in the Bill and, as defined in the text, it is specifically a payment in respect of sections 18(1), 18(2) and 18(3). These address "payment in respect of the number of days, referred to in column 2of Schedule 3...during which [a] person was so resident".

Let us be clear about this. The general payment is directly a payment in respect of the number of days according to a certain column in the legislation. It is not all-encompassing. It is not a recognition of the language which was just used concerning, for example, recognition of the trauma, recognition of the terrible experiences and the holistic and different circumstances suffered. These aspects do not feature at all. Maybe, in the minds of those creating this, it is felt they are doing this instead. Let us be clear, however, a general payment is being undertaken instead of a payment that recognises all these factors affecting the people concerned, such as being subjected to a vaccine trial, having experienced forced family separation or having experienced additional prejudices in terms of those subjected to racial discrimination and others. In the calculus applied in terms of this payment, there is no mechanism and no measure in respect of those experiences I mentioned. This is a choice, and it is the choice the Government has made, to go with a general payment and not a payment that addresses various complex issues, traumas and factors.

What I am really concerned about is that in some of the language used in the Minister's speech just now, there was the suggestion - again I do not know where this line is coming from - that all these things are somehow bundled in and can be condensed into an algorithm that just looks at days. The fact is the Minister has chosen a basic calculus based on days. He has chosen not to address the many factors that people told him mattered. It is critically important, therefore, to be very clear about the waiver. Again, this was not addressed and the Minister had said he would come back to me in writing regarding this aspect. Indeed, he was requested by Members on the Government side to respond to the whole Chamber on this point. We have not, however, had a response with language and clarification in respect of the waiver.

To be clear, this new phrase, "all-encompassing general payment", and simply saying this on the record, does not make it an all-encompassing general payment. The "general payment" is defined clearly in the Bill and it is simply about the days. Let us be clear about this point and it is an important one to clarify. It will also be important to ensure that people who may get this general payment in respect of the days will be, should be and legally potentially are under the Bill - it would be good to get this clarification - entitled to seek justice in respect of the other issues they experienced that are not reflected in this calculus or definition. No amount of throwing additional adjectives in front of "general payment", which are not in the Bill, will make it be the case that they are there. This is an important aspect.

In terms of amendments Nos. 35 and 36, we had again requested additional information. I do not know if the Minister has additional information in respect of those who took cases and accepted settlements.Are the amounts they received more than they would get under this scheme? Are they less than they would get under the scheme? We cannot speak to individual cases. In some cases, people are being required not to speak about their settlements. Is it the case, however, that there are those who took a very laborious route through the courts, which most people do not want to do, and were awarded settlements that will amount to less than they would potentially get under this scheme? How many are affected? That is the question. As I have indicated, I am quite happy to nuance this amendment, and we can come back with it on Report Stage. We are really trying to find out if that is an issue and how many people are affected by it if it is.

In respect of amendment No. 36, if not now, when? As to whether this is the right place to address the matter, why not now? Why not send a signal, even if only to strengthen the Minister's hand and the hand of the new negotiator he has appointed? Why not seize the opportunity to go into those discussions with GSK and other pharma companies and the religious orders and congregations and say he is mandated by the Oireachtas to pursue this issue? The Minister will be aware that the amendment seeks to recognise the point he made, which is that he does not know whether these contributions should be going directly into this scheme or whether there should be an additional scheme. The amendment also seeks to provide that there may be an additional fund so it gives scope for an additional strand, which would leave intact the scheme as it is planned to operate but would be an additional top-up fund. That is a useful mechanism. Does it not strengthen the State's hand if, going through the Legislature, we signal our intention to have reports looking at our legal options? That is what the amendment states about the report. It states that the State will look at its legal options in respect of requiring contributions. These orders and congregations and corporations seem very confident and happy in playing hardball and looking somehow for concessions from the State. What do they expect the State to give them in negotiations? Certainly not an indemnity, I hope, or some kind of get-out-free card. Why not indicate that the State will look at all kinds of legal options and, as mandated by the Oireachtas and the representatives of the public of Ireland, pursue legal options where we do not have co-operation? Does that not strengthen the Minister's hands and the hands of others in these negotiations?

I really encourage the Minister to consider, in respect of amendment No. 36, or any other version of the amendment that might come, how we can strengthen the hand of the State in these negotiations. I would like clarity on amendment No. 34 and I ask, in respect of amendment No. 35, because that was one the did not really address, if he will indicate how many may be affected by that potential loophole.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will touch generally on the response to the three amendments with which the Minister dealt. First, I acknowledge that he has confirmed that he has written to the Catholic and the Church of Ireland Primates of All Ireland. I would be interested to see how that is all going. I am sure there are ways of finding out all that. That is no big government secret, and I am confident we could pretty well get a copy of the response within the next 24 hours. There is that acceptance. To echo what Senator Higgins said, we do not want another State indemnity for wrongdoing. We do not want any legitimisation of what has happened.

Then the Minister had his ongoing engagement with GSK, which would have been welcome originally. I cannot quite understand that negotiation. We know what happened. There is no ambiguity as to what happened in respect of the drug trials. As regards amendment No. 36, the Minister might consider running a parallel process. He did not really respond to that in the context of the illegal vaccine trials. Here we are suggesting we might get some funding out of the religious institutions that were involved. We may if this successful negotiation takes place, which is the Minister's expectation. I will not put any figure on that; that would be wrong of me. There may be other forms of compensation, yet the very people we are talking about, those who were from zero to six months of age, would not be beneficiaries of any compensation because they are excluded from the scheme. We have excluded people who were north of six months of age anyway so they do not come under the scheme - end of story. Everyone who was from zero to six months of age is excluded from the scheme, yet the Minister is pursuing, through a negotiation and now with Ms Sheila Nunan, who will negotiate on his behalf, I understand, a possibility of some compensation or some recognition of wrongdoing. However, how will those people who were zero to six months old benefit from that if they are excluded from the scheme? The Minister is seeking to pull in money, if he can get it, or some form of compensation, but, again, we have excluded those people.

There is also the possibility of looking at the issue of leverage in respect of GSK. It is substantially involved in our public health system in this country. It has substantial contracts with the State, and leverage may have to be applied. I ask and suggest tonight that that leverage be applied. It would be very simple to put in a request and a few parliamentary questions to ascertain the extent or level of GSK's engagement with the State. If it has contracts with the State and we are not happy with what it or its predecessors did, we need to say that loud and clear. We need to drag it to the table, hands up. There is no question of accusation. It carried out unethical vaccine trials on minors in this State without any parental consent or anyone in loco parentisgiving consent, and that is the fact.

I understand the parallel process, and the Minister has made a case as to how he is dealing with these amendments. Surely, however, he can run a parallel process in respect of negotiations and redress for many people who were the subject of unethical drug trials as children in State care. That is really important. If I were to go outside tonight to give an interview, as I will do tomorrow, since I am lined up for one, I would ask a question which I have rattled my brains on for many years, that is, how I can square up to the fact that the State is fully aware that these drug trials took place? It has the documentation. We remember the Ms Justice Mary Laffoy reports on this. We remember the involvement of the State. We know about the involvement of Deputy Micheál Martin as then Minister for Health, who was fully aware of all the issues. We know about the impacts of Bessborough on the children there. A substantial drug trials took place in Bessborough in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We know these facts. How can we, as legislators, square up to walking out of here in a few weeks without making any provision for children in this State who underwent these vaccine trials? If this cannot be done in this legislation - and I take the point that that is the case the Minister has made and is making - can he assure us or come back here next week to say that he will take another look at this and will run a parallel system? It might be awkward or elongated, but we have to honestly put our hands on our hearts and say we are going to do something about this and are not going to lie down before a multibillion-pound pharmaceutical company. I know that pharmaceutical companies are powerful within the economy and that our economy greatly benefits from them, and I am a pragmatist, but we have to make a case as to how we can address this. I would like to hear how the Minister might look at that or even how he might just commit to going away and thinking about it again such that we can discuss it further.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins during our previous session asked for clarification on the issue of the waiver, and I agreed to come back to her in writing on that. That clarification continues to be worked on. We will bring it to her. It is being given the consideration it deserves because it is an important issue. We will get that to her when it is ready, which will be soon, I believe.

As for the Senator's amendment No. 35, we do not have figures as to how many cases were previously settled. My officials do not know of any cases that were successfully settled by applicants against institutions. That is not to say they are not there, but we do not know what is there.

I always listen carefully to what she says on these issues.I do not believe that moving to an individualised approach is the best way forward. I believe the approach we are adopting here in terms of the experience, as Senator Higgins outlined, and based on time is the best way to deliver a scheme. Looking abroad, at the stolen generations reparations scheme that was run in Australia, for example, they originally had an individualised approach but the overall assessor suggested to the Australian Government that it switch track and move to a common experience payment because the experience was that focus on individual experiences was negatively impacting those who were coming before it.

I share the Senator's sense of frustration. When you look at the information that led to the declaring of ultra viresfrom the tribunal that was looking into this area, it is frustrating. It is important to recognise, as the Senator did, that these trials were not just happening in mother and baby and county home institutions. They were happening in other institutions and they were also happening outside in the community without the relevant elements of consent. That has to be recognised. What I and the Government are seeking with this particular legislation is to bring forward a simplified redress scheme that is easy to access, where individuals do not have to prove their particular injuries or impacts but can avail of redress, including payments and enhanced medical cards, in a way that is reasonably straightforward and removes the risk of litigation, the cost of litigation and much, although not all, of the trauma that litigation entails.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Minister is saying but to go back to the point, many of these vaccine trials took place on children from zero up to six months so they are excluded. There is no redress. The Government has no scheme for them. Let us say a list was to be put in front of the Minister in ten days' time with 38 children on it and it was validated that they were all in State care and subject to these trials. In some case it was only placebos and there was no potential risk of damage. There are very extensive records within UCD and other places. This is not a big science. The Department would be aware of correspondence, and I am certainly aware of it. At all times, I made sure that any correspondence that came into my hands was duplicated and that the Department and other people had it. If it came to the attention of the Department that 50 children in 1965, who would be in their late 50s today, were the subject of these vaccine trials, where is the redress? They were in these institutions and can validate all of that through the paperwork etc. but they were left out. There is no redress for them because of this blunt instrument whereby the Government has said there is nothing for zero to six months. A mother could be in an institution for a night and get compensation under this package - that is fact - but a child who was there for five months gets nothing. Yet it is all documented. These trials went right up into the 1970s. They were pretty modern times and records were pretty good. There are very extensive records out there.

While I accept the Minister is not in a position to recommend this here, he could go away and say that the point was taken, if there is undisputed evidence and children can be validated as being in care at that particular juncture and were the subject of vaccine trials. GlaxoSmithKline is prepared, to some extent, to engage and we know that people have engaged with it in terms of information on a one-to-one basis. I just think it is too blunt an instrument if the Government is not going to provide any redress or any support for these people to take any litigation. There is just nothing for them. Do not underestimate the trauma that is inflicted on young children at that early age. There is also the issue of parental consent. Many of these children were not there by the consent of their parents. Many of them were taken from their parent or parents and put in care.

When you are explaining, you are losing. When someone puts a microphone up and asks the Minister why he is excluding children from zero to six months who were the subject, or possibly the subject, of drug trials, what will he say? Will he say this system is not robust enough or that we are not putting in place a system for it? I am going to leave it at that. I hate to argue with the Minister. I have no doubt of his absolute commitment but there is an anomaly there. There is an injustice there and it is something we need to right.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. This is a general payment in respect of days. It is not a payment designed in terms of experience. That is a choice that has been made. The issue of the waiver is concerning. The Minister indicated that he would come back to me in writing but what was then looked for, and not solely by me but indeed by Government Members and Senators, was for the whole House to hear clarity on this issue. I would suggest that we need to hear that before we move to Report Stage. It has been over a week since the issue was raised. It would be useful if the Minister could come back to us tomorrow and give clarity on that issue so that not just myself but others across the House, on all sides, who would like clarity on that issue could have it addressed.

It is becoming increasingly clear for me from examining the legislation that this is a general payment in respect of days. It is not framed in terms of any part of the nuance of experience. That is a decision that has been made. That is fine but the Minister spoke about the individualised payment. It is a general payment. It is fine to have said that – well it is not fine; I think it would be better if we had designed the payments to really reflect the nuance and reality of the experience - but it is a choice. In that choice, what is important is that we do not undermine the individual rights, which are separate. This is the general payment of the State acknowledging the wrong it did to people. That is what the redress scheme is. It is the State acknowledging the wrong that it did. That is not the same, in a general sense, as the wrongs done through general policies, which were standard Government policies for very long periods of time. That is not the same as individuals' rights to vindicate their particular and specific experiences and to take actions in respect of those.

The Minister used the phrase "the risk of litigation". Let us be clear. The goal of the scheme should not be to protect the State from the risk of litigation. The goal of the scheme is for the State to show that it is sorry and that it recognises what it did. Those are the goals of a genuine redress scheme. That is certainly the goal of a non-adversarial redress scheme. The question for individuals who might be seeking to vindicate their rights, through whatever actions they may wish to take around aspects of their experience not addressed by the scheme, should be left clearly to each case. To say we are protecting people from litigation is maybe a little bit much for those who may wish to have that right. If there is an issue or injustice people may wish to highlight, maybe not solely for themselves but for others, and it is something they feel strongly about and feel needs to be reflected, like those who initially took those first cases, that right should not be compromised by the fact that the scheme is making a general set of reparations in terms of these general criteria. I am just pulling in that language.

The best thing here would be if we could come back to this, maybe tomorrow, and the Minister were to follow with further information in writing to myself and all the other Senators who are interested. It would be good if we had something more on that issue tomorrow because that will of course affect all of us as legislators as we try to work with the Minister to improve this legislation as it goes through Report Stage.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would just reiterate that last point. The Minister gave a commitment last week, which is welcome, that he would give clarity on this waiver issue. I expected that we would have that today but we do not. It is not reasonable for him to say to us that he is working on it but does not know when we will have it.At the very least, we should have it before Committee Stage resumes tomorrow. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that we will not move to Report Stage until we have that clarity from him in writing. That is the very least he should do.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could not move on to Report Stage without that information.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on provision of additional payments to those who experienced forced family separation

19.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for supplementary payments, in addition to any entitlement under this section to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act, to relevant persons who experienced forced family separation while, or as a result of being, resident in a relevant institution.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Report on top up payments for those in receipt of inadequate settlements 19.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to provide for supplementary payments for relevant persons referred to in section 18(6) who had previously received an award from a court or settlement in respect of an action arising out of any circumstances relating to a period of residence in a relevant institution, where the value of the award or settlement was less than the value of their entitlement to a general payment or work-related payment under this Act.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Report on creation of support fund for those with additional needs 19.(1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to make provision for a support fund for persons who developed additional needs as a direct or indirect result of time spent in a relevant institution.

(2) The report under subsection (1)shall include analysis of legal options to require relevant parties to contribute to the fund.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant parties” means persons, organisations, the estates of persons, or other entities involved at any time in the operation, management, administration or ownership of relevant institutions, or in the operation or administration of illegal vaccine trials or any other medical experimentation on relevant persons.”.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are related and may be discussed together.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Report on extension of eligibility for general payment under Scheme 19.(1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential to extend eligibility under section 18(1)for a general payment to all relevant persons who were resident in a relevant institution for any period of time, including those who were resident for less than 180 days.

(2) A report under this section shall include a breakdown of the number of persons who applied to the Scheme and were deemed ineligible as a result of the 180 day residency requirement, and the cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility for the Scheme to include those persons.”.

Amendment No. 20 called for the direct removal or deletion of the minimum 180-day residency requirement for a survivor to qualify for a general payment under the scheme. This should be reflected. Even in a limited general payment, time-based scheme, there is no reason the time may not be any time, rather than setting an arbitrary limit. We have not seen a justification for why it is being set, but the impact of the 180-day residency requirement limit is certainly not arbitrary. Amendment No. 37 simply asks that six months after the scheme went into effect, there would be a report on the potential for removing that 180-day residency requirement. The amendment also calls on the Minister to examine how many people applied to the scheme within those six months and were deemed ineligible, specifically because of the 180-day residency requirement. This is an unconscionable exclusion. We know 24,000 people may be affected by this, but it would be useful to know how many people may be specifically affected. If a report was to be created, as we have suggested in this amendment, such a change could be made within the scheduled approach. This is a small legislative change. I cannot make the change because it will be ruled out of order, but it should be addressed. I will come back to this when I locate my additional notes.

I will refer to the 180-day and six-month time periods in the context of today, when we see Tuam in the news again. We have looked at Tuam. I mentioned Bessborough last week and the fact that at one point in the 1940s in Bessborough, the mortality rate for children was more than 80%. Tuam points to the high mortality rates for infants within these institutions. As a State, we recognise the importance of the first six months. It is why there is wide, though not universal, access to maternity leave. It is recognised as being immensely important, developmentally, for any child. Six months is also the period in which the extremely traumatic event of family separation can take place. The idea that one would exclude children, when those first six months are so important, is not simply a two-tier system or an arbitrary time limit. Such an exclusion is especially damaging to those who may have spent two, three or four months in these institutions, given the developmental importance of those months. That is a general point with regard to the first six months of any infant's life.

However, when we look to the first six months of the children in these institutions, we talk about a first six months spent in institutions that may have the majority of children dying and mortality rates that are off the scale and we see brave people such as Alice Litster, the public health inspector, going to Bessborough.I did want to read her reports into the record but I do not have them. I refer to her reports on the health conditions of children in these institutions in which she describes exactly how bad it was to be a one-month-old, a two-month-old or a three-month-old in Bessborough, and what it meant for them in terms of nutrition and risk to their lives. When there are a lot of children dying, that means there are also a lot of children who may not have died but who were sick, ill-treated and malnourished. That is leaving aside the core trauma of family separation happening within the first six months.

We have put this to the Minister. I acknowledge that this is a Government failure. I do not put it on the Minister solely. It is a matter on which he has been sent out to defend the indefensible in respect of the six-month exclusion. I hold all in Cabinet accountable in respect of the decision to exclude those who spent less than six months in an institution. I urge journalists to speak not just to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, but any Minister who speaks to them and to ask Ministers what they think the reasons are for this six-month exclusion. I include the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It is not justifiable, and no justification has ever been provided. The general justification for a time-based approach, which the Minister has offered, does not apply in respect of the decision to make the time limit 180 days versus one day in respect of children. It does not stand up, and in fact the scientific, psychological and international experience points to the need to include as opposed to a justification for exclusion.

We will press and press on this. Nobody has the goal of embarrassing the Minister. We are doing this because this matter genuinely needs a new decision between Committee Stage in the Seanad and Report Stage. Rather than wanting my amendments to succeed, I want the Government to realise that the 180-day exclusion is not acceptable and to come back with an amendment on Report Stage. We will keep pressing until the very end in that regard. I urge everybody, including all of those watching the proceedings, to press the entire Government on this. In fairness, I know there are many Oireachtas Members in Government parties who strongly feel that the 180-day exclusion is not acceptable.

This amendment represents something of a halfway house because it would allow for a report to examine the impact of the exclusion and if the report so recommended, there would potentially be scope for a change in the legislation. As it is a time-based amendment, it would in fact be quite a small change in the legislation in order to widen the scheme. That is why we have the time period we have suggested of six months attached to the amendment. It is so that a report could be produced within a period of time that is relevant to the operation of the scheme.

Amendment No. 22 calls again for the direct removal or deletion of the minimum 90-day residency requirement for a survivor to qualify for a work-related payment under the scheme. Amendment No. 38 is similarly a compromise that simply seeks a report after six months on the potential to remove the 90-day residency requirement. Importantly, it also seeks that we know not just who benefited from the schemes but who did not benefit from them, and for the Minister to examine how many people applied to the scheme and were deemed ineligible specifically because of the 90-day residency requirement. This is another exclusion, which is not defensible. There is nothing in the scheme that accounts for the abuses suffered in the course of work. There is nothing that differentiates between the types of work or provides additional redress for the horrible conditions faced by so many of those working in homes or the gruelling or injurious nature of the work. It was described earlier that in some situations the work was intentionally punitive and degrading. The only criterion is the length of time of residency. In that context, since the qualitative dimension of the kinds of work persons were subjected to is not being recognised, it adds insult to injury to then say, "If you only worked for 90 days, that is not a harm great enough to warrant redress." Even though the choice has been made not to examine the detail of the harm, it is insulting to suggest that survivors would somehow have to sacrifice their right to seek further redress based on their particular and different experiences of work in the institutions. There is no additional redress for people who have sustained, for example, lifelong disabilities or physical injuries from the type of work that was required from them. In that context, where the detail is not being recognised, and a simple and minimalist approach based on days has been taken, it adds insult to injury to say while we are not looking at harm, we have decided that 90 days or 89 days is all right. A period of 89 days can be very damaging. A lot of damage can be done in that time, or in 88 days, 70 days or even 30 days. We know some people who have been deeply affected by degrading and physically and psychologically damaging work in much shorter periods than that.

This goes against the OAK report, which talked about the qualitative issues. What both of these reports have in common, which is perhaps why they have been grouped separately from the other reports we previously discussed, is that both allow the Minister to operate within the choice made by the Government on a time-based scheme. If we produced these reports within six months of the scheme and we found, for example, that a large number of persons were falling short simply because of the cut-off points of 180 days and 90 days, respectively, then changes could be made. A small legislative change could be made. We might suggest that there would be scope for change to be made to the Schedule on Report Stage in terms of where the bar is set on those dates and the days required. It is not inventing the scheme in a completely different way; it is simply moving from 90 days to zero days. It could be 30 days or ten days but I suggest zero days or one day. Similarly, we would move from 180 days, for example, to one day. I hope the Minister can take on board these proposals, which I believe are constructive.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins put it very well and set our her stall on both amendments.

I am very heavily reliant in discussing the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill on the Bill digest that was done by the Library and Research Service. I acknowledge and thank Dr. Deirdre Halloran and Ms Michelle Lynch, senior parliamentary researchers in law in the Oireachtas, for their very extensive piece of work. We are very lucky in this House that we have such support and backup for our work. The Minister will be very familiar with how the Bill digest works and how the various concerns are flagged.

At the outset, I said that we must remember we are democrats. We believe in parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side we come from, we have a Government that is not in the habit of accepting any amendments in this House. A league table is being run on every amendment since this Dáil was formed and it makes for very interesting reading in the Seanad. I look forward to commenting on that later. We are way past mid-term for this Government anyway. The table makes for an appalling read in terms of parliamentary democracy, but we have to live with that in the knowledge that it will not always happen. The Government is going to run its course and I hope there will be other opportunities in the future. The Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which examined this issue, is made up of members from all parties. It is extraordinary to note the absence of some of them from the debates on the Bill both in this House and in the Dáil. I do not understand how a report can be agreed and then the people who agreed it do not follow up on it. I went to the trouble of reading the transcripts of some of what these individuals had to say in the committee. They were going to move heaven and earth to bring in the proposed changes, but all that talk has gone dead. This highlights the absolute control of the party Whip structure and system. That is a discussion for another day but I had to mention it. People are banging their heads against walls in frustration. Journalists and researchers are talking to me about it. Victims of abuse are asking what is going on in our parliamentary democracy. We have people saying they believe the victims and think what is being done is awful but they cannot put their head above the parapet or it will be chopped off. It is a sad commentary on democracy.

The committee made 21 recommendations in its report. That committee is made up of party members from across the Houses.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator to address the section rather than the generality of the Bill.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I have no difficulty with that. The committee made 21 recommendations, including that the six-month residency requirement for children be removed. The committee stated clearly it must be removed. The report was signed off by all those Oireachtas Members, who went around saying they were going to transform everything. I expected more of them and I am disappointed. That is the reality we live in and it is my job to highlight it inside and outside this House. I will not be short in doing so. As I said, the committee recommended that anyone who was resident in one of the institutions should be entitled to a payment regardless of the time spent therein. That is one of the 21 recommendations. I will not go through the rest of them. Everybody can read the report.

We are now in a situation in which the Minister cannot see fit to make that recommended change, or is constrained in some way in government from doing so. It is disappointing. That is the case he and the Government have made. They will ultimately have to account for their actions in other forums outside this House. The crocodile tears do not wash with me, and nor do the expressions of disgust, shame and condemnation, when those people cannot walk into our political Chambers, stand up to the political system and vote for what they believe is right.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I genuinely do not understand how the Minister can justify excluding people who spent less than six months in these institutions. Like others, I am extremely frustrated that when we have asked him this question previously, instead of answering it directly and explaining how he justifies excluding those people, he came up with a formula of words about the process but not the rationale. Like Senator Boyhan, I am incredibly frustrated that there apparently can be passionate all-party agreement in committee that these people should not be excluded, yet, unless I hear differently, our colleagues from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are going to support that exclusion this evening. They are even going to support excluding a report on the topic. That is an absolute disgrace. There is no other way to put it.

The Minister has the power to act on this. It is his decision. He will be known after this Bill has passed as the Minister who excluded nearly 30,000 survivors from redress. That is what his legacy will be. I ask him just to answer the question. How does he justify excluding these people?

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to accept the two amendments, which require the preparation of reports on the potential to extend eligibility for both the general and work-related payments. As I stated in response to discussion on previous, similar amendments, it is really important that the reviews of the operation of the scheme, as provided for in the legislation as it currently stands, are anchored in the existing scope of the Bill. The parameters of the scheme have been debated at length both in this House and the other House. I have outlined how the Government arrived at its decision on the scheme that is being provided. All the amendments put forward under this section call for reports that ultimately seek to review the scheme in its entirety within the first six months of its operation. As I have explained, that is not feasible. Any amendment to the parameters of the scheme would require a Government decision.

I repeat what I said to Senators earlier. In the first six months of operation of this legislation, the focus must be on getting the scheme up and running. We need to pass the Bill and then we must continue to do the work necessary to put in place the significant administrative apparatus to deal with a scheme that will potentially have 34,000 applicants. That needs to be the focus in the initial six months.

Senator Higgins asked about finding information on people who apply to the scheme and are unsuccessful. I offer the assurance to Senators that the chief deciding officer will provide an annual report, as required under section 12. The data will be collected by the scheme administrator. It will be an annual report, not a six-month report, which I think is better in terms of giving us a scope. Relevant information will be available in the report and that information may, of course, influence future decisions about legislation.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By way of correction, amendments Nos. 37 and 38 do not require a full overhaul or examination of the whole scheme. They relate to specific provisions within the Bill and the specific provisions in the Schedule to the Bill in respect of the 180-day and 90-day requirements, respectively. I do not accept that the change proposed would be as substantial as the Minister suggests. I give notice that we reserve the right to introduce amendments on the next Stage dealing with the mechanisms for responding to any concerning trends within the annual report. For now, I will press amendment No. 37.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.