Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy McEntee. I welcome all those in the Public Gallery who have an interest in this Bill. They are very welcome.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Senator Tully, has been ruled out of order.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to amend section 3 to reflect the recent change of the official title of the Minister from the “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform” to the “Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation”. Unfortunately, when this Bill was in the Dáil, the title had not officially changed. It has since happened. This amendment, therefore, is just to correct that in the Bill itself.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for clarifying.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 3 in the names of Senators Boyhan and Craughwell has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on revenue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of Senator Tully have been ruled out of order due to potential charges on revenue.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 18, after “2002,” to insert “such a service to be provided by professionals with expertise in institutional abuse and forced family separation,”.

This amendment focuses on the quality of professional support that survivors receive, recognising their specific needs and the professional experience counselling providers and professionals should have in instances of institutional abuse and forced-family separation. In the past, we have heard reports of people feeling the standard of support they received was retraumatising in some cases. If we are to truly respect and recognise the trauma survivors have experienced, we need to provide them with the dignity of a service that has a specialist skill set to meet those needs. Survivors have endured deep and lasting hurt and trauma. It should be incumbent on us to ensure the professional support they need meets those standards.

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

I wish to speak on this. This is a group of amendments. The Leas-Chathaoirleach ruled one of the amendments, which was in my name, out of order.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are on amendment No. 6.

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

I wished to indicate in respect of an earlier amendment, which I would like to speak on briefly.

When I looked at the debate in the Dáil and the commentary in the stenographers’ report, the reasons for the ruling out of order of amendments were missing. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach will know, it is provided for that Deputies can make a request of the Ceann Comhairle in that regard. It did not happen there for some reason, but it is going to happen here under my watch. It is important that the Leas-Chathaoirleach read out the memo she has been provided, or should have been provided with, stating why amendments have been ruled out of order. When we look back on these things, we need to have the record straight. It is not a willingness on our part, or necessarily on the part of the Minister, to frustrate it. Rather, it is a process. Amendments were ruled out of order. I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to read out the reasons.

While I am on my feet, I will touch on what Senator Stephenson said. I support her in her work on this amendment. It is important, particularly as regards the issue of professional advocacy. I note the Minister’s commentary on Sage Advocacy, which is doing amazing work and I have every hope for it. This needs to be put on a clear basis, though. When Senator Stephenson talks about the professional supports and agencies, we need to know that. The Minister might shine a bit of light on this matter later.

The special advocate has limited functions. I sought to put the role of the special advocate on a statutory footing, but that does not seem to meet with the approval of the Government. That sends out a negative signal about what is a long-term commitment.

I wish to take Members’ through a few things. The consultation on survivors of institutional abuse and the themes and issues addressed by the survivor consultation group made a substantial number of recommendations.It is about having confidence in counselling, support and advocacy. It is about it being professional and appropriate to the special sets of circumstances and needs. That is important.

While I am on my feet, I wish to acknowledge the great work of our library research team. I say this every time, but the team did an extensive Bills Digest on this Bill and shone a light on many aspects that never came out in the debate. I have taken the trouble to download all of the links to this, since external people cannot see it, and it is going up on a particular website on Monday, I believe. It raises a number of issues.

I just want to speak in support of the amendment. We need to be very careful in what we are doing here today. At the end of the day, we cannot keep giving excuses. This has gone on for years and years. Child sex abuse is a devastating crime. It shatters the lives of the victims and causes deep and lasting pain. This afternoon, we in these Houses have an opportunity to do something about it and to respond to their needs and requests. It is all very well to talk about the cost to the Exchequer but the current Administration has been in power for a long time in one guise or another. Nothing new is coming down the tracks here. Either people are committed or not. There are budgetary processes and other cases. I want some sort of assurance. Actually, it is not me, but the people who are outside listening in or who, when we send out the link to this video tonight and put it out into the media, will want to hear that. Forget this tone deaf stuff. They want to be able to say that we have a Minister and parliamentarians from all sides of this House who are committed to putting in place the appropriate professional supports that they can have confidence in and need. This is not an interim gap and most of these people involved are over 60 years of age. There are not many of them around but they need the comforts and support for their lives. We must never forget that it is not all about abuse at the hands of the religious and lay people. The State had oversight of all of this and it, too, has a responsibility. That is the thing that somehow people are forgetting in this great debate. It is incumbent on the State and on us as legislators to put measures in place and to reassure people. This is not going away. Next week, we will have the Spiritans. In a few weeks' time, we will have St. John Ambulance Ireland back in Leinster House. We have a number of religious orders, also. A lot of things are going on and there are a lot of lay organisations, such as the scout movement. I could list them on and on.

The system we put in place is important. The title of "special advocate for survivors of institutional abuse" gives a sense that, but it does not appear to be a long-term strategy for the Government to keep this office in place, so I want to hear about that from the Minister. The current advocate is Patricia Carey. It is not about the person, it is about the office, but she has done amazing work, travelled overseas, met people in Liverpool, Manchester and London and has linked them into services. It is important that someone has trust, can talk to people in confidence and can link them in. It goes back to what Senator Stephenson said about appropriate interventions and supports.

I ask the Minister for some concrete suggestions as well as guarantees that these two offices - this includes Sage Advocacy, which the Minister fully endorses, and I agree with her in that regard, as it does great work - have the remit to provide professional care and support. I looked at Roderic O'Gorman's press release on gov.iethis morning. With great fanfare, he and the then Government announced the special advocate for survivors, but I received a letter yesterday from someone who had contacted it and been told that the matter was outside the service's remit, so the service could not help that person. What is this grand job of special advocate for survivors of institutional abuse, which is funded by the State? I know it is within the remit of the Department of children as opposed to the Department of education but we are not in a vacuum in here. There is an all-of-Government approach to all of these issues.

What we need to put in place are not promises and hopes. Rather, we need to give these people what they are entitled to. There should be a fully resourced - I use the word "resourced" in a broad sense - and multifunctional service that interacts with the HSE and other State agencies. In this way, people can be guaranteed that this thing is going to be in place. I am referring to these two critical pieces of support infrastructure, namely, Sage Advocacy - Damian O'Farrell has done amazing work in this area and I know him very well - and the special advocate, Patricia Carey. How can we be sure that those offices will be continuously empowered to give professional services to the people who need them the most?

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, want to support Senator Stephenson's amendment.

I have a difficulty with the way we use the possibility of a charge on the Exchequer to say that certain amendments must be rejected. There is no absolute charge on the Executive by having an advocate in place. As my colleague Senator Boyhan has just pointed out, most of the people we are talking about are in their 60s. Most of them contributed to this State with their labour and got nothing in return. If people have to pay for advocacy, it should not be the State in the first instance, but those who caused them to be in the position they are in. It is wrong to reject Senator Boyhan's amendment. There needs to be a full-time advocate in place. Those who suffered in these organisations and institutions need to have a central place where they can go, such as former councillor Damian O'Farrell's organisation. There needs to be an office, a one-stop-shop that people can go to and that ensures they get everything they are entitled to. Too often, we see well-meaning legislation brought in by the State but people do not know how to access its provisions. I support the notion that we should have an advocate.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also support Senator Stephenson's amendment on supports for survivors of institutional abuse. There are moments in this Chamber when we are called, not just to legislate, but to listen to those whose lives have been shaped by decisions made in rooms like this. Last week, I spoke about a woman from my constituency. I will not repeat her story today. The point is not her pain, but the lesson we take from it. In its current form, the Bill does not go half as far as it needs to. What the woman's story and countless similar stories have shown is that the impact of the institutional abuse in Ireland did not end at the gates or with the reports that were published. The trauma echoed into families, futures and generations. The Bill creates a narrow frame as to who qualifies and who does not, who was harmed and who was not. It says that if a person was not in the building, he or she does not count. Trauma does not follow legal boundaries. Rather, it follows people.

I want to be clear that I welcome any progress this Bill provides on recognition to survivors. However, we should not confuse a step forward with a finished journey. This Bill does not go far enough. It does not treat survivors who have lived abroad and those who have lived here equally. It does not ensure automatic access to healthcare supports. It does not acknowledge the unpaid labour that survivors gave in these institutions. It certainly does not recognise the harm done to the children of the survivors - the second generation - who grew up in homes marked by absence, silence and unprocessed grief.

We in Sinn Féin tabled many amendments, many of which were stricken out. They were good and practical amendments. The amendments we suggested were not rhetorical. They are required if this legislation is to be worthy of the people it claims to serve. We have heard the phrase "lessons learned" more times than I can count, but learning requires change. Otherwise, it is just performance. What good is this redress scheme that retraumatises survivors by asking them to prove again that their pain is real? What good is a support system that only supports the few? What good is an apology when it comes with conditions? This is not about perfecting the past; it is about correcting the present so that future generations are not left wondering why the State stopped short again. Survivors do not need our pity; they need our partnership. This means passing a Bill that sees them fully and not selectively.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should have started by acknowledging those in the Public Gallery. I thank them for being here.

To speak to amendment No. 6, what is being asked here is that there would be professional support provided for victims and survivors.Counselling supports are currently provided through a scheme that was established back in 2000 following the Taoiseach's apology in 1999. It is provided through the national counselling service through the HSE. From the very outset, this has been made available to all adults in Ireland who experienced childhood physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect in any setting. That includes industrial but also community or familial settings. Those who have experienced abuse are prioritised through that system. Senators might ask why we are putting it in this Bill if it is here already. By putting it specifically in the Bill, it means there is a statutory right. If for whatever reason the HSE says it does not have the money or the funding is reducing, this Bill clearly states that funding must be provided because there is a statutory right to any victim of abuse set out in the institutions that are mentioned, that they would receive that counselling and support. In terms of expertise and knowledge, the HSE is required to ensure that any person working for it has expertise and experience and is qualified working with various types of trauma. I know from my previous role as Minister for Justice, particularly in the roll-out of the zero tolerance strategy around domestic and sexual violence, one of the key elements of that strategy is training, upskilling and making sure we have as many therapists and professionals as possible who are up to skill and have the prerequisites when it comes to delivering these services and supports. There is more work that we need to do to make sure we have as many of those professionals as possible. That is a whole-of-government strategy which is being progressed by the HSE and the Department of Health. It is on that basis that I cannot accept the amendment. The supports are there and what we are doing in the Bill is putting them on a statutory footing. It is not that we are not accepting what is in it. It is already in the Bill that we provide these supports.

If I could speak to Senator Boyhan's point, I know the amendment was ruled out of order. As the Senator said, the special advocate is appointed through the Department of children so any changes to the structure or the statute itself would have to be made through that Department. However, we do not work in a vacuum. We work collectively together. I will commit to engaging with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Foley, on the points the Senator raised to see whether there is more we need to do in terms of the special advocate and resources, and to see how that fits with the work of Sage Advocacy. Over the last 18 months in particular, it has enhanced its expertise, staff and outreach when it comes to supporting and providing advocacy for victims of sexual abuse and victims of abuse in institutions, schools and other areas. It is about how we would make sure that any advocate's role supports and works in collaboration with what is already there. I am absolutely committed to working with my colleague, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality in that regard and relaying our discussion to her in terms of the advocate. I acknowledge the work the Minister has done and also the work Sage is doing. I am sure there is more we can do and am happy to support them in that regard.

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

One thing about this Bill is in respect of those who are excluded. There are too many people excluded from this legislation. The Minister talks about Sage and I welcome all of that, and also the advocate. This morning I had a Commencement matter in respect of Westbank in Greystones, at the heart of the Tánaiste's constituency. I have a substantial file on communication and promises by people in respect of Westbank. They have been excluded. We know that the mother and baby homes commission recommended they be included. We get these grand responses saying that they can be added in the Schedule of the redress. We are winding down. Caranua is being wound down today under this legislation. Why is that happening? To link the matter to this particular amendment, it is about the resources for this counselling and support service. It is because the State did not pursue the religious orders who signed up to the indemnity scheme, of which I have a copy in front of me, for the money that was due. If the Minister or anyone else was owed money they would be chasing it up. There is a softly, softly approach in terms of responding.

If someone tells me one more time that we have spent €1 billion - I do not care what anyone has spent. It is about justice, healing, redress and acknowledgement. So many people tell me the same story and I tell it to myself, that one day I will be free to tell my story and one day I will be believed. Every victim, survivor or affected person through abuse in institutions or schools, be they State, religious or neither, will want to be believed. The liberation of knowing you can come with your head high and say, "What happened to me was not because of me. I did not contribute to it." You cannot put a price on that. The State has to put in place some resource that will help people to navigate. I said this morning that it is a long road with many turns and setbacks. People need to be assisted to navigate that road. Far too many people have been broken down and destroyed. Far too many of our people have had to get out of this country, to run away to nothing, just to run away and forget their past. We owe it to them. I am committed. My political life for however long I am here will be committed to advocating for quality of justice. We have to have justice for people. We have to believe in people and support them.

I get from the Minister and others this premise about the cost, that we spent so much money. Yes, we spent a lot of money but we are talking about a generation in their 50s, 60s and 70s, many of them with health issues and challenges. Let us not compromise on this issue of support. The Minister talks about collaboration and I welcome that. I want her to ask the Minister, Deputy Foley, this week whether she will agree to publish the special advocate report that is on her desk. In that report, if we had it today, we could make stronger cases. There is a report on the Minister, Deputy Foley's desk. She is considering it. I am not suggesting she is doing anything more sinister than that. If I had it in my hand today I could stand up here and put it into the public domain. I have a fair idea what is in it. It is shocking and challenging. Timing is everything in the parliamentary political process when we are bringing in legislation.

Going back to what Senator Stephenson says in this amendment, we must unequivocally send out a message that we are committed to Sage, to the principle of a special advocate, and to the principle of expanding the role and remit of that special advocate to help people journey on their way to get the supports they absolutely need.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Getting back to the appointment of a special advocate, the Bill will lay on the State and the HSE statutory rights that people have. What do we do when those statutory rights are ignored? How do we resolve that? The only way we can get a remedy is to go to the courts. The Minister and I know that if you take the State to court, it has deep pockets and will keep you in the courts until you die. Having an advocate in place who will take up the cause and bring it to public attention might move something to happen. The Minister is telling the people in the Gallery and anyone watching the debate today that we have all these things in the legislation now for them, and if they do not get what they are entitled to they have recourse to the courts, and then God help them, they will rot before they get a solution. That is the way the State Claims Agency operates. It will see you in hell before it will resolve an issue for you.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My intention with this Bill is to pass it so that survivors can benefit from what is in it. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion on how far it goes. My absolute intention is to make sure they get access, not that people are refused or that anybody has to go to court. That is the last thing anybody wants, nor should it ever happen. I appreciate that sometimes it does but it should never happen. We should be putting in place these supports. Amendment No. 6 refers to professional support. We will not put a figure on this. The Senator is right that we cannot put a figure on truth. We should not be putting a figure on a lot of things. This is saying that every survivor will be statutorily entitled to this support. If the HSE decides it wants to reduce funding, there is a statutory right here so we must provide it. We are putting it into the legislation to make sure that is the case. That is absolutely the right thing to do.We need to make sure we have the qualified professionals who have expertise and experience in dealing with trauma to deal with these types of situations. That training is ongoing. We need to improve it and make sure we have those supports as much as possible.

Any change to the advocacy system would have to be through the Minister for children. It has not been suggested to me that the role is going to change, disappear or be removed. The role is there. As Senator Boyhan says, the first annual report is with the Minister now and I have no doubt she will publish it. I have no reason to believe she will not but, again, I will engage with her on that. It is about making sure that the existing supports remain and the resources are available to survivors. If we need to make changes, for example, to the role of the advocate or anything else, we are always open to doing that. We will review the supports and make sure that they are in place and working for those who need them most. I do not object to the amendment itself, what I am saying is that it is already in the legislation. I believe that is covered. We are putting it on a statutory footing. The most important point is that people can access the service and do so as quickly as possible.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Boyhan asked that I read into the record the response to the amendment he and Senator Craughwell tabled:

Amendment No. 3, which establishes the Office of the Special Advocate for Survivors of Institutional Abuse on a statutory basis within nine months of the commencement of this Act, which would involve several costs. The amendment must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 42, as it has the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue.

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

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 10 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

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

Just for the record, it is important that if an amendment has been ruled out of order that it is read into the record because it puts it in context.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 10 would provide a Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, card to all former residents and survivors of institutional, industrial and reformatory schools. The amendment must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 42 as it has the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to read the text of the amendment into the record myself, which is Senator Boyhan's recommendation for amendments that are ruled out of order. I recognise that there is a potential cost on the Exchequer regarding the HAA card rather than the enhanced medical card that is provided to survivors. I would like to speak about the experience of many survivors when they access services using the enhanced medical card. We have heard reports that the card is not recognised. Service providers in the HSE ask people what the card is for and why people are entitled to it. Being asked such questions in a medical setting when one is seeking services could be incredibly retraumatising. It is deeply inappropriate. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but the HAA is physically easily identifiable in terms of what it represents. Providers know what it is and they do not ask questions. While the amendment might have been ruled out of order I would like to put on the record that we must examine the application of how survivors are using the existing card, namely, the enhanced medical card; how it is working in practise and their experience of using it. Perhaps changes, minor or otherwise, could be put in place without a cost to the Exchequer, be it for educational pieces so that when people working in the services encounter survivors with the card they do so in a trauma-informed way and they do not take any actions that might cause retraumatisation.

My other amendment, which has also been ruled out of order, relates to access to a contributory pension. I included it as a way of recognising the years of unpaid labour in the homes, institutions and communities. In many cases, such labour enabled society and communities to function. I recognise the challenge involved in putting a cost on the Exchequer, but providing a contributory pension would go some way towards acknowledging the years of exploitation and unpaid labour engaged in by the survivors and their parents.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I am about to raise is somewhat relevant to the Minister's brief but it also relates to the Minister, Deputy Chambers, in the Department of public expenditure and reform. It relates to Senator Stephenson's amendment No. 9 on the contributory pension. I spoke to a group earlier, whom I acknowledge. I thank them for meeting with me in Buswells. We had a good conversation. I hope we have many such meetings in the coming months and years.

The amendment has been ruled out of order in the current circumstances. As Senator Boyhan says, it is retraumatising for people who, in many instances, engaged in slave labour, when they are not made to feel believed. I communicated with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and his Department. It has been conveyed to me that we do not necessarily have to legislate for a contributory pension. We can come up with a motion to devise a scheme that would allow for it. The costings I did indicate that it would cost the Exchequer €8 million per year to enhance pensions for survivors to the level of a contributory pension. As a taxpayer, I am happy to see the tax I pay allocated for that purpose. I would like to work with the Minister on that in the future. I understand it cannot be dealt with today.

Today's Bill is not the finished article, it is a start. I hope we can work collegially as a Chamber to try and ensure this happens in the future. Today is not the end of it. There is documentary evidence that these people did get boarded out and many of them were in horrific conditions and subjected to slave labour. As a State, given the precedent set with the Magdalen laundries, we must try to push on with it, although I accept that it cannot be dealt with today.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a couple of issues. Anything that imposes a charge on the Exchequer can be ruled out of order. Printing the documentation was a charge on the Exchequer. We are a bit selective in that regard.

I want to go back to the contributory pension. My colleague, Senator Boyhan, made a point about the religious institutions, some of which have not yet made the contribution that is expected of them. Let us talk about people who were forced into labour. I visited a farm down the country where there was a rather elderly man working as a farm hand. He was allowed into the farmhouse for breakfast, lunch and dinner. He was also allowed into the house for one bath a week. For the rest of the time, he slept and lived in the barn above the cattle. This was not that terribly long ago. Were those who employed these people, who got these inmates to work, paying PRSI for them or had they got them working fraudulently? Should we call for an investigation to see what contributions were made for the forced labour, of whatever kind? Did they record their labour? Did they pay pay-related social insurance for the people in their institutions? They may not have been paid a wage but a wage came in through the services that they offered. Were the institutions, religious and otherwise, which had these people, and the farmers, cobblers and anybody else who had these workers, employing them fraudulently? If they were, what is the State going to do about it.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I move on to the next speaker, I welcome Councillor John O'Heney from Tipperary.He is accompanied by Sr. Bernie O'Grady, by his mother, Josephine O'Heney, and by Anne-Marie O'Dwyer, Mary Ann Buckley, Margaret O'Connell, Teresa Power and Sean O'Donovan. I hope they all enjoy their visit to Leinster House and especially to the Seanad. They are very welcome.

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

I also extend a welcome to Councillor O'Heney and everyone in the Gallery.

I will refer to the section. It is very interesting. I opened earlier by talking about the consultation with survivors of institutional abuse and the themes and issues that were addressed in July 2019. It is now 2025 but back then, in 2019, the issue of access to the HAA medical card was raised. There is nothing new here. There are budgetary processes involved but let us not cod ourselves; the will is not there to give access to that card. The HAA medical card is given in very exceptional circumstances. I talked earlier about those who were excluded. We keep forgetting about that issue. Every time I raise it, the Minister does not address it. I told her about the people at Westbank Orphanage and many other institutions who have been excluded. I talked about my engagement with support groups for Irish people in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and London. Loads of these people are not involved. My sister is involved in an Irish lunch club in south-east London. I have gone over there and met the people involved. They knew nothing about redress schemes. They were excluded. They did not know about it. We failed to communicate that. We closed the door. I have been told we do not want to open the floodgates. I have no problem with opening any floodgates if it means providing truth, justice, redress and compensation to these people because they are entitled to it. They are entitled to a bit of decency at the end of their lives.

Senator Curley talked about social pensions. I have said it before and I will say it again: I have brought people in here who were farmed out. These were horrific cases. I think of two men who came to us. Many Members of the previous Seanad would have met them because they were guests of mine and I made a point of introducing them to people. They were farmed out. Both of them came from Tuam. I think today of Tuam and the brave Catherine Corless. That issue will be on our agenda next week or the week after. We will come in and meet people and we will all be shocked and disgusted about what happened there. Politicians in both Houses will issue a load of platitudes. However, we have to judge people by what they do. These two people were farmed out of Tuam so all of this is raw enough for them. They were slave labourers. They lived in barns and ate out of troughs. They were treated like dirt and they are excluded. We have done nothing for them. We talk about this great agricultural country that we are and yet these men were farmed out as slaves. We think of all of the women who were sent to institutions and who worked in industrial laundries. Many of us, including the Minister and I, know of them. Some of them, although not all, were also excluded. I cannot understand why we cannot put in place a medical card.

I particularly think of the drug trials because I lived in an institution where drug trials took place. Indeed, I was in this very house nearly 27 years ago when Micheál Martin was involved in advocacy on the issue. Later on, when he was Minister for Health and Children, he spoke about great commitments and three trial institutions, Bessborough and two in Dublin, were investigated. Wellcome, now part of GlaxoSmithKline, was involved in those trials. Through very decent people in pharmacology in UCD and with the help of "Today Tonight", the forerunner of "Prime Time", I procured evidence of these drug trials. The right to bodily integrity is enshrined in our Constitution. I acknowledge Alan Shatter because he gave us a lot of initial support at the time. The Taoiseach of this country is on the record of these Houses as making this commitment. He has had a long and distinguished political career and I salute him for that. Did I ever think I would be standing here? Did I ever think he would be in the next building as Taoiseach of our country? I looked at the record of this House today and he committed to seeing an end to all of this. Surely it is incumbent on the Government he leads to give support to providing medical cards. No parental consent was given for these commercial drug trials. Doctors have testified they were involved in them. Drug companies paid these institutions money. All of this has after-effects but somehow it is not possible to provide medical cards. We know about the hepatitis scandal and other issues. It is not unreasonable to ask for a medical card for people.

It does not wash with me that we cannot speak about it today or that we should do so some other day. There is no other day. We are winding this down today. The Government's legislation has two principles. The first is to wind down Caranua, the support agency, and its funding. I do not know how much funding is left but we will come to that when discussing another section later on. The second is to put in place educational supports. We hear about doctorates and degrees but I have not seen too much about simpler training and support services. The Minister will know about the payscale. While I mean no disrespect to anyone, I do not believe there will be too many people knocking on the Minister's door. She will not be washed out providing money for honorary doctorates and degrees. I will put this in context because it is really important. When you are incarcerated in an institution from a very early age, your confidence is gone and your emotions are impacted. You close down. You are not stupid but you do not have the capacity to concentrate, to learn or to receive positive messages, whether educational, emotional or social. People who are struggling face many boundaries and hindrances. Their antennae of alertness are highly attuned because it is about survival. We have that innate quality to survive against the odds. Some of us manage better than others, albeit with many setbacks and falls.

It is not unreasonable to include these children, these slaves, who were to be found in counties Meath, Kildare and Donegal and all over the place and whom the Minister's parents and family members of another generation would know of. We need to send a very clear message. It is not too much to give them a special pension or some sort of official top-up or recognition. We have known this has been coming down the line for years. I will go back to 2019, when there was talk of the need for some support in elderly life. Many of these people have no partners. Through no fault of their own, they have not been able to develop secure, loving and meaningful relationships. They are disadvantaged. That is how serious it is. Unless you are impacted by this, you do not really understand. None of us really understand how lonely it is for these people to navigate life, particularly in old age. Surely we, as a State, can support them and help them in some way. We should have a pension for them. The Minister is going to tell me something else today. She has come with a script and has a job to do. I also have a job to do. Mine is to advocate for this particular area of concern. There should be social pensions. It is simply not good enough that nothing has been done about it for the last few years. The Government has had a very long time to bring this in. I do not refer to the Minister personally. Nothing I ever say here is personal. I take it that applies on both sides and I accept it from the Minister as well.

On those who were boarded out, the medical card and the HAA card are two things we should have. I would be a happier man leaving here today if the Minister could say that she personally believes providing a HAA card is the right thing to do, that she is personally committed to some sort of pension and acknowledgement of child labour, whether in industrial schools, in industrial laundries or on the farms of Ireland, and that she will personally advocate to see these things commenced at some point through some vehicle of legislation.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry to come back in so quickly but, as the debate has been going on, I have received a message on my phone from a person who is well advised and well informed in respect of these institutions. I will not read out the name of the company but this person has given me the name of a company, one of the largest companies in the countries and one that is highly successful and highly profitable. There are echoes of "The Shawshank Redemption" here. People were brought out and forced to labour for this highly profitable company. I will share the name of the company with the Minister but I want a Garda investigation into the matter. I want to know how this company finished up getting inmates from an institution to work in its organisation, which made profits on the backs of those people while paying sweet damn all as regards their pay-related social insurance, insurance cards or whatever.This is one of the largest companies in the country. If this can be proven, it is outrageous. What did that company pay for that labour, who did it pay for that labour and where did the money go? I am incensed by the message I just got today. We need to get to the bottom of how young people in State care were exploited and now have nothing in the latter part of their lives. I compliment my colleague on mentioning the contributory old age pension but we cannot even do that for them. It is not just religious institutions. Senator Boyhan is right that there were all sorts of institutions involved in this. If this is true, somebody somewhere has to pay, and that is for sure. I will not rest on this.

By the way, it is not the Minister's fault. She inherited this and she has a tough job to do. However, we cannot let it lie. It has been coming for 25 years.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators for their contributions. What we are dealing with here is very specific to individuals who have been identified as residents and who have been part of the previous schemes culminating from the Ryan report. I appreciate there are various different abuses that have happened in different institutions in different elements of the State. What I have to deal with specifically today are those who have, as far back as the early 2000s, been part of that redress scheme. Caranua was then established to provide further support. To speak to the point made by Senator Boyhan and others, what we are doing here is winding down that institution so these supports can be provided. Those are the parameters I have to work with in this Bill.

That is not to say what will happen in the future. We know very well that a further investigation will be taking place soon, specifically looking at schools, and we know from the O’Toole report last year exactly what that entails. This is not to try to exclude anybody but it is very specific to those who have already been identified. Of course, insofar as is possible, I want to make sure that people can access these supports as quickly as possible while not rushing something for the sake of it. I am not here to say that we have to get it done so people can have access to it. We want to make sure that it is right.

With regard to the HAA card, people will receive a medical card and, beyond that, there are further supports, many of which are included in the HAA card, such as chiropody and podiatry, physiotherapy, counselling services, home support, home nursing services and complementary therapies. All of these will be included in this package, as they are included in the HAA. The biggest difference in the HAA was specifically related to getting priority appointments where people had references from a consultant hepatologist, given the specific requirements and needs of the individuals who received that card and other payments. There is a significant amount in what is being provided here. That was part of the HAA card and it is very much in line with what would have been received by other survivors, be it those in the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes or other redress schemes. The HAA card was very specific because of the known medical needs. That is why this particular provision has been put in place.

In terms of the educational supports, I reassure Members that there was no bar or level. It is everything from level 1 to level 10 and is whatever somebody wants to engage in. I want to be very clear that it does not have to be a master’s or postgraduate qualification, or anything like that. It is any level of education that people want to engage in. It is not just the grant from €500 to €2,000 that they can apply for, but also the removal of the fees and all of the other applications. I want to be clear on this point so people know that.

Regarding the work, I appreciate we are talking about amendments that were rolled out by the secretariat. I am not disputing what has been said regarding the individuals who were referred to. What we had prior to coming to the House and in recent years was a process to engage and understand what could be excluded and what could not be, and what should be included and what should not be. The recommendations I have here are based on that engagement. I take the Senator’s point that there may be another way to provide pension supports for individuals and I am very happy to explore that option with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, to see if there is an opportunity to do that. A lot of work has been done to tease through exactly what we are discussing here today. That is the reason I am giving the outline that I am.

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

I hear what the Minister is saying but let us be honest. There are caps on the funding and the money is not realistic. There are caps on the health assistance. The Minister made the point about the HAA and the special needs. Mental health is a health issue and it is very hard to quantify that. There are people who want mental health supports and cannot afford them. It is expensive, there are long lists and there is the educational stuff. These are all caps. I hear what the Minister is saying but, as she has identified, the big thing is those who are excluded. I have raised Westbank three times with the Minister.

I could be a happy man leaving here today, knowing of the Minister's calibre and commitment in government, and the high esteem she is held in. She is in a very critical position and is sitting around the Cabinet table every week. She is one of the key decision-makers. I was asking for the Minister to commit. It is about being a stakeholder. Is the Minister committed? Will she give this House an undertaking that she will go away and make a strong case for a pension for the farmed-out people? The Minister represents a rural constituency and I am sure she has heard stories about what happened there. There is a case to be made for a pension for them and also for medical card assistance. They have a critical need for support. We are not talking about a huge cohort of people. One of the big problems is quantifying those numbers and no one has really been able to quantify the numbers out there. I would like to think that, rather than read from a sheet of paper, the Minister could say that she, Helen McEntee, was committed to touching base with her colleagues in Cabinet to pursue an ambition and objective to recognise that there was a need for a pension support and a special health package for the people that were included in this, and, moreover, that we knew there will be even more people in the future.

I will finish on this point because I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. The Minister made the point that, in a few weeks or months, we will also have the schools. I know we will have a lot more coming down the track. For any of those people, for example, those who were in the Spiritans, with whom I have been in touch in the past few days, if they are looking in and seeing this, given it has been going on for 27 or 30 years, they will be saying they had better get some sort of package going locally because they could not endure all of this and could not endure this length of time. It has gone on unreasonably and many people are elderly.

I met a man some weeks ago who did not successfully get through his process in terms of identifying his documentation but he was very nearly there. I met him in Ballinasloe with some colleagues. His daughter rang me three or four weeks ago to say that he had died. I want to put on record my thanks to Councillor Evelyn Parsons, who very much supported him and his family in trying to get to the real story. Sadly, he died. He had a very sad story to tell. Everywhere he went, he met closed doors.

As I said before, it is not necessarily always about legislation. It is about doing the right thing and providing the humanitarian, human response.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We spoke about statutory obligations. I have just received a message from one person on the mother and baby homes medical card who sought physiotherapy and was told to go private because of the long waiting list. Where is the statutory obligation there? How does that person overcome that? I fully appreciate the Minister's officials will have informed her of the answers that she is delivering to us today but how does this person get into physiotherapy if the waiting lists are so long? The person is being advised by the organisation that is charged with looking after them to go private. Who is going to pay for that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Senators would agree that I am not reading off a script and am genuinely responding to the questions as they emerge. I want to be honest and straightforward on all of this. Whether it is the enhanced medical card or the HAA card, if there are challenges around waiting lists and access, I would respectfully say that we still have the same problem.

On an earlier point made by Senator Craughwell, we need to make sure that every single person in the HSE knows there is already a direction that if a person is a survivor of abuse, he or she should be moved ahead.That is very clear and that is what has been relayed to me. Certainly, the information I have is that where those who are in receipt of the enhanced medical card have been victims and are now survivors of abuse, they should be brought forward in that list.

To the Senator's earlier point, I am happy to engage with the Minister for Health. If we need more clear direction for members of the HSE to make sure they know what the enhanced medical card is, who is availing of it and what they should be getting, we need to do that. I am happy to make that clear and to engage with my colleague in the Department of Health in that regard. Again, we are not putting a limit on the therapies or counselling services; it is about making sure they are there and that we have enough therapists. We have to invest in our services overall. I will repeat, and this is not to go around Senator Boyhan 's question, that I can only work within the parameters I have because they are legally directly linked to those who were in the previous schemes. That is never to rule out engagement with any other institution or any other individual who has suffered abuse. If there is engagement or work I can do to support other individuals who do not fall within the scheme, I am always happy to do that and to engage within them. I appreciate these are people who are very directly linked to the initial scheme that was set up because this is legally linked to it. This is winding down so that we can provide these supports. I want to make sure that everybody involved here has access to the supports. More than 16,000 people will have access to these supports once this legislation is enacted, and it is really important that people do have access to them.

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

I am conscious of time. The Minister made the point about winding down to provide the supports. We do not have to wind down. We can wind down Caranua. We should have been providing supports anyway. The supports should never have been conditional on Caranua. We know they were processed. We know people went through a process of redress and were interviewed, etc. These are most basic supports. Caranua could have done anything, or it might never have been established, but these supports should have always been forthcoming. They should never have been conditional on winding down Caranua. We will have another opportunity on a later section of this Bill to talk about where all that money went, the stewardship of all that money and the accountability. I am just trying to flag this now so the Minister's official might have time to get it before we leave here today. What money is left in Caranua? It is a small amount, but I would like to see a financial statement of it and where it has gone. I would like to see the numbers who got it and the benefits of it.

On that point, I thought this was a really interesting point that was highlighted in the Library and Research Service's digest: "The Department of Education has confirmed in correspondence with the Library and Research Service (L&RS) that no Regulatory Impact Assessment was performed for this Bill." That is disappointing. I will not ask the Minister to respond because we are under pressure, but I do not think I would let that happen on my watch if I was a Minister, and I hope the Minister will not let it happen in future. There should have been a regulatory impact assessment of this Bill. That is in the report, which the Minister and Department can get; it is not me-speak. There was no regulatory impact assessment of this Bill. That is shocking, and it should not have happened.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to how much is left in the fund, I have gone back over freedom of information, FOI, requests I submitted in 2017 on the specific fund in Caranua and at that stage, there was €33 million. Therefore, it would be helpful to know what happened between 2017 - I think it was around April 2017 - and now. It was really difficult at the time for survivors to engage with Caranua. They were treated terribly at the time. Obviously, there was the €15,000 cap. I think it was in 2015 that internal auditors decided this would be the cap, and Caranua at the time was stating that survivors had decided that €15,000 would be the cap. There were discussions about that at the time, when representatives from Caranua appeared before the education committee. There was €33 million in April 2017. It would be helpful to know what now remains in that account since then. I know it was a struggle to make up that expenditure until then because people were finding it difficult to access money from Caranua. In the grand scheme of things, €33 million is not a lot when we consider the devastation in people's lives and what they need, but Caranua's main principles in setting up were to meet the ongoing needs. The sum €15,000 will never meet the ongoing needs of people who have endured what people endured to be able to apply for the funding in the first place. I just wanted to come back in on that. When Senator Boyhan mentioned what was in the fund, I remembered that I had put in an FOI request on that a few years ago. It would be helpful to know that information.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister wish to come back in?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come back on two things in case they were misconstrued. It is not that one has to be wound down for the other. The supports can only come into play with the legislation. Given that Caranua itself is finished, it and the fund are coming hand in hand. It is not that one has to go with the other. I do not want to mislead in terms of figures, and I want to get absolute clarity on what is left. What has been relayed to me is in and around €50,000, so nowhere near what the Senator suggested. We are talking about a huge amount having gone out over recent years. I do not have the exact figure but it is in and around that amount. Obviously, wherever that goes, it will have to go towards survivors in some shape or form and it is really important that they would have a say in that, but that is what is left. Anybody who has come to Caranua has received that funding, but it has significantly reduced. I will get the exact figure for colleagues when I can.

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

That is really interesting. There is a divergence now between the many millions of euro and €50,000. The Minister thinks that was-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was five years later.

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

What I would say, because it is my intention to pursue it, is that there should be an audit and an investigation. I do not know if that is the Committee of Public Accounts or if it has that remit - I do not know that yet - but I certainly will be looking for it and I ask the Minister to promote the idea. Accountability is really important with regard to the administration of any funds, be they public or private or religious or non-religious. Therefore, there will clearly have to be an assessment of how that money was applied, what it was used for and the level of money that was used on administration versus support for victims of abuse. I am not asking for a response today because it involves figures, and I know the Minister does not want to tie herself up in knots about something on which she would not have the up-to-date detail. I am, however, committing myself now to pursuing an agenda to have a complete audit of all figures from Caranua through the appropriate independent mechanisms that are open to us.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is more of a question, so I can come back on Report Stage. If, between now and then, we have gone from €33 million to €50,000, which would hopefully imply that there was a greater ability to access the fund, did the cap continue to apply or were people able to actually access more than the €15,000? What I am thinking now is that there were people before a cap. I know that something like a prioritisation model was put in place at the time rather than applications being dealt with in terms of the needs at the time and the merit of the application. Did a different system exist at different points in time whereby different survivors accessed different sums because a cap existed or did not exist? That is more of a question in case I need to come back to it.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will respond to a couple of points. It is an average of €15,000. Some might have received less; some might have received more. Some 57,000 payments have been made in total. A lot of them would have been from when the Senator mentioned, in 2017. There were two main elements of the way they were paid out, namely, housing and home improvements, which accounted for €68.7 million, and health supports at €27.4 million. Any of the remaining elements went to education and other areas of support. There have been audited accounts every year, and they are available. It is very clear to see where they have gone and to whom they have gone. That has happened every year, but that is in and around how the figure has been divided up. The exact figure is €50,000 or so, but I am absolutely clear that wherever that money goes, it has to go directly to survivors, and it should be at their discretion as to where it should go.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 12, in the names of Senators Stephenson, Cosgrove, Harmon and Noonan, has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 13, in the name of Senator Tully, has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 14, in the names of Senators Stephenson, Cosgrove, Harmon and Noonan, has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No 15:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(2) Where a survivor living abroad receives the once off health support payment, it shall not count as income for the purposes of means tested benefits or entitlements in the country where the survivor resides.”.

This amendment relates to the many survivors who, as Senator Boyhan discussed, may be living in the UK, other parts of Europe, North America or the world who were victims and survivors of the institutional abuse in Ireland. It relates to them being eligible to receive these supports but makes sure that when they do receive the supports in the place or jurisdiction they are living, they are not impacted by means-testing or that the €3,000 grant is not affected by entitlements or other allowances from the state in which they are living.Without that protection, survivors living abroad, many of whom are elderly and on lower or fixed incomes, may face a lose-lose scenario of having to choose between accessing this support payment and losing their existing social benefits. It is not fair to put survivors in the position of having to make that choice.

While I recognise it may not be within the Minister's jurisdiction per seto decide what any other state must do, it might be within her power to engage with her counterparts on this issue, specifically in the UK, with which we have the closest relationship and where there is wide recognition of the issues. The legislation known as Philomena's law is going through Westminster at the moment and has the backing of 100 MPs. It seeks to ensure that UK-based survivors of the Irish system who receive compensation from this State will not be impacted in terms of means testing for UK benefits schemes. I would like to see that provision applied to this Bill.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect to supports for people living outside the State, I cannot understand why a specific figure was ring-fenced. As somebody who goes to a couple of consultants every year, €3,000 will not take one very far in this world. There should be an expense scheme based on returned receipts such that any time survivors seek medical help, providing it is in accordance with what they went through while resident in an institution, they should simply be able to send the State an expense receipt and be fully reimbursed.

What is being provided is a bit of a buy-off and, at €3,000, a cheap buy-off. Let us be honest about it; €3,000 would not take a person very far in the health service in this country and I cannot see it taking people very far in some other places. My colleague mentioned North America, where €3,000 would probably get a person one consultation. Ring-fencing the money to be allocated to people who are outside the State in this way is not adequate. As my colleague, Senator Boyhan, noted, a lot of the survivors now living outside the State were driven out of it and are afraid to come back ever again. We owe them a damn sight more than €3,000.

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

I acknowledge and agree with the points made by Senator Stephenson. She mentioned Philomena's law, which is being debated in Westminster and is very important. Michelle O'Neill had an article in the Irish Post the other day in which she talked about the new redress scheme being rolled out by the Executive. It may catch some people in the North who spent a considerable time in institutions in this State. I spoke this morning about a person in Armagh who is in that situation. People like that may fall under a UK redress scheme. It will be an interesting space to watch and I hope it will help some of them.

A provision of €3,000 is not a lot of money. I hope the Minister will indicate the amount is to be kept under review. This amendment is not asking that it go from €3,000 to €8,000 or €10,000; it is asking her to use her critical faculties and make the case for a review. In five years' time, €3,000 will not be a lot. It is not an incremental provision and it is not based on any benchmark. It is not a lot of money. Is the Minister open to making the case to keep the amount under review? It is a very simple request. The provision of €3,000 is not satisfactory but it is a start. If she were to agree it should be reviewed, which, of course, it should be, and undertake to keep it under review, that would be a reasonable and welcome move.

Pauline Tully (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Stephenson's amendment. The Department of education should liaise with the UK's Department for Work and Pensions on this issue. My understanding is that approximately one third of the people deemed eligible for the payment live in the UK. We need clarification as to whether the payment will be disregarded for the purpose of means testing applicants for benefits given in the UK. Philomena's law will, we hope, progress through Westminster. We must make sure staff in the Department for Work and Pensions are aware of the payment and that it will not impact on means testing.

I agree with previous speakers that the proposed €3,000 payment for former residents is not sufficient. It should be index-linked to the cost of living and, furthermore, additional payments should be provided, on a case-by-case basis, to survivors with complex health needs.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot accept amendment No. 15 simply because I cannot legislate for what another government does in its jurisdiction. However, engagement is already happening between my Department, the Department of children and our sisters departments in Britain and Northern Ireland. As Senators referenced, the vast majority of survivors who have moved away have gone to Britain or Northern Ireland. The new scheme in Northern Ireland deals with people living in the North who were in institutions here and how payments to them from this State may impact other payments they receive. A meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference tomorrow and this issue will be part of the discussions we have.

Ultimately, how this payment is handled in terms of its impact on other benefits will be a decision for the UK Government and the Executive to make. However, I do not see why we would not reciprocate and ensure any payments we are paying out do not have any implications for individuals living there, and vice versa. We will be engaging with our British and Northern Irish colleagues in that regard. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because I cannot legislate for what another country does, but that engagement is happening and will continue.

Regarding the payment amount of €3,000, I appreciate that Senators will not like my answer. It is very much about keeping the allocation in line with what was provided for other schemes and making sure we do not have something different for somebody who may have gone through a very similar experience, albeit in a different setting. The scheme will be put in place through the Department of Health and any further changes, including to the amount of the payment, will be decided by that Department. This is very much in line with what we have provided elsewhere but I appreciate that may not be what colleagues want to hear. It is important that we treat people fairly and there is equity in terms of the supports we provide.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that the wording of the amendment would tie the Minister to obligations that are outside her remit. Before Report Stage, will she look at finding a wording that would hold the Department to a commitment to ongoing dialogue with neighbouring states, in recognition of the large number of Irish citizens, as Senator Boyhan described so eloquently, who were forced to flee there because of their experience in the State? I am asking that we explore options for wording that would express the Department's commitment to ongoing dialogue. I realise that such dialogue takes place on an ongoing basis with our closest neighbours on lots of different issues but in the context of how many people this affects and in recognition of the particular challenges survivors may face in their elder years, giving an explicit commitment to dialogue with foreign states in this regard might go some way to demonstrating the Government's commitment to ensure survivors do not lose out.

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

The Minister spoke about treating people fairly. A payment of €3,000 is not treating people fairly. I do not care about other schemes and keeping things equal between them. There have been many other unfair schemes. We are talking about this scheme and these particular issues. The Minister is saying, in effect, that €3,000 will have the same value in 20 years' time as it has today. She knows it is a cod and a joke and is not treating people fairly. She has accepted no amendments so far and it seems clear she will not accept any today. I can predict that now and it is not good enough.

The Seanad is a revising Chamber. It is not about Ministers coming here, reading from pieces of paper and telling us they will not accept anything. That is no good. We might as well close up here if that is what happens. The Minister's former leader, Leo Varadkar, came here and gave a very powerful speech about the Seanad in which he talked about its role as a revising Chamber and how we should examine legislation line by line and propose changes. Governments should be open to change. We are not all eejits in here and we are not all Whipped to do what the Government says every time. If that is what happens, we might as well close down this place.

I would not support the retention of an Upper House in a bicameral Parliament that was basically rubber-stamping everything. That is just nonsense. Ministers should come to this Chamber with an open mind. They should leave, having listened to Senators, and be able to make a case because they feel in their gut it is the right thing to do, not just come in here to play hardball because that is what they were told to do.I am listening and responding, and I think that €3,000 is, quite frankly, not enough.

I asked the Minister the very simple question whether she would be in favour of a review. She is telling me she is not even in favour of having a review of the €3,000, and is not even prepared to make a case to anybody that we could look at it next year. The Minister might have said she hears what I am saying, there is a case in terms of the value of €3,000 in ten years' time, that I have made a reasonable case and that it should be kept under review. The Minister is part of a Government so is part of a collective of people who speak to one another. Quite frankly, the sum is not enough.

I also did not suggest that the sum should increase from €3,000 to €6,000 or anything like that but suggested a review, which is a reasonable ask because people will look back and ask what is going on here. It is a reasonable ask. What will €3,000 get you in ten years' time? What will it get a person now? A person would be hard pressed to get supports for that. That is my response to what was said by the Minister. It is not fair or just that the Minister can give a once-off payment of €3,000 to a victim in respect of their medical needs overseas.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unless there is any Senator who wishes to speak I call the Minister.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am always open to amendments. I spent most of my time in my previous role as Minister for Justice either in this House or the other House debating legislation given the type of Department that it was. I am always open to amendments and working with colleagues here. I agree with a lot of the amendments tabled today. Some of them are in the Bill already and that is why they have not been accepted. I simply cannot accept other amendments and some amendments have been ruled out of order.

In terms of the payment, we must specify in the Bill what is being paid which is why we have the figure, to make sure that it is in line with the others. I am not saying that it is the figure and, personally, I would love to give an indefinite one. We need to be clear in what we are doing here. We need a scheme that is fair and equitable right across the various schemes that have been rolled out to date, and make sure that people get it as quickly as possible. If we approve this legislation in the coming weeks, and I hope we will, that payment can be made available. If we do not enact the legislation then the payment will not happen. I want to make sure that all of the supports contained in this legislation can be accessed as quickly as possible.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 16 is in the names of Senators Boyhan and Craughwell. Amendments Nos. 16, 19 to 23, inclusive, and 26 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, after line 37, to insert the following:

“(6) The payments for health supports shall be subject to a review on an annual basis as the Bill currently provides for payment of €3,000 to a former resident.”.

I pursued all of this debate when we discussed amendment No. 15, which I am sure the Minister noticed, and I will not repeat myself.

Our next amendment is No. 19 and I take on board what the Minister said. She might accept this one. She said that she likes to take on board some amendments and support them. To date, she has accepted none, but maybe I will be pleased by her response to this amendment. Again, this a very reasonable amendment. All we ask is that "the payments for educational services shall be subject to a review on an annual basis.” If the amendment mentioned a sum of between €6,000 to €7,000 then it would have been ruled out of order on the ground of being a charge on the Exchequer.

I will take the opportunity to talk about the educational aspect, which I mentioned earlier. We know that an awful lot of people who went through institutional care had great difficulties with education. The Minister is now the Minister for education and she has a special interest in education. I welcome her education policy 2025 which she launched. I quickly scanned some of its summaries today and ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on this important policy. What I really liked about it was the re-introduction of therapy and therapeutic services to special schools, which is welcome. I genuinely think the document is really exciting and I am glad that it will be updated annually. I look forward to debating the policy in this House with the Minister very soon because it is critical to have early psychological intervention and assessment of all children at that stage. We are talking here about redress. There were a lot of minors and children in care. Through our excellent education system we pick up all of that sort of thing. We will have another opportunity on another day to discuss this and I say well done to the Minister on her policy.

Many people did not have the advantages of education. Many people right up to the late 1970s were basically ejected and kicked out of care at 16 or 17 years of age. There was no ambition. Many people did not even have parents. They had no-one who had a special interest in them. No one told them they were a special boy or special girl. No-one really gave a damn. No-one charted a course for the direction they might take nor tapped into their artistic, creative or academic potential. There was none of that there so people had to survive and they had to get out. People must understand that is the background for the majority though not all. Therefore, talk of degrees and all of this sort of thing is very admirable but I would rather talk about people who need assistance with the most basic things such as numeracy and literacy skills, and very basic IT skills because such provision is critically important.

The Minister of State, Deputy Marian Harkin, and the Minister, Deputy Lawless, issued a joint statement on major grant aid the other day. Again, the statement mentioned literacy supports and it was issued by the Government on gov.ie. It would be great if the Minister for Education and Youth talked about that. It know it is a sub-brief maybe. One of the things that emerged from the engagement was the issue of education because people gain confidence from education, supports and training. Literacy and numeracy skills and IT skills are also very important and I know the Minister provided for them but we need to be honest. I want the Minister to put it on the record of the House because people are looking in, and will be looking in over the next few days at the Oireachtas report, and if it is not in context then they do not quite really understand and miss the nuance of some of these things. All of these things are capped. To be honest, it is not a huge amount of money and the Government should keep the area under review. I simply ask the Minister to please tell me that she is committed to keeping this area under review.

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

I support Senator Boyhan in terms of a review. The Minister said that she has to put a figure in the Bill but there is absolutely nothing to stop her including a review mechanism in the Bill. I believe it would be appropriate that there would be a clear mechanism to review the sum of €3,000, which is clearly and, potentially, going to be very inadequate. My amendment No. 26 touches on this and a number of other issues.

As we start another chapter with the dissolution of one body and creation of another, one thing that has frustrated some of us - this legislation focuses on residential institutional abuse - is that there have been many iterations of institutional abuse in different forms, including institutional abuse in respect of schools, hospitals in terms of symphysiotomy, mother and baby homes, and Magdalen laundries. We had all these schemes, projects and initiatives and there seems to be a lack of learning. The State has repeatedly failed or been complicit, or even intentional, in terms of the abuse that people have experienced in institutions and similar mistakes are made again and again with the redress schemes. It is my opinion that they are mistakes and I call for an examination and genuine interrogation of what best practice actually looks like and what we should have done differently. The Minister has heard from people about the fact that engagement with redress bodies in itself has often been a gruelling, abusive and upsetting experience for survivors of institutional abuse. Too much of the time we have heard stories whereby it has been, in some cases, re-tramautising to access redress from the State rather than the healing process that it should be. We have identified a few areas where learning and reflection are needed.I ask the Minister to commit to producing a report that says the State will start learning from these things, so that we are not just dissolving, moving to the next bit and listening to the small issues of each particular project.

We say again that a report on the adequacy and best practice around survivors of residential institutional abuse is needed and, first, the adequacy of the healthcare, educational and financial supports. When the Bill was introduced to the House last year, survivor Tom Cronin stated that "the Government is using this Bill to masquerade the fact that it has ignored the views of survivors ... the Government has repeatedly consulted survivors and then ignored them." Their lived experience needs to be crucial to the supports and the question of the adequacy or appropriateness of the supports. Campaigners have described the €3,000 one-off payment for former residents living abroad as deeply insufficient. I will not go into this again because Senator Boyhan has been very articulate in expressing the needs of survivors who are living abroad or have been forced to travel abroad.

Campaigners have highlighted the issue around financial supports and the need to link them to the cost of living; the need for additional payments and supports for survivors who have complex health needs; and the need for specific pension entitlements for survivors aged over 65 years because of the years of unpaid labour, the lack of education and the subsequent lack of opportunity which is reflected in poverty in their pension years. They have highlighted the physical and psychological impact of the abuse and the impact that has on a lifetime's earnings. This is also absent from the Bill.

In terms of medical supports, there have been calls for access to the HAA medical card. The Minister indicated this card was provided to only one group under the hepatitis C scheme and she did not want to create a hierarchy of supports between survivors of abuse in the Magdalen laundries and the mother and baby homes and residential institutions. I agree. The clear benefits of the HAA card should be made available to all survivors.

The education committee has made clear that access to education is critical to address the long-term intergenerational effects of residential institutional abuse. It suggests the legislation should make express provision for educational supports for survivors and their families, including a non-means tested bursary with individual cash grants.

The Bill restricts supports only to survivors and does not address the issues of intergenerational loss of opportunity and the intergenerational trauma and damage that has been done when a parent has suffered from residential institutional abuse, for example. The Bill provides that the Minister may make an individual assessment of each application in terms of education.

There is a litany of concerns. The Bill is also restricted to those who have already received awards under the Residential Institutions Redress Act, which includes survivors, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s. We know those are the people the State should never turn its back on, namely, those who have not had opportunities or the capacity, for different reasons, to engage with redress schemes up to this point.

Our amendment would have a report done that looks to an assessment of the adequacy of those healthcare, educational and financial supports, not how much is left in the pot but what is adequate for the needs of those affected. It would also examine the issue of the restriction to survivors' qualification for redress. We spoke of this in relation to the appalling and arbitrary restriction of access to redress for survivors of mother and baby homes who had spent the vital first six months of their lives in institutions and women who had been in them for their birth. In many cases, we know these births were deeply traumatic. These survivors were explicitly excluded because somehow we drew an arbitrary line to say someone's experience of giving birth in a situation that was abusive or a person's experience of spending the first six months of their life in a residential institution, in this case, a mother and baby home, is somehow not relevant. It was not necessary to draw a line or to exclude those persons who had experienced that residential abuse.

The adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports is a concern. The application of restrictions on survivors' qualification for redress is also a concern. To make a comparison of the adequacy of redress supports, some people who have applied seem to have been treated well while others who applied have been treated very poorly. Different schemes have changed. On the use of waivers, it is an incredible indignity and wrong to require those who are receiving redress because they have been the victims of abuse to waive their rights in order to access that redress. This appalling practice, which has been used again and again, goes against everything we know about restorative justice. I am looking for some learning on all of these issues.

The last element in our report relates to recommendations for best practice going forward, including the establishment of a special advocate, for which a case has been strongly made. We can talk about sums of €3,000 and €50,000 and where they will go. Where is the evidence that the State is not just sorry for this individual situation, for bad practice and for yet another area of failed oversight where we outsourced our responsibilities to persons who behaved in an abusive way but is also learning and driving its way towards actual best practice and doing better than the redress schemes we have to date? In this report, we are asking the Minister to point an arrow to the future and say we will learn and review, as Senator Boyhan said, and address these issues further.

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

I thank the Civil Engagement Group and Senator Higgins for introducing this all-encompassing, clever amendment which covers everything we have talked about. It is about accountability and the Minister coming back within 12 months of the passing of the Bill. I hope the Minister does not say this is not possible. For some reason that I do not know, nothing is possible. That is really important because there is learning from this.

The Minister may be able to enlighten us in 12 months' time about the deed done on 5 June 2020 between the Minister for Finance and the Government in relation to the indemnity scheme. I have a copy of the indemnity scheme in my hand, signed and embossed by the legal agents of these religious organisations. The Minister will be familiar with it, or should be familiar with it because many of them are still running schools under her remit. I will circulate this again next Tuesday because we need to take this line by line. This was signed by Government and approved by the legal advisers to the Government. We need to deliver on it. After this 12-month period, when I have no doubt Deputy McEntee will still be the Minister for education, I hope she will be able to enlighten us on the progress she makes on that.

I ask the Minister to enlighten us on whether she agrees to this report. This is about accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas, not about what the Minister and I think, and, ultimately, to the public. She would then be able to talk about how we have learned from our experiences with Sage Advocacy, which I fully endorse and recommend. We would also know more about the special advocate for victims of institutional abuse. That is really important.

The Minister might support the Labour Party's civil liability (child sexual abuse proceedings against unincorporated bodies of persons) Bill 2024. I hope she looks at it favourably. Published by the Labour Party last September, the Bill would provide a remedy to the Government. The Government says it needs remedies. Here is a remedy to address the legal obstruction tactics that have been deployed by some religious orders and other associates in lay-run trusts to avoid paying the financial contribution to a redress for those who have endured abuse in institutions controlled by them.

I know we are coming to the end of the debate. At the core of this is the requirement to provide accountability in real time. That is the difference. Accountability must be provided in real time and not generations later. Redress must be just, transparent and fair. Advocacy and practical supports must be fully resourced.Most of the contributors today have covered all of this. I think that 12 months on, the Minister will be a lot wiser. We will have feedback from the various people who have attempted to engage with the educational and health schemes. On this side of the House, we will also be in a better position to report progress on the experiences that have been relayed to us by people using the service. I think it is a fair and reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will be in a position to accept it. I do not see why she should not, because it is ultimately about accountability and would indicate a commitment that she, like us, is open to learn and to travel this journey with other people and, if necessary, to amend this legislation or bring in new legislation. I finish on that. I ask the Minister to consider the Civil Liability (Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings Unincorporated Bodies of Persons) Bill. There is great potential in that to hold people accountable.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will recap on three things. I am encouraged by the Minister's favourable response, but I want to be clear about something. On amendment No. 16, she is not in a position to change that in terms of a review. On amendment No. 19, she stated she will work collaboratively with me, and I will do so with her. I give her that commitment. She will come up with some suggestion for Report Stage. Is that correct?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

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

Perfect. Amendment No. 21 concerns compensation. The Minister talks about Sage and other advocacy groups. She will again collaborate with me, and will do so with her, to work on some sort of scheme she thinks is proportionate, right and appropriate. I presume that is based on what we have said. I am open to hear back what she is saying, but I want to confirm that she will come back with some proposal on that for Report Stage. That is important. Could we clarify that? We will not be calling votes on those. It was my intention to call votes on these two items. She might clarify her position on amendments Nos. 6, 19 and 21. I am more than happy to work with her on them.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I turn to amendment No. 19. We learned from the military side of the world that there is a thing called moral injury. They say moral injury transitions three generations. To be honest, I cannot see a massive rush for PhDs, Masters degrees or whatever else from the former victims of the institutions, but there will be a requirement for education. Can we spread the education allowances to the families of those who were victims in institutions? Education, as we know, lifts all families. Families benefit from education and a lot of the people we talk about have been living in relative poverty and their families have suffered poverty over the past 25 years, in particular. Will the Minister consider looking at the possibility of passing some of the educational benefits to the children of those who were in these institutions?

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

I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response about the use of waivers. We need to be clear. When we hear about redress schemes, they are usually accompanied by apologies and sincere expressions of how sorry we are as a State. The Minister then says these are there to replace legal action. Are these redress schemes about recognising we have done wrong as a State, and that we owe something to people for having done some things wrong, or are they to protect the State against actions and against individual cases being taken? The Minister said that the redress schemes are a substitute for legal action and so forth. I thought the purpose of redress schemes was to try to make up, in some small, inadequate way, to those who have been wronged and to give something back to them. That is why the question about waivers is: why do that and then take away with the other hand their legal rights, rights that anybody else would have with regard to civil liability or other areas?The Minister has just said that the Government intends to continue with that policy. I believe that policy needs to be reviewed. I urge the Minister to reflect on it and the logic of it.

Then there is this thing of there having to be criteria. There have to be, but this amendment is about applying, examining and considering best practice. Is it best practice to have criteria that are based on how we can minimise the cost? That was the logic of excluding those who spent six months in an institution, the mothers who gave birth there, and the children whose first few months of their lives took place in a situation of misery and abuse. Maybe it is because they cannot talk or we hope they will not remember. That was an arbitrary drawing of a line. When we ask the Minister for a review, we are asking in good conscience for her to really think about how waivers have been used. Reference was made to only those in the system already. The Minister should be looking at who did not benefit from these schemes or who did apply to them because they did not want to sign a waiver, were intimidated out of applying or came across a hostile first point of contact within the scheme. That is what I mean by "learning". From the Minister's response, I am less confident now that the State is willing to start learning on these issues.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo everything Senator Higgins said. In our minds, redress is about responding to the harms that the State, church or whatever institution has done. It is a response to a wrong that has been done. It is not another mechanism to silence. That is what a waiver does. With institutional abuse in this country, there was a forced silence at every turn where people could not speak about their experiences for fear of isolation, of shame, of their families finding out or whatever it was. A waiver that takes away a person's human rights in terms of recourse to justice is not only a mechanism to further silence the person, to further protect the State, to further take away the person's voice. When someone applies to a redress scheme, he or she applies through whatever application system is set up. Some people felt like they were begging for what they needed. When people are in the courts taking cases, their points are heard and their histories are shared and what happened to them can be seen in a justice-led and transparent way. That is different to receiving redress. Justice and redress are completely different things and if we do not uncouple them, we are in serious trouble.

We passed the NDA legislation last year because we recognised that the illusion of severance was being used to force people to sign NDAs so they could not talk about workplace abuse, harassment, sexual exploitation and racism. This is the very same practice. We cannot ever put out the idea that redress is about the replacement of legal recourse. Consider, for example, child maintenance. If a person goes into mediation, inadequate child maintenance is decided and the person is unhappy with what was decided in that room, then he or she has recourse to justice. In the case of redress, the fact that the system is setting the criteria, the amounts - the €3,000 and the €15,000 cap - and this and that means that the State is setting constraints on the redress even existing. We are telling people that they signed a waiver, so if they realise they are not happy or have not had their needs met because this is an inadequate service, we have already taken away their right to take it further. We need to go back and clarify, and the Government needs to say that redress is not about replacing legal action. I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment, if not now, then before Report Stage. For me, that statement in itself shows why such an amendment is so important. It is so that we can ensure that we are not further compounding the silencing and trauma of people who have already been silenced and traumatised for the majority of their lives. That is what waivers do. I do not believe this is what any of us want to do, but we need to accept and acknowledge that this is what it does.

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

I wish to add a single sentence. Briefly on the rights issue, I want to signal that I may include on Report Stage a version of the right to information. This relates to sections 18 and 19 of the Bill. We may not reach them if this debate is guillotined, but I want to signal the importance of ensuring subject access requests for data. There are very narrow purposes for which the information will be transferred to the Minister and used. They need to include people's rights around their information in the context of subject access requests, being able to build cases themselves or unrelated issues in terms of what they have experienced, including what they have experienced in their engagement with the redress scheme. I just wanted to signal that I might come back on those two areas through a revised version of this proposal on Report Stage.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following on from what Senator Ruane said about decoupling redress from justice, redress schemes are generally brought in to expedite the quick settlement, as it were, of an injustice. In a lot of cases, the people we are talking about opt for a redress scheme. They have been keeping this secret all their lives and they do not want their personal lives in the High Court, so there is an opportunity to resolve the matter, as best they can, through a redress scheme. We need to be very careful about trying to make justice and redress the same thing.

Senator Higgins referred to learning lessons. I hear Departments saying that lessons have been learned, but they are not learned. Senator Boyhan has already outlined a number of cases that are coming down the line with other institutions. Lessons have not been learned. We do not learn lessons. The only way we learn lessons is if we hold people to account and it hurts them in their pocket. Then we learn lessons. What was supposed to be paid over to the State by religious institutions has not been paid. So, lessons have not been learned.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If it came across in a different way, let me make it clear that redress is not to prevent people from taking legal action and it is not to substitute one for the other. Redress is an acknowledgement of a wrong and, in a small way in many instances, an attempt to try to right that wrong. One can never right that wrong but redress is not there to stop anybody from taking legal action or to prevent somebody from getting the justice he or she rightly deserves. On Senator Craughwell's point, it is to make sure insofar as possible that, for what is often a large number of people, there is an option available to them if they do not wish to take the other route. It is not to prevent them. There is no waiver in this legislation. I just want to be very clear on that.

What I am focused on, and what the Bill can only focus on, is the survivors we are discussing and the institutions. What Senator Higgins is talking about is a much wider piece for the Government looking at all forms of abuse, all issues that have happened over the past number of years and the way the State responds to them. I do not think it would be appropriate for me as an individual Minister to say we are going to do a particular review. If there are types of change or reviews looking at waivers or the way in which commissions of investigation are conducted - I mentioned we will have one coming down soon - that has to be done on a whole-of-Government level.

Again, I have to be very clear that redress is here to say that we are trying in some way to acknowledge that a right has been caused here. It does not, and should never, prevent somebody from going to court to get the justice that he or she deserves. This Bill in itself does not have a waiver included in it.

On amendment No. 22, perhaps I could work with the Senators on this. Obviously, I cannot say in a Bill what we are going to resource. Even though Sage Advocacy gets funding from my Department, that must go through a budgetary process. If there was a way we could work together, be it through legislation as an amendment, a commitment that I would make to Senators or more broadly in setting out the work that Sage Advocacy does, how it could be empowered further and other changes that could be made, I am happy to do that. The wording of the amendment talks about funding and what Sage Advocacy would be provided in resources. I have to go through the same budgetary process as anybody else but I want to find a way we could acknowledge that specific amendment. The work Sage Advocacy does is excellent and I certainly want to be able to empower it further and ensure it has have the resources it needs.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 in the name of Senator Tully have been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(iii) the payments for educational services shall be subject to a review on an annual basis.”.

In light of the Minister's agreement that we will collaborate and work together on Report Stage, I will withdraw the amendment.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will ask the Minister to confirm that.

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

Just to clarify, the Minister and I have agreed, in this open forum, that we will engage and work on some form of commitment with regard to the amendment.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

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

On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following:

“Report on The Special Advocate (for survivors of institutional abuse) 7. Within nine months of the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall, lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the range of supports that can be provided by the Special Advocate for survivors of institutional abuse.”.

For clarity, does this amendment relate to Sage Advocacy or is that amendment No. 21? I ask the Minister to respond if she wishes to.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment relates to the special advocate. As the special advocate falls under the Minister for children, it is not within my remit so I cannot accept this amendment. This amendment is separate from the amendment related to Sage Advocacy that was mentioned.

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

I will withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following:

“Sage Advocacy 7. Within nine months of the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the range of supports that will be provided by Sage Advocacy for survivors of institutional abuse.”.

For clarity, the Minister and I will collaborate in regard to Sage Advocacy.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a separate amendment.

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

Will the Minister give her response to amendment No. 21?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 16.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment concerns a range of supports that would be provided on the recommendation of Sage Advocacy. As this is not a matter within the remit of Sage Advocacy, I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment No. 22 is the amendment the Senator and I said we would engage on further.

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

To clarify, I never said Sage Advocacy would make the recommendations; I said the Minister would make them. The amendment states, "Within nine months of the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall lay" not Sage Advocacy.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It refers to supports "that will be provided by Sage Advocacy". It is not within its remit to do that.

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

In light of what will follow in a minute, I withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following:

“Report on the role of the Sage Advocacy 7. Within nine months of the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on how the Sage Advocacy can be empowered, supported, and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act.”.

The Minister and I said we would collaborate and work together on this amendment. Will the Minister clarify that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I am proposing is that I will work with the Senator to see if we can find a form of wording to put forward an amendment and, if not, we will work to set out exactly what work is being done by Sage Advocacy, how we can enhance that and how we can give a commitment to provide future resources because the amendment is specific to resources.

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

Okay.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot commit to an amendment on this matter specifically but if there is not an amendment, we can set out how we can enhance what Sage Advocacy is currently doing.

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

On the basis that we will collaborate on that, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following:

“Report on increased supports for all former residents and survivors of institutional, industrial and reformatory schools 7. Within nine months of the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall, lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing how all the supports, services and entitlements provided by Health (Amendment) Act Card (HAA Card) can be made available to all former residents and survivors of Institutional, Industrial and Reformatory schools.”.

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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29 to insert the following: “Supports for the excluded

7. Sage Advocacy shall be able to make recommendations to Government so that health services and education supports can be allocated to former residents who’ve been excluded from this Bill and previous redress schemes. The Minister shall have the ability to approve the recommendations made by a Sage Advocacy on a case-by-case basis.”.

We have covered this pretty well. I thank the Minister for reaching out. We will work something out together, I hope, in relation to Sage Advocacy. It does amazing work. It will expand and grow. Many of us will know Damian O'Farrell because he was formerly a councillor on Dublin City Council. He is a survivor and has an amazing back story. He is part of the unit that will deal with this in Sage Advocacy. It is important and goes to what we said earlier about assisting people at various stages of coping and moving on with their lives. It is never easy to move on. You do not forget, certainly. The more we know about this area, the more we can assist. It means Government is slightly stepping back. It may be supporting it but it is stepping back from direct interventions. We have heard from survivors and affected people of the importance of independence and support that treats them with dignity and respect. I am happy that we will work something out here.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 25 by Senator Tully has been ruled out of order as a potential charge on the Revenue.

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

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on adequacy on best practice in supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse

7. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on best practice in supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse examining concerns including:

(a) the adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports;

(b) the use of waivers;

(c) the application of restrictions to survivors’ qualification for redress;

(d) the comparative adequacy of other redress supports, and

(e) make recommendations for best practice going forward, including the establishment of a special advocate.”.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of the contributory pension for those who were in institutions has to be investigated. If they were employed and somebody got money for the labour they gave, that labour should have been covered under social insurance stamps back in the day, or PRSI. If companies in this country had the use of slave labour from these institutions and the institutions received money for it, then we have to find a way to enhance their social insurance contributions and provide the contributory pension they would be legally entitled to had they been working in decent, fair employment. Maybe it does not come under the scope of the Bill, but it has to be investigated and I will share with the Minister's office the name of the company I have today. We need to see what other companies in the State profited from the slave labour of people in these institutions. This probably goes beyond mother and baby homes to industrial schools and other places people were incarcerated. I am horrified by it and I think the Minister would be equally horrified. We have to see if there is a way to make the companies that had that labour pay social insurance contributions for pensions.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I cannot deal with the issue in this Bill, I am happy to engage with the Senator further on it and on suggestions of a possible way to deal with it elsewhere.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 27 in the name of Senator Tully has been ruled out of order as a potential charge on the Revenue.

Pauline Tully (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 15, after line 11, to insert the following: “Commensurate compensation from Religious Orders

22. Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare a comprehensive plan to deliver commensurate compensation from Religious Orders, this to include a consideration of every avenue of recourse and a timeline of engagements and actions, in pursuit of the public good.”.

The amendment calls for, within six months of the passing of the Bill, a plan to be put in place to seek compensation from institutions responsible for systematic abuse. Whether the institutions were State-run or religious, Catholic or Protestant, privately operated or otherwise, they must be held financially accountable to survivors. Compensation is a fundamental recognition of the lifelong harm caused by the neglect, physical violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse and psychological abuse inflicted on survivors. Voluntary or discretionary payments are insufficient. Basically, they are tokenistic. The State must ensure all liable institutions contribute to a transparent compensation fund. To exempt institutions or to not pursue payment would perpetuate the culture of impunity that enabled the abuse to happen in the first place. Survivors have waited long enough for justice and deserve immediate restitution. Rather than the State continuing to shield religious orders and others from financial responsibilities, it has to ensure taxpayers do not foot the bill alone for crimes the church and State played a part in.

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

At the core of this is redress and acknowledgement of a wrong.Earlier, I referred to the indemnity scheme of this State that was signed at Merrion Square, Dublin 2, on 5 June 2002 by the then Ministers for Finance and Education and Science, predecessors of the Minister present. I have in front of me copies of the signatures, the seals of office on the Government's legal advice and the commitments given. I am sure all this is still available on a website. It is interesting that many of the religious organisations are still in operation and offering care services and education services. I stated last week that it would be wholly wrong not to acknowledge the significant role of the religious in health services, social services and education in Irish society. A very high proportion, 99%, of them were excellent people. Somehow, they are washed out in the narrative of abuse in this State.

As a member of the Church of Ireland by birth, and still by choice, I also want to mention the religious of my denomination because they too have fallen short. Many will be aware of major scandals within the Church of Ireland and Protestant communities. We must not forget these because suddenly in the narrative on the religious, the focus seems to be on Irish Catholic and not Irish Protestant. I am not interested in what denomination people are, but we have to be fair. I join the Minister in saying that we need to call on the religious superiors and non-religious superiors regarding the schools, religious and non-religious, and institutions where abuse was perpetrated, be it at St. John Ambulance Brigade, within the Scout Association of Ireland or at Westbank, which I spoke about by way of a Commencement matter this morning. They will simply have to pay up. We owe it to ourselves. We entered into an indemnity scheme and it has not been altogether delivered upon. If the organisations do not have the money, they may have land. We have a housing crisis. Assets are valuable and potentially in great locations for homes. We have to be imaginative in determining how to get some support. The people would expect nothing less. I am aware that the Minister is absolutely committed to this.

When we discussed this Bill last week, I spoke about the great heroes: Mary Raftery of "States of Fear"; Christine Buckley from Goldenbridge; Michael O'Brien, a former mayor of Clonmel, who was passionate and who gave testimony on RTÉ; Philomena Lee, whom we talked about here today in referring to the legislation going through Westminster; Catherine Corless, who raised the matter of the Tuam babies, whom we think of this very day along with what is going on down in Tuam; Damian O’Farrell; Conrad Bryan from the Association of Mixed Irish Race, an advocate for equality and the many babies who were shipped out of this country illegally, about whom no one knows; and, of course, Colm O’Gorman of One in Four. I must also mention our own Samantha Long, a Leinster House employee who partook in the documentary "No Country for Women". These are brave people who put their lives in the public domain and spoke of their journey and lived experience. They are brave and courageous, and what they have done was not easy. Each of us has to go back to our homes and loved ones and be asked why we continue to be so much on fire about and advocates in this area. It is critical to people who have the lived experience, and it is important that we continue to stick with them.

I thank the Minister and her officials, because it is important that we all have a role to play. We all have a job to do, although we come from different perspectives. Following up not on the pursuit of additional money but on commitments made in an indemnity scheme of which we are all aware must be done. We have to pursue this in a respectable way. It might not be a matter of hard cash but it may be a matter of property or other assets that will help us to compensate the State, which has paid out very substantial amounts of money, which I acknowledge.

We should also consider those who escaped and kept their heads down. Too many kept their heads down. It was not about what we did but about what we did not do. That is really important, too. We talked earlier about another case coming down the tracks. I could state ten organisations whose cases are coming the Minister's way. These are in the education sector alone and that is not to talk about health.

Whatever processes we put in place now will be there for a long time. They have to be in place. We cannot put a value on justice, care, support and enabling people. We have to travel the journey with them and support them in every way we can.

I commend Senator Tully on what is a really important amendment. It is not about having a go at the religious. I would not support that. We must acknowledge the great support offered by the religious to Irish society through care and education. When I talk about victimhood and hurt, I could tell the House about many religious people I got to know who have been deeply hurt and traumatised by this experience. Many have asked why they did not put their heads up, why what happened occurred on their watch and in their congregations and why they were not empowered to do something about it. They, too, were trapped in a system and it is important that we acknowledge that. We must always be fair. We cannot argue with people who are fair. Let us not forget them. We should think of them. I bump into so many religious people at various opportunities and note they are deeply hurting and embarrassed and nearly afraid to talk about it. There is a veil of silence around them. I want to think of them also. Many of them are victims of a system that allowed the abuses to take place.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, commend Senator Tully for tabling the amendment. The wording it contains is important. The Senator talked about measures being commensurate with compensation from the religious. Driving through any village or town in Ireland, the largest building you will find will be the church. I agree with what Senator Boyhan said in that I have known many good churchmen. I have known churchmen who got out of bed at night to help families in distress. They were not all bad eggs, but the problem is that the institutions and organisations benefited greatly from the money. In my area, Salthill in Galway, land was sold by the Church for sites on which to build massive houses, at enormous cost. A secondary school sold off part of its land and apartments were built on it. Where did that money go and who does it really belong to? As Senator Tully has pointed out, it belongs to those who lived in the institutions under the brutal systems that they operated, whereby people were farmed out as if they were cattle. I would like to see some serious action on the amendment. Again, I congratulate Senator Tully.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators for speaking on this. I fully support and appreciate the intention behind the amendment. As I stated last week – I agree with Senator Boyhan in this regard – every person responsible for committing the absolutely atrocious crimes and perpetrating such abuse must be held responsible. Those who looked the other way or turned a blind eye must be held responsible. We must ensure there is not just an acknowledgement and an admission of wrong but also payment where it can and should be made, not just regarding this redress but also the many other instances we have discussed here.

We are discussing this legislation, a particular agency and the fund in place. I stress that we have had two separate payments. In this regard, Senator Boyhan mentioned the legally binding indemnity scheme and the 2009 voluntary offers. What we are doing is essentially winding down this particular programme. However, having regard to what is a clear commitment from the Government, I am absolutely committed to exploring further avenues to ensure those responsible, be they religious orders or other organisations, do not just accept and acknowledge the harm they have caused to thousands of individuals, particularly young people, but also pay and contribute as a small acknowledgement of what they have done. I use the word "small" because no payment could ever truly acknowledge the harm inflicted on many. While I cannot accept the amendment we are specifically talking about, and while the redress scheme has passed and there have been various contributions from the various different religious orders, I can say absolutely that the Government is committed to ensuring every single religious order or other relevant body that is responsible for the crimes will also be responsible for paying into any scheme or redress mechanism we roll out in the future.

Pauline Tully (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for acknowledging that. Could there be a way, under a different Department or in a different scenario, to set out a plan?The amendment calls for a plan that looks for that money, so that it is not left at the discretion of the organisations. If they signed up for this, they should be made to acknowledge that and properly pay for the damage they have caused. This is not to take away from all the good work many people in religious institutions have done in this State over the years and continue to do. Unfortunately, huge damage was done to some of our citizens.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.