Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy McEntee, to the House.

Before we begin, I welcome, from the Western Carer's Association, guests of Deputy Keira Keogh here to the Gallery on both sides, including the Distinguished Visitors Gallery.

Also, from Westport, we have a new Senator, Farrah Hoban. Farrah is most welcome here to Seanad Éireann. I thank her for joining us in Seanad Éireann today. We are honoured to have her as a Member.

Also here in the Gallery, we have Mary Donovan, Mary Dunlevy Green, Mary Smith, Miriam Moriarty Owens and, my good friend, Sheila O’Byrne, whom I know for many years or, I would say at this stage, decades. Sheila O'Byrne is most welcome and I thank her for being here.

Before we commence, I remind Members that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on it. On Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

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

I, too, welcome every visitor to the Gallery here today. It is great to see them all here. Also, I am conscious there are a lot of people tuning in to this important debate. I also welcome the Minister. I particularly welcome her officials, whom I have engaged with, as I have with the Minister, since we last met in the Seanad.

To provide the context here, we are dealing with the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. I thank the Library and Research Service for its detailed analysis of this Bill. It clearly has made it easy for us to navigate and it is important we acknowledge it. One great aspect of the Library and Research Service is that it gives us a sort of independence of Government, independence of the Minister's office and a critical and honest assessment of the Bill, and it raises a number of challenges and issues. I have referenced those challenges and issues and I do not intend referencing them today.

I am also conscious today that we need to get the business done. Most of us who contributed last week to many of the key issues and the recurring themes, and I do not intend to go into great length on those. We all know where we stand within it. Suffice it to say, in the context of this amendment, I acknowledge and welcome a statement issued today from the Minister, Deputy Foley, on her commitment in relation to her Department, which, of course, is clearly separate from the Minister, Deputy McEntee's. It raises a number of issues about the commitment to survivors of institutional abuse, mother and baby homes, and the bits that dovetail with her Department as opposed to Deputy McEntee's Department, the Department of Education and Youth.I acknowledge that. It is a measure of the momentum of the Government. Clearly, there has been a lot of media interest in the past few days. The media have engaged strongly with me. There will be a number of media interviews on this issue in the next few days. There is a key focus on the issue, which is not a bad thing.

I, the Cathaoirleach and many other Members of the Seanad received an invitation from the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, relating to the Irish diaspora. We had an opportunity to contribute to the new strategy. The current strategy expires at the end of the year. I was invited to speak and I know others share the concern about the Irish diaspora, particularly in the UK. I opened my comments by saying that while some people left by choice, many left because they had no choice. Many people felt excluded and felt they had to run away. The rich Irish diaspora covers arts, culture, heritage and a load of other issues. Any strategy must also recognise the forgotten Irish, including the undocumented Irish in America and other parts of the world, and why they left. We know that many of them left in very sad circumstances. Their own families many times washed their hands of them. We also know that too many of those who are overseas want to come back. Some may never want to come back. Many were, through no fault of their own, excluded from redress measures.

Recurring themes will, we hope, start today. Although not everything will be addressed in this legislation, we must continue to focus on and retain our commitment to the diaspora and the measures to which the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, has committed. We must remember that we have Irish people - our people - all over the Continent and the world. Many of them, though not all, have been excluded. We must work out a mechanism for the terms of support. I just wanted to say that.

I will go straight to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are being taken together in this grouping. I and my colleague, Senator Craughwell, have proposed and seconded one of those two amendments, and I will speak to them together. Amendment No. 1 is to section 6 of the Bill and applies to educational services and supports for residents. This amendment will add a sentence to the Bill. I suggested it the last time the Minister was before the House and I submitted the amendment again to keep a focus on the debate. The amendment proposes on page 9, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: "The payments for educational services and supports shall be subject to review on an annual basis." The Minister made a strong case and committed to engaging with me. I acknowledge that she did that. I appreciate her and her staff. Subsequently, the Minister has proposed amendment No. 2, which I will go into now.

When I spoke to the Minister, she clearly set out the rationale for concerns about an annual review. A year is not a long time. I am by nature a pragmatist. I am a reasonable person and want to achieve results. Quite frankly, I do not care who is the proposer or proponent of successful outcomes. I recognise that the Minister gave thought to the issue. Her suggestion was to submit an amendment to section 6 on educational support and services for residents. The amendment will create a new subsection within section 6 in Part 2 of the Bill, under "supports". She suggests that the Minister, who is Deputy McEntee for her time in office but it will also apply to subsequent Ministers in the future, "shall review the criteria determined under subsection (3)on a regular basis and may amend the criteria following any such review". The review under paragraph (a) of the amendment "shall be carried out not later than 3 years from the date on which the criteria under subsection (3)are first published". The Minister has also clearly indicated that she, as Minister, can review it at any time. She has set in statute a case that I tried to make. We have come to an agreement with the House and with the support of the Minister. She will have an opportunity to respond. There will be a statutory review in three years. That is progress. We did not have that last week. We will have a review but it is still open to the Minister in office at any time to conduct a review in respect of education. I am not a hurler on a ditch and believe in being honest and proactive, and seeing what best we can achieve. This is a reasonable compromise and I am happy, with the consent of the House, to withdraw my amendment in favour of amendment No. 2, proposed by the Minister. She will want to share her view on that amendment. She might confirm my clear understanding that the Minister will now have the power to review the situation within three years. That will be on a statutory basis. There will be no doubt about it. No one is saying that he or she might review the situation at some time in the future. The legislation was vague last week and contained ambiguity. We now have an absolute commitment that there will be a three-year review in respect of the educational supports. If that is the case, it is a positive. It is affirmative and definite, which is important.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

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

I would like to hear from the Minister.

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

The Minister is welcome to the House. I support my colleague, Senator Boyhan, in the withdrawal of our amendment No. 1.

I went to the UK as a very young man. Many of us left in the late 1960s and it is only by the grace of God that we have not finished up in a one-bed flat or bedsit with nothing to look forward to and very little to look back on. As Senator Boyhan said, some people were forced out of this country. They had to flee because of the circumstances in which they found themselves. Those are particularly sad cases. There are people in other parts of the world who we are not looking after with this Bill. However, I must hand it to the Minister. She gave a commitment on the previous occasion she was in the House on this particular section. She has delivered, and I compliment her for that. It shows a willingness on her part. It is a rare thing to see a Minister agree to amend legislation when it gets as far as the Seanad. I compliment her. It is a very positive step forward and I thank the Minister.

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

I am looking for clarification in respect of Government amendment No. 2. At paragraph (c), it states, "The Minister, on being satisfied that no application has been made under subsection (1) for a period of not less than three years, may, by order, appoint a day on which this subsection shall cease to have effect." Is my understanding correct that even through the time for a review will switch to three years, if nobody applies within a certain three-year period and there have been no applications, the educational fund ceases to exist? If someone does not apply for an educational fund within the given time stipulated by the Minister at paragraph (c) of amendment No. 2, and "no application has been made under subsection (1) for a period of not less than three years", the Minister may "by order, appoint a day on which this subsection shall cease to have effect". Is that just that the review will cease to exist or will the fund itself cease to exist?

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

I thank Senators for their engagement. I thank, in particular, Senator Boyhan for his engagement on this particular section and these amendments. As he has outlined, I support the idea. We have followed through on having a review of the criteria for the educational supports that will follow once this Bill is enacted. As I outlined to the Deputy on the proposal for a review after one year, in respect of anything for which we gather data for the first year, it takes until the second year or into the third year to collate and understand the data and to see how well an initiative is working. I think the maximum period of three years gives us an opportunity to assess data after a year or a year and a half, or whatever category it falls into. The Government amendment means that a three-year period cannot pass without a review to consider the criteria, how they are being applied and how people are able to use the fund. As I stressed previously, this is not money for master's degrees or for professional master of education, PME, qualifications or anything like that. The fund can be for educational and training board, ETB, courses and above. It is to ensure that people can access different courses.

The provision under paragraph (c), to which Senator Ruane referred, means that if in 20 years' time the Minister conducts a review and for the previous three years nobody has applied, he or she might at that stage decide that if in another few years nobody else has applied, he or she may wind down the scheme. The scheme is specific to individuals who have availed of the previous redress. There were over 16,000 of those people. At a certain point, perhaps in 20 or 30 years, there will potentially be nobody left to apply for the scheme. We would have a scheme open and available to people who potentially are not there to avail of it.

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

Would it not just lie idle then? If that is put in, it could cause problems.

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

It will not cause problems for anyone if there is no one to apply to the scheme. It is not helpful to have a scheme in legislation that is not available to anyone because there is no one to avail of it. This simply states that the scheme can be wound down if, in 20 or 30 years' time, nobody is applying for it because none of the 16,000 or so people who want to avail of it and who have decided to the avail of it for whatever reason is left or, unfortunately, because of the timeframe involved, may sadly have passed away and not been able to avail of it. This is somewhat common practice. If a scheme is not operating and no one is there or wants to avail of it, it would, after a period, be wound down.

The amendment states clearly that there must be at least three years during which no one avails of it. Even then, I think any Minister would look to see whether it is likely that someone would do so a year, two years or three years later. A decision would have to be taken at that stage. However, this will not prohibit anyone from applying for the educational support under the scheme. It merely states that if the scheme has run its course and no one is availing of it, there is an opportunity for the Minister to wind it down. Overall, I think and hope something we agree on is that the scheme's criteria will be reviewed to make sure it is working effectively and well and that those who want to avail of it will do so when they can. The Minister will review the educational component of the scheme "not later than 3 years from the date of the previous review". I thank Senator Boyhan and other colleagues for their engagement on this.

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

Can I confirm that, in procedural terms, I should just speak about the amendment we are dealing with?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are dealing with amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

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

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I acknowledge Mary, Mary and Mary - I was going to call them the three Marys - in the Gallery.

I hear what the Minister is saying about it just being a procedural aspect. We hear all the time from survivors that the schemes are inaccessible, difficult to understand, difficult to access and bureaucratic. I have a challenge with the idea that if no one has applied in three years, we can decide to wind it down. I refer to circumstances where we already have schemes that we know survivors cannot access because they are inherently inaccessible because they are bureaucratic and use systems and processes. As we spoke about last week - Senator Boyhan spoke about this at length - some people may have left school quite early. We are asking them to fill out forms. We have already said that, in the context of many of the bureaucratic systems, when these people are faced with forms or are trying to access services, it is difficult for them. We can presume, based on this information, that survivors might not apply. There might not be sufficient outreach by the Department to engage survivors. As a result, I would be hesitant to think that this would be an indication that there were no survivors who could access these schemes. It is that the schemes are not sufficiently accessible. I seriously urge against the idea that we take the fact that no one has applied as evidence that there is no one out there to apply. That is not the correct logic we should be using.

I understand what the Minister said, namely that it is perhaps not appropriate legislatively to have a scheme that is open-ended, but we can amend it. Surely, at that time, it can be amended to close it down. That approach would respond more realistically to what we have already heard about the challenges survivors have in accessing schemes in the first place.

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

I will clarify. This is my mistake. It is the review that will cease, not the scheme itself.

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

That clarifies the first question.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is everyone happy with amendments Nos. 1 and 2?

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

The Minister has spoken, and it is open to me to come back in.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

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

That was an important intervention. The clarification provided is that it applies to the review. I thank Senators Ruane and Stephenson for raising that because clarity is everything.

I did not think about that immediately; it took a few days. I looked at the alternative, which was that last week we had proposed a review and that was not really under consideration. We have made progress. We have this review. That is important. However, in light of two interventions by Senators Stephenson and Ruane, it is important that whatever the advocacy group - it is currently Sage Advocacy or the Citizens' Information Board - it should be encouraged, resourced and funded to proactively promote the scheme. We should not have a situation where people do not know about the scheme. I put that down as a marker.

I am happy to support this. I am happy the clarification in respect of the review has been given by the Minister, but we also need to be assured that there will be a proactive commitment through the Irish clubs in the UK and everywhere else that we will continue to promote it. I go to the Citizens Information website online for loads of information. I am a Member of the Oireachtas. I find it a good source of information, as do many members of the public. We should, through our embassies, outreach programmes and diaspora programmes, wherever they are, be promoting the idea of this education and training because it is there to help and assist people. Clearly, many of the people involved are in the latter stages of their lives. As a result, it is important that we use every medium and every opportunity to communicate the message about the education and training funding.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Senator withdrawing his amendment?

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

I withdraw the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments No. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

3. In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on 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 supported, and resourced to assist individual survivors to access supports and provisions listed in this Act.”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

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

Dear [Senator],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Signed Helen McEntee, Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next speakers are Senators Stephenson and Craughwell. Before I call Senator Stephenson, I welcome guests of the Clerk of the Dáil, Peter Finnegan, to the Gallery. They are most welcome.

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

I speak in support of both of the amendments Senator Boyhan has tabled, especially about the report on the role of Sage Advocacy. I tabled an amendment that has been ruled out of order, which relates to this amendment. It called for the establishment of a survivor support and advisory office within the Department. I suspect it has been ruled out of order because of the cost implication, but it relates to the concept of having a report to assess what is happening with Sage.

As has previously been said, when survivors are accessing support, the entire process is retraumatising and dehumanising. This is the direct feedback we are hearing from survivors. We are not making this up. They are dealing with a unique set of circumstances. The standard front-line public service workers do not have the skills for the interface. Getting feedback on how Sage is working and being a helping hand, which is a phrase used by Senator Boyhan, and facilitating and supporting survivors to use the service is very important. It is not a superfluous little extra; it is core to making sure the supports work for survivors. It is fundamental that we have a good-quality service that meets their needs. This would increase the responsiveness of the Bill to the needs of survivors.

Senator Boyhan's second amendment, No. 4, is central to the question of inclusion and exclusion. It was reported in The Journal that the special advocate, Patricia Carey, stated that legislation would be introduced in the North to provide redress to people who spent one day in an institution while for us it is 180 days. The question of exclusion and inclusion is very important. More survivors will come forward and new institutions will be considered. That was in an article in The Journal today, if the Minister wants to follow it up. That is legislation that is in the pipeline in the North. It is very upsetting for survivors down here to see this very different approach on the island.

I support both of Senator Boyhan's amendments.

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

My colleagues previously spoke about education and the withdrawal of the service after three years. Having an advocacy group like Sage means that the door is open. It is a one-stop-shop where the victims of institutional abuse can go to get the information they need and perhaps engage in education and many other things.

Some time ago, I brought a delegation from the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel to Portsmouth to see how the advocacy group there operated. Outside the door of what used to be a sailors' hotel, men and women hang around smoking cigarettes. Former service people with problems pass the hotel. They might come as far as the door and then they walk away. The people outside the door are volunteers for the advocacy group. They approach people on their second time passing the door. The number of people they rescue is incredible. We are talking about people whose personal lives are a mess - people who were in institutions, some of whom have hidden it all of their lives. Some of them carry it with them every day of their lives. Some of them are not afraid to speak out or to show their hand while others are afraid. It is important to have a safe place to go where people feel the information and support they get is 100%. For that reason, I support both of Senator Boyhan's amendments. We need some certainty going forward and that is what we are trying to get.

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

I thank colleagues for their engagement. Senator Boyhan has outlined the reasons I cannot accept amendment No. 3. It is specifically due to the naming but also the reference to the provision of resources, which is not something I can agree to. It is something that must be worked through on a yearly basis. I have outlined to him in writing our commitment to Sage - to the work it has done and the work it is currently doing. I also referred to the existing supports: the 13 staff and the €1.7 million. There is a commitment to ensure that, when the review takes place before the end of the current round of funding at the end of 2026, the support continues. I believe that it will also be possible to make changes to expand or adapt it.

Speaking to the Senator's previous point, we all have a role in making sure that people understand that Sage is there for them and that there are advocates and individuals across the country to support survivors in whatever way they need and by whatever means. I hope my commitment is very clear: Sage is a very important organisation, especially in the context we are discussing here today. It is doing very positive work. I hope more people will be able to avail of that support. I am committed to continuing to provide funding for such support and resources.

In parallel with that and as Senator Boyhan mentioned, there was a commitment made today by the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Deputy Foley, to the role of the advocate. The first report was published today. It is important that the role continue. It complements and works with Sage Advocacy in providing support. While I cannot accept the amendment, I accept the spirit of what Senator Boyhan is trying to achieve. I make a clear commitment to him today about the importance of Sage and its role in the resources once the legislation has been enacted.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept the second amendment, No. 4. I understand the points that are being made about those who are not included in the Bill, which is very specific and directly linked to those who had previously received redress. The same criteria were applied to Caranua, so they must apply to anybody availing of the health or educational supports. They do not apply to Sage, which is there for all people to engage with, but specifically to the elements that are mentioned in this legislation.

Section 49 relates to the mother and baby institutions, which come under the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, so any changes in that regard would have to take place under its remit. The Senator mentioned the criteria relating to the mother and baby homes scheme, but they are not the criteria that apply here. While I appreciate it was some years ago, we have to apply the same criteria in this legislation as applied to somebody who applied under the original redress scheme. They are the criteria that will apply once this legislation is passed and the supports are in place. Unfortunately, for those reasons, I will not be able to accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have outlined before, this legislation and the supports being provided are directly linked to those who availed of funding through Caranua. Caranua was previously directly linked to those who had availed of the initial redress scheme. There was a very clear and direct link to those who availed of those supports. The intention behind this Bill is not just to wind down Caranua. Caranua was set up with a very specific focus and with a set amount. This Bill puts the supports that were provided through Caranua on a more permanent footing, enabling people to access the medical card and making sure those educational supports are in place. While we have obviously had debate and discussion on the limit and the level of payment, this Bill will put these supports in place permanently once it is enacted. The criteria are very specific. Section 49, which the Senator has mentioned, is very much connected to the mother and baby homes. That is not something I can amend here and not something we are discussing in this legislation. That is not something I can do because it is connected to the mother and baby homes, which is a different scheme falling under the remit of a different Minister. I appreciate that, in our discussions today, last week and elsewhere, we have discussed many different survivors and instances. However, I must stay focused on the Bill itself, which is directly linked to Caranua, a body that was directly linked to those in receipt of the payments. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendment. It is not that I do not accept the rationale behind the Senator's arguments but this is directly and legally linked to the Caranua payments and the redress scheme. To open that up again would not be in line with the legislation.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

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

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

(2) Advocacy groups approved by the Minister shall be allowed to make recommendations to the Minister to expand the criteria for eligibility to redress using the power provided under Section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023.”.

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

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order because the establishment of a survivors support and advisory office 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.

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

Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on Caranua

7. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the functions of Caranua, examining, inter alia:

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

(b) the use of waivers;

(c) the appropriateness of criteria for survivors’ qualification for supports;

(d) recommendations for best practice going forward in relation to any future redress schemes.”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support Senator Ruane's comments, particularly on the use of waivers. Last week, Senator Ruane and Senator Higgins spoke quite clearly when they discussed the human rights aspect of waivers. When we ask people to sign waivers for redress, we are basically saying they have no other recourse for justice within that and that is not the way we should be doing justice in Ireland.

When it comes to amendment No. 8, we spoke a lot last week about lessons, learning lessons and the importance of learning from the past and bringing that forward. That is really what this amendment is about. It looks for a report on the adequacy and consistency of supports provided by the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board. This will include applications received and processed and the range and uptake of supports so we can assess the supports that were provided and the frequency of the uptake. This data could disaggregated and we could find it out based on age and where people are from. The summary of appeals or complaints is very important to assess people's experiences within the system. Without the last piece of an evaluation of survivor experiences of the scheme, we are not responding and we will not develop and make sure new schemes take on the critique and criticism of survivors, which is fair criticism, to make sure this onwards scheme is appropriate.

It is really about lessons learned. We should hear about evaluations. This is true for all monitoring and evaluation of any supports provided by the Government or the State. This is particularly pertinent because of the human rights abuses and violations that survivors experienced but it really is best practice for the service users or recipients of any scheme to be consulted on their experiences. This amendment is designed to get a full understanding of those experiences. It is very simple. I hope the Minister will consider adopting it because I do not think it is a controversial one. It is best practice. It would be good faith to take on this amendment, recognising the opinions of survivors and making sure they are acted upon in future schemes.

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

I want to acknowledge the ladies in the Public Gallery: Mary Dunlevy Greene, Mary Donovan, Mary Smith, Sheila O’Byrne and, I believe, Miriam Moriarty Owens. As a teacher, I should be better with names.

In relation to amendment No. 6, does the second amendment we agreed today - the Minister's own amendment - not cover a lot of the stuff that is being requested in amendment No. 6? Could we have a quick clarification on that? That was amendment No. 2.

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

The amendment we agreed was the education one. The second amendment was more specifically around Sage Advocacy and outlining its work.

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

The review-----

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

Through the Chair.

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

Apologies.

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

On the amendments we agreed previously, one specifically was in relation to amendments to the criteria, or reviewing the criteria, for the education supports that would be provided through my Department. The second area where I had engagement with Senator Boyhan was specifically around the work of the advocacy group Sage and outlining what it provided. I could come back in a few moments on the elements of what is being requested here and the fact that much of this information is already readily available, given that Caranua produces yearly reports. There would have to be a final report once this legislation was wound down.

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

Is Senator Ruane pressing the amendment?

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

Could I just hear that again? Is the Minister saying that the yearly report from Caranua looks very specifically at the use of waivers?

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

I can speak to that matter now. I am sorry, as I was not sure if others were coming in.

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

Okay, that is grand.

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

Specifically on waivers, the Senator is correct. If a person applied to the redress scheme, the waiver would apply there. Obviously, the same criteria have applied for those, be that through Caranua or for the supports we are now putting in place. The person could also apply for Caranua if he or she had gone through a legal process and received a payment or an element of a payment and there was not a waiver in that regard. While it might apply to some people, it does not apply to everybody.

Waivers tend to be part of redress schemes not just here in Ireland, but in many other jurisdictions. To change that would have to be a Government decision, in that it would be a decision taken in respect of any potential future schemes, but we cannot change what was in place for a scheme that was administered 20 years ago. With any scheme, I agree that we have to learn. I hope that we do not spend the next 20 or 30 years having to produce schemes. I hope we can do everything that we can, as soon as possible, for survivors regardless of whether they are included today or otherwise. I acknowledge the survivors with us in the Public Gallery.

Much of the information the Senators are referencing in amendments Nos. 6 or 8 - particularly the latter - is available through Caranua's report, which is prepared annually. Once this legislation is wound down and Caranua is dissolved, the Department of Education and Youth will have to produce a final report setting out much of the information that is in this. Some of it is already available and some of it is provided within Caranua's annual report.

The waiver applies as it did for the scheme. That will not change. It was 20-odd years ago. A decision would have to be taken on whether we introduced them or had them as part of any future scheme.

I believe that lessons are learned. For example, the educational supports that will be provided through this are different to the approach that would have been taken even in Caranua, where people had to provide receipts to show what they had purchased or what they were doing. That will not be the case here. We will not be seeking that from people. We always have to show that we are evolving and learning and that we are taking survivors' experience into account in terms of what has and has not worked, how we can make it easier and how we can lessen the stress of what survivors have to go through just to access these. I hope that is reflected in this.

To the question, I hope the Senator is happy. I do not think anybody could suggest that what we are providing here will in any way make amends or erase what has happened. This is just an acknowledgement of what survivors have gone through. What I am trying to do with this is make sure that survivors get access as quickly as possible and that we learn. Much of the information that has been mentioned is set out in Caranua's annual reports. The Department will have to produce a final report setting out much of what is in this. It will not include waivers because waivers were part of the previous scheme. That will not change; that is very much set out in that criteria. As regards anything we decide in the future, though, we have to be able to learn what has worked well and what has not.

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

The Minister said that removing the use of waivers was a Government decision. This is Government legislation. It is not unusual for us to look to a Minister who is taking responsibility for a Department, and who is in government and bringing Government legislation, and make the assumption that there would be conversations and decisions made by the Government around whether using a waiver is appropriate within this legislation. The Minister is saying that some people will have signed a waiver to be part of the redress scheme. Is she saying there were people who got payments from Caranua who did not meet the redress scheme's criteria in terms of having signed a waiver? Are we saying that some people who can access this have a waiver and some do not?

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

They were people with court awards and settlements that did not require a waiver and who were able to access the Caranua scheme. With the supports under discussion, the person does not have to have availed of Caranua to avail of the educational or the medical card scheme, but we have applied the same criteria as would have been for the redress scheme. A lot of people would have signed waivers, but not everybody. For what we are talking about here and what the Senator is talking about more broadly, I do not believe that I as a single Minister can decide whether waivers are appropriate for a redress scheme, full stop. I am focused on these criteria, in which there is not a specific reference to a waiver. There is for the redress scheme, which is a separate piece.

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

But the waiver is implied.

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

It depends. There are a lot of people who did-----

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

But for the majority of people, the waiver is implied.

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

For a lot of people, yes.

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

So, given the fact that the waiver is implied, it is part of this scheme and should form part of the discussion. It has been raised time and again as an issue for people in terms of what we have learned and what has worked. It is basically a contract. For a contract to stand, we are able to legislate to be able to remove the legality of having such a waiver in the first place. It creates a system that is completely unequal because it lets into it people who had signed a waiver whereas some others had not, but if they did not meet the conditions of the redress scheme, they will not even get to this point of the legislation because the schemes are so linked to each other. There are different types of people with different conditions attached to them to be able to access this, so waivers should have been a central part of the discussion. We can use new legislation to do keyhole surgery on other legislation to be able to repeal sections. Later on, we will talk about the gagging order and people not being able speak publicly about what was in their applications. There is no reason we cannot go through one Act to improve what was bad legislation that cut off recourse for people if they were unhappy with the redress they received. Lots of people at the time would have signed to say they would not take a case against the State and sue. When a person is at a point of absolute trauma, with everything being on the TV for the first time and the whole country talking about something, the person's needs are sometimes so high it is like a power imbalance and coercion happens, in that, we will only give people this thing to meet their needs if their sign to say they cannot take a case against us if they at some stage do not feel that this was an adequate or true representation of what they had experienced at the hands of the State or the church. The State has baked into this legislation a protection for the church because some of those waivers were directly related to speaking out against the church. Some waivers covered church and State, some were State alone, and some just the church.Baked into legislation is a protection for the church by way of survivors not being able to take a case against the church. The legislation gives cover to the church because the waivers do not relate only to taking a case against the State. Legislation should concern State schemes and what funding the State puts in. It should not deal with what is coming from the church's coffers. I accept that the Minister cannot make a decision unilaterally to make this provision but the fact it did not form the basis of the development of the legislation is problematic in and of itself. That is why I am seeking a report to look at how we can correct the use of waivers and, later, gagging orders.

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

I welcome to the Gallery Deputy Maxwell and his guests from Ballybay, County Monaghan, including Stephen and Julie Patten, who got married last Friday. I congratulate them both and wish them long life and happiness.

I acknowledge and thank the survivors, Mary Dunlevy Greene, Mary Donovan, Mary Smith, Sheila O'Byrne and Miriam Moriarty Owens, for being in the Chamber for this discussion.

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

Waivers are a common feature of most redress schemes. The waiver to which the Senator makes specific reference in amendment No. 6 relates to a scheme, Caranua, that was established separately and is no longer in operation. There is not a specific reference to the waivers because some people had waivers and others did not. I fully appreciate the Senator's point that a lot of people had them. Waivers are put in place because redress schemes are intended to be easily accessible for people. I appreciate this has not always been the case but the intention is to ensure people do not have go through a legal process, which is often complex and challenging. I acknowledge completely that it is not always the case that redress schemes are straightforward.

In terms of this legislation, much of what is being asked for in amendments Nos. 6 and 8 has either been set out in the reports the bodies referred to publish yearly or will be published as part of the Department of education's final reports, which must be provided where any scheme that has been in operation for a number of years is wound down or dissolved. We must learn from those reports to ensure we do our very best for survivors in any future redress schemes. For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept the amendments.

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

May I comment, a Leas-Chathaoirligh?

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

Only the proposer of an amendment can speak on it a second time.

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

Amendment No. 8, which is in my name, is grouped with amendment No. 6. I was not sure how the discussion was being taken.

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

The Senator may address that amendment when we come to it. Is Senator Ruane pressing amendment No. 6?

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

Yes.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "Report on access to Health (Amendment) Act Card

8. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing how the Health (Amendment) Act Card can be provided to all persons who were, for any period, resident in an institution specified in the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.".

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

I second the amendment.

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

This amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to prepare a report on access for survivors to the card provided for under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, known as the HAA card. This issue was raised throughout the Committee Stage debate and is one of the key requests that have been consistently made by survivors. Even in the week since that debate, people have contacted our office outlining the shortcomings of the provision in the Bill for a medical card to meet the health needs of survivors. In the absence of adequate support from the State, it falls to the families of survivors, if they have families, to provide care. In many cases, survivors have to seek private medical interventions, where they or their family can afford to do so, to address health issues that are deeply rooted in their abusive experiences within institutions.

The State has a responsibility to survivors. The medical card provided for in the Bill has been clearly described as inadequate by survivors and their families. It should not be acceptable that people who were treated grossly in their earlier life are impoverished and continue to suffer in their later life because of the cost of meeting their healthcare needs. In many cases, the origins of their health issues are very much known.

Every time we raise the issue of access to the HAA card, we are told it was done for one scheme and is not standard practice for other schemes. There is a reason access to the card is continually referenced. We have highlighted some of the very poor choices that were made in regard to redress across multiple different schemes.One of the moments when a good choice was made was the decision for some to get access to that enhanced medical card. I do not know why we would not extend that. We know that was welcomed and was seen a recognition of the reality of people's physical situations, their mental situations and the challenges they were facing in their lives. Why not extend it? Why not look to bringing the HAA card to wider grouping given, I would say, the comparatively low cost but the very significant difference to the lives of many people affected and, indeed, the signal it would send when something that survivors themselves have called for was granted?

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

We did hear last week that the Health (Amendment) Act card was originally designed for hepatitis survivors and that, in the instance of survivors of institutional abuse, they might not have the same medical needs. We have heard reports and I went back and had a discussion with people and that is simply is not the case. Many survivors have both physical and long-term mental health conditions as a direct consequence of their time in these institutions. We are systemically failing them if we fail to provide this. A lot of them are already older, much older, so they might have a medical card. Having the HAA one will make all the difference, and that is why it is so critical. I lend my support to what Senator Higgins said. This is about survivors getting their needs met, their health needs that only exist as a consequence of the abuse they received in these institutions in the first place.

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

I thank the Senators. While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, it is the case and it is for the reasons outlined and for those specific health reasons that the HAA card was provided to those who contracted hepatitis C, to ensure that those who had essentially life-threatening conditions would be supported through that card. I appreciate the card that is being proposed now does not include some of what was in the other. It does not include some of the complementary therapies nor does it include the access to the appointments at perhaps the same rate, but they were specific to the types of consultants and types of expertise that were needed within a particular timeframe and period. It was specific to that group of people. Any of the other schemes we have administered, be it the mother and baby homes, the Magdalen laundries or the medical card we are proposing here, have been in line with what is being proposed here and I do not propose to move away from that. I acknowledge the Senator's reasons behind this - I really do - but it is important we acknowledge the reasons that specific enhanced card was put in place. That is why I cannot accept this amendment.

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

This is a rare instance where we have an example of something that could be best practice, that maybe could be an example for other countries and other places which are dealing with the litany of residential and non-residential institutional abuse. We have something which Ireland wrote: here is an enhanced card. We have gone to the trouble of looking into the details and figuring out how we can really support you, and not just in terms of a standard medical card because we recognise that yours is not a standard situation, that you have had particular experiences. What I am hearing from the Minister is, we are going with what we did before in terms of the mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries. In each of those there have been calls for something like the enhanced medical card. It is something that people said is good. It shows the State is listening, that it is looking at the lives of the people affected and asking what will really help them, not just what is an already existing bar in our charts so that we can add them in to the standardised medical card, and that we have created something that will actually acknowledge that people have had usual and bad experiences at the hands of the State. It is a pity.The Minister is leaning back to us doing the standard practice rather than the good practice. That is an opportunity missed, not just in terms of this scheme but also in terms of trying to set the bar for better practice moving forward in all of the other ways we have talked about. I think it is really regrettable, so I will press the amendment.