I have no difficulty with the technical amendments, but I will use my time now and at the end of the debate to say that I am most unhappy with the Bill. I cannot support it in its present form. The Minister said she is responding to the needs of survivors. We have a special advocate, and when that special advocate was appointed there was a press release which stated the Government would value and listen to survivors. I will refer to a little part of that press release. It stated the role of the special advocate would be to promote the collective interests of survivors, as expressed by them, and to amplify their voices. It went on to say how important the role was and that the appointment of a special advocate for survivors fulfilled a core commitment in the Government's action plan, which recognised that the response of the Government to the legacy of these institutions must be directly informed by the voices of those centrally affected. I say, reluctantly, that this was empty rhetoric. This was the start and end of the story. The special advocate wrote to all of us and to the Minister on 25 May, setting out clearly what is not in the Bill and what, after the consultation process, should have been in the Bill. It is worth noting the scepticism with which survivors met the consultation process but they still gave it their trust. Despite initial scepticism about the purposes of the scoping exercise, survivors and their advocates were very clear on what the ageing population of survivors need and want in Ireland and the UK, not only for themselves but for all survivors. They do not want talks about talks. This directly bears to the amendments and the legislation going through the House. It was very good the Government put the advocate in place but what does she tell us? She says there should be inclusion of all survivors, a very limited number of whom are still alive. Most of them are aged over 70 and 80; we have all of the percentages. The advocate asks for access for all. At present the Bill is limited to those who previously received redress under the Residential Institutions Redress Act. A significant number of survivors, including those living overseas, in prisons and in other institutions, were not aware of or were unable to apply for redress. They are all excluded. Giving the ageing survivor population, it is unfair and exclusionary to further discriminate. When I speak again I will speak about this discrimination and the harm the Government keeps perpetuating in the guise of fair procedure. Scheme after scheme, other than the scheme directly run by the Department of Education which I will come back to, every one has been unfair and discriminatory. I will not read out all of what the special advocate says as I do not need to, but she states the Bill should refer to any person who was resident in an institution specified in the Schedule of the redress Act 2002. That is not too much to ask. I would be asking for more but that is what is being asked for. Then we go on to housing needs. The special advocate proposes a novel, innovative and cost-neutral initiative. I do not know whether she is being ironic. Imagine, to reassure the Minister she is describing as novel, innovative and cost-neutral the request that survivors be given additional weighting on the social housing waiting list. It is something as simple as that. The health service has been mentioned already. Let us stop calling it an enhanced medical card. The survivors are asking for the HAA card, introduced in legislation for another vulnerable group. The special advocate states that in her role she has spoken to more than 1,200 survivors and affected persons. She states the very limited and less-than-effective impact of the proposed enhanced card has been consistently raised over the past 12 months by the Magdalen survivors and those receiving the medical card under the mother and baby homes scheme. That is another unjust discriminatory scheme. The HAA card is the required card for all institutional abuse survivors, as it guarantees their rights to full and speedy access to health provisions and support for an ageing and marginalised group. May I say, they are marginalised by what was done to them by the State. Often they are vulnerable groups. With regard to the health needs of those overseas, they ask specifically that the payment to them be increased to at least €10,000. We have tabled amendments for a figure higher than that. All of my amendments have been ruled out of order. I have tried to work the parliamentary system but all of my amendments were ruled out of order. The Department of Education commissioned a report in 2019. It was published and utterly ignored. The special advocate refers to this report. In the final report the top two priority issues for survivors were a request for the HAA card and prioritisation of housing needs of survivors. Neither of these two requests, nor the other requests, have been included. I speak as somebody with personal and professional experience of institutions. I have watched 22 years of apologies and there has been more than 100 years of institutionalisation. I will come back to this. Each scheme has been defective. The Magdalen scheme led to the Ombudsman absolutely castigating its discriminatory nature and maladministration. We are here today doing the exact same thing, telling survivors we have listened to them and then absolutely ignoring them, and ignoring the special advocate the Minister put in place to tell us what survivors want, all to save a few euro. It would have been much simpler all along just to give a payment to every survivor and their families in terms of education.

Sentiment score: 0.05

I will speak specifically on the amendment but first, regarding what the Deputy Ó Muirí just said, the Ombudsman's report on the Magdalen scheme was utterly scathing. It is worth reading what was said. While I am not going to read it again, it was utterly scathing of the way the scheme was administered. Prior to that, Mr. Justice Quirke, a High Court judge, had recommended that the special medical card be given to the Magdalen survivors. That was not done either. On the amendment, I had not spotted the issue but I am glad the Deputy raised it. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the matter. As it reads, I do not know whether it is good or bad. If I read it one way, it is a good amendment in the sense that it seems to be opening up possibilities by changing the assessments of need on behalf of the Health Service Executive and taking out the reference to who specifically will do it. Why is that necessary? Does the Minister wish to broaden it out to allow other people to carry out the assessment? The Minister might clarify and explain this further.

Sentiment score: 0.24

Can I speak on this? I was not sure what the format was. I want to support any Bill that gives supports to survivors. I am now in a dilemma as I cannot support this Bill. I will outline why this is the case. I will go back over 22 years of apologies. As usual, I thank the staff in the library for their wonderful work setting this out. I recommend it to any new TD. The library can set out the whole background to a topic. I have been here for some of that background. I am no expert but, I repeat, I have both personal and professional experience. The Minister says that other schemes have done this and we are staying with the other schemes. All of the other schemes have been found to be badly defective in many ways. Let us start with the apologies. We have had 22 years of apologies. It is very important to remind people of this. The Government says things like "We are doing this and it is very important that we put it through for the survivors". Nothing was to happen like this without the survivors being involved. Despite the scepticism of the survivors, the special advocate, on their behalf, produced a report, as I have said already. I am allergic to repetition, but it is really important. This was the scheme that was going to be different. In this scheme, we were going to listen to the survivors and the advocate and have an inclusive scheme, because that is what they asked for. Really, in the scheme of things, it is very limited. I accept the Minister's bona fides but I cannot accept what she is saying, because the system is failing to learn. It is just perpetuating the injustice over and over again to save a few pennies. I find that unacceptable. Let us look at the apologies. In 1999, this apology did not come from a proactive Government but rather from some of the work by Mary Raftery and Donal O'Flaherty subsequently, in the book States of Fear, and all the other books and documentaries. Finally, in 1999, we got an apology, after a century and more of incarceration. In May 1999, the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern apologised on behalf of the State to survivors of child abuse in institutions. Following that, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was set up. This was chaired by Mr. Justice Seán Ryan. He published his report in 2009. I will read out what he said. It is really important because we forget: ... an outdated system enabled by the funding model. The system of funding through capitation grants led to demands by Managers for children to be committed to Industrial Schools for reasons of economic viability of the institutions. This was not for the children's sake but for the economic viability of the schools. Mr. Justice Ryan mentioned a fundamentally flawed system of inspection by the Government. He also noted that the Department of Education's deferential and submissive attitude towards the religious congregations compromised its ability to fulfil its statutory duty of inspection. He noted that the inspectors lacked the power to insist on changes. I will not read it all out but it is on page 16 in the digest. It is worth reading the summary. Mr. Justice Ryan went on to note a systemic use of corporal punishment and a climate of fear created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most institutions and all of those run for boys. Complaints to the Department were not properly investigated. Mr. Justice Ryan noted that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and referred to predatory sexual abuse against girls. I have difficulty reading the fact that sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions but I have a duty to read it out. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions and I will come back to the religious orders that have failed to live up to their responsibilities. Sexual abuse was not systemic in girls' institutions but they were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees, visitors and in outside placements, which we have not dealt with at all. The report noted that sexual abuse by religious staff tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures of canon law. Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions that the Department of Education was informed, it colluded in the silence; it colluded in the abuse of innocent children. All children are innocent. This is the Ryan report. Prior to that, we were fully aware of what was going on because we were told. Fr. Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town, back in the mid-20th century was disgusted by what was going on and set it out. We had the Kennedy report in the 1970s and the Cussen report in the 1930s. We knew what was going on. If we go forward from the apology in 1999, we got more apologies. We got an apology for the mother and baby homes and we got an apology for the Magdalen laundries. The UN committee said that the apologies were good but were undermined by subsequent actions of the Government and subsequent schemes. We look at them and ask what schemes were set up. As regards the 15,000 survivors of the redress scheme, I was there in a professional capacity. It remains a crime for me to say what the settlement was. It remains a crime for the person who got an award to say so. That is what we did in the 20th and 21st centuries. We are making it a crime to disclose. Survivors were subjected to an adversarial system. They were subjected to letters coming from religious orders that did not have the courage to turn up but sent their legal teams in with a letter. That letter was put to the applicants by way of cross-examination, with nobody there to assist them. That is what happened with the redress scheme. In all of this consultation, survivors and their families tell us that it was more abuse. We are now putting a scheme through based on that utterly flawed system. If we move to the Magdalen laundries legislation, we can see that, if nothing else, it sets out clearly that the Government and the State had a duty to inspect and they did not do so. Then a scheme was set up. We asked Mr. Justice Quirke to set out the criteria for the scheme. One of the things he said was that, at the very least, those involved should get the Health (Amendment) Act medical card, but that did not happen. Subsequently, it was found that quite a number of women and institutions had been left out. Those women had to fight the whole way to the High Court. The Ombudsman issued a damning report on the scheme the Government had gone to all the trouble to ask Mr. Justice Quirke about. Although he set out clearly what should happen, what he said was ignored. Then we go forward to the report on the mother and baby homes, which the Government got in October 2020 but did not disclose until the following January. It was only afterwards that the Government told survivors on a Zoom call what was in the report. The narrative was shaped, just like the executive summary. I am using the time available because this might be the last time I get a chance to speak on this subject. It is extremely important to put this on the record now in a new Dáil with many new TDs. There is a whole background to this Bill. The Government has never been proactive in coming forward, despite its apologies. The report on the mother and baby homes was not made public until January 2021, after the Zoom call to which I referred. I remember speaking about it in the convention centre. I did my best to read the executive summary over an afternoon and a night with the help of my staff. It turns out that I was the only TD who got a copy of it. I stood up the following day thinking all TDs had it. We had a discussion on the mother and baby homes report without anyone but me having it. I pay tribute to the researchers who did the work in respect of the report. The executive summary, with its particular narrative, is appalling. Nothing was learned. One good scheme was set up by the Department of Education. The latter provided limited funds of €12 million, which quickly ran out. The €12 million came from two tranches of money from the religious orders. I will come back to that. I have heard no complaint about the Department of Education in regard to that scheme. It gave money to provide some redress and to help people return to education, but it also did it for the children, grandchildren and stepchildren. That element is completely absent from this legislation. We did not learn from the good schemes and we continue to perpetuate the bad schemes. We can fast forward to Caranua, which means new friend, but really it was the old enemy in disguise. I have said that about five times now in different speeches. Its board was set up without proper regulation. In fact, the CEO went out on paid leave because of something she said that I will not repeat. Her comments about survivors indicate that she was clearly not fit for the job. The comments she made were absolutely appalling. The sum of €15,000 was given out. Then, in the middle of the scheme, Caranua felt it was running out of money and stopped the payments. There were arguments over white fridges and so on. The point I make is that Caranua was defective, just like the Magdalen scheme had been defective. Before I finish, I wish to refer to the religious orders. After the apology and the Ryan report, some of the findings of which I read out, the religious orders were forced to give €128 million. In return, they were given an indemnity. They never had to worry again about a single case being taken against them because the State gave them an indemnity. The €12 million for the superb education fund was taken out of the €128 million. The only drawback was that the amount involved was limited to €12 million. The finding of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that the Government paid a total of €1.25 billion for redress. If we fast forward to 2009 when the Ryan report was published, some of the religious orders were embarrassed to come forward again. The Christian Brothers reneged on it. The religious orders gave another €125 million or thereabouts. That is all that has ever been given. The previous Government told us that it had a negotiator talking to the religious orders to see if they would make further contributions. That has not been mentioned here today. The religious orders have not come forward at all. They have got away with holy murder. I have never blamed the religious orders because successive Governments and politicians colluded. The middle classes benefited from workers from the Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. There is blame on the religious orders, who have a higher duty, because they practice Christianity. They were forced to come forward through being given an indemnity. Can one imagine that? If we fast forward, they then gave €125 million. We have survivors struggling and then we bring in the mother and baby homes redress scheme, but we exclude all babies under six months on the basis that babies under six months do not feel or see anything – they are a tabula rasa. One can let one's baby cry. More than 20 psychotherapists wrote to the previous Minister and Government asking them not to do this because it was arbitrary. That is all on file. They asked the Government to please not exclude babies under six months because the first six months of life are fundamental to child development. The scheme ignored the advice on babies under six months, as well as ignoring all those who were boarded out and those who suffered because they were of mixed race. That was the mother and baby homes redress, and this is the latest one. We ignored the survivors, the special advocate and the women and men who came forward and put aside their disbelief and scepticism for one last chance for the system to listen to them. In the overall scheme of things, we are talking about a limited number of people. We should give them reassurance that they will not end up in institutions again, because I know the fear they have of ending up again in an institution in older life. It is devastating for survivors that they would ever again be under the control of officials or those in power. I do not think it is that hard. We have put aside billions. We have apologised repeatedly, yet we keep bringing up defective schemes for survivors, to which we are supposed to give the thumbs-up. I accept the Minister's bona fides but, as a mother and a woman, I question that a mother and baby homes scheme would be brought in on an arbitrary basis to save money, particularly as the Department said money needed to be saved following the numbers that were crunched. The religious orders got away with holy murder – forgive the use of bad words – while their assets increase in value all the time. It is too late to appeal to the Minister not to put this Bill through, but those are my reasons for not being able to support it. She might address the consultation process we set up when we put in place a special advocate who had a very special background that gave her great understanding in all the roles she has played. She set out clearly what is to be done. The Minister and the Department ignored that, however, all to save a few pence. I cannot support the Bill.

Sentiment score: -0.05