I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 10, after “Education” to insert “and Youth”. I will speak broadly as I know this is the first time the Bill has been back in the House with this Government and this is the first time I am taking it as Minister. I am pleased to be before the House to progress Report Stage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. The Government is deeply conscious of the trauma that has been experienced by all survivors of abuse, including those who were resident in institutions such as industrial schools and reformatories. Nothing can ever make up for the pain and suffering endured by survivors. As Deputies will be aware, in June 2023 the Government approved the provision of a package of supports and services for survivors of abuse in residential institutions, comprising a number of elements relating to health, education, advocacy and trauma informed practice. This marks a new phase of the State providing ongoing supports to survivors and builds on the response to this issue to date, which has involved expenditure of approximately €1.5 billion, including direct payments and support to survivors totalling €1.1 billion. The Bill has two main purposes: to enable the delivery of ongoing health and education supports to survivors of abuse in residential institutions such as industrial schools and reformatories; and to provide for the dissolution of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, also known as Caranua. The development of the new package of supports was by consideration of reports of the survivor-led consultative forum, along with other relevant reports and submissions. Subject to the completion of Report and Final Stages in the House, it is my intention to progress the passage of the Bill through the Seanad in the coming weeks to enable the delivery to survivors of the health and education supports outlined in the Bill. It is intended that access to the education support and health supports payments for former residents who were resident outside of the State will be available from 1 August this year. The roll-out of the health supports for those resident in Ireland will be in the third quarter of this year, following consultation with the Minister for Health and HSE. The subsequent amendments are technical amendments, the purpose of which is to amend the Bill to reflect the change to ministerial responsibilities which have recently taken place. Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 20 replace the term "Minister for Education" with the term "Minister for Education and Youth". Amendment No. 2 replaces a reference to the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with a reference to the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality.
Sentiment score: 0.01
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. There is nothing we can say or do that will change what happened to so many young people. That is not what we are trying to do here at all. With the introduction of a redress scheme when parameters are put in place, the challenge is that someone will always be outside them. It is difficult, whether we are talking about this particular scheme or the mother and baby homes or Magdalen laundries schemes, to have an open-ended scheme. Parameters have to be set to make sure the redress gets to those who are entitled to it or who are within the parameters set and agreed by the Government and the Houses. I appreciate there are people outside the scheme who have not got anything along the way, but those parameters were put in place a number of years ago. Those who received settlements from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or similarly court settlements are the people we are discussing today and those who will be in receipt of the various elements provided for in this Bill. Some 15,600 survivors received that redress. It was open from 2002 to 2011, which was quite a long period. I appreciate that some people might have moved abroad and might not have been aware of it, but every effort was made to try to ensure people were aware of the scheme, could partake of it and engage with it at different stages. This Bill is linked to that and the Residential Institutions Redress Board scheme is closed. It is therefore not open for anyone new to come under this Bill. On the ethos, it has been made clear to me that there is no issue of ethos or any suggestion that one particular ethos was excluded or not. The Deputy mentioned the Bethany Home and the Westbank Orphanage, but a number of other Protestant ethos institutions were included in the scope. Religious ethos was certainly not a factor in deciding which homes were chosen. On the health supports, it is not to exclude. The role of the representative and the advocate was to make sure survivors' voices were heard, but it is also important that we do not have a hierarchy or levels of survivors between those who survived Magdalen laundries or the mother and baby homes and the survivors we are discussing here. Therefore, the health supports provided are in line with other schemes for survivors who went through traumatic experiences as children or young people. The HAA card was only provided to one group, which was a group of people with significant health needs. It was a particular group of individuals who had contracted a serious and life-threatening illness. It was under the hepatitis C scheme. No one else has received the HAA card. I am not saying it is an advanced or any other type of medical card. It is a medical card that sets out exactly what it provides to those individuals. For me what is important is that they get it. Until this Bill is passed, they will not have access to it, nor to the educational supports or any other element of the Bill. It is therefore important to me that this legislation is passed and the people we are talking about can have access to these supports. The educational supports are in line. I acknowledge we need to support those who were in the institutions. I know it is not in line with it, but I wanted to come back on some of the points on the commitments and funding. Funding came from two separate strands. One was the legally binding agreement and the other was a voluntary offer. Both of the funding streams have finished, but that is not to say there are not other ways in or times at which we should be engaging with institutions on other types of abuse. There may be other redress that needs to be sought as well. We certainly need to keep that open. Overall, I appreciate colleagues' engagement with this. The most important thing here is that we make sure those who are entitled to these supports receive them as quickly as possible.
Sentiment score: 0.18
I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, lines 27 and 28, to delete “Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth” and substitute “Minister for Children, Disability and Equality”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, line 15, after “Education” to insert “and Youth”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, lines 12 and 13, to delete “by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse” and substitute “on behalf of the Executive”. This is a technical amendment to section 4. It was raised on Committee Stage by the Minister, Deputy Foley. Section 4(1)(d) currently provides for the provision of a home help service following an assessment of needs made by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. Assessments of need for the HSE home support service may be carried out by a wide range of health professionals, however, including public health nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The purpose of this amendment is to simply reflect the manner in which such assessments are carried out by the HSE and to ensure this is incorporated in the section and that it is understood that the assessment of need can be carried out by different individuals in the HSE and health service, rather than just one specific group.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I thank the Deputies. To clarify, it is for exactly that reason that this amendment is being made. It is to ensure it is not so narrow that it would exclude other practitioners who could make these recommendations. It is not to make it more difficult but to make it broader - I will not say easier as it is never easy - by allowing more medical practitioners within the HSE to make these recommendations and an assessment of need. To the Deputy's point on the Coventry Irish centre, I am aware of the fabulous work it does. I will raise the issue with my colleagues, whether that be the investment made in these types of centres through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or other types of funding. We need to look at ways in which we can support our Irish abroad, particularly where they are providing a service for people who might have left at a very difficult time and maybe do not have the close network that others would have at home. Because others have mentioned it, I want to acknowledge the work of Sage Advocacy. It does unbelievable work in dealing, not just with the survivors we are mentioning here, but in so many other spaces as well. I know it has been engaged on this legislation. I appreciate that Deputies feel that we are not going far enough here but it is important that we get this Bill across the line. This will allow the payment for education this coming August and the medical card and other elements to be provided as quickly as possible.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I move amendment No. 20: In page 15, after 11, to insert "and Youth".
Sentiment score: -0.15
I thank the Deputies. A number of points were raised. The criteria that were agreed previously for the redress board focused on the abuse that was suffered within the institutions as opposed to those who were in the institutions. Deputies might say that, irrespective of this, someone was in an institution and suffered abuse, and I do not dispute that. However, what we have here has the same parameters and is what had been agreed, that is, it referred to those who received redress in the previous scheme. That is what we are acknowledging here. As I said at the outset, I appreciate that the minute we put parameters around any type of redress scheme, there will be somebody outside of it. However, if it is an open-ended scheme, not just for this but for any other type of scheme, it is an even greater challenge to ensure it gets to those who need it most. I do not for a second disregard what the Deputies have said, in particular Deputy Connolly, for whom, as she said, this is very personal. What happened to so many people across so many different institutions in so many different ways was and is a blight on our history, and it is nothing that we will ever be able to change, just as we cannot change what happened to so many others. I have listened to what was said. In terms of housing in particular, it is very important that we work with the local authorities. As far as I am concerned, given my engagement with them, they take into consideration the individual circumstances of individuals, so it is not just somebody who might be part of this scheme but somebody who might be part of another scheme or might have had abuse in the past, be it through Magdalen, the mother and baby homes or any other type of abuse. They take into consideration the personal circumstances of the individual insofar as possible. Our overall objective is to make sure that nobody is left without a home and nobody is put in that position. I do not think that is going to change following our discussion here today. Local authorities are very mindful of the individual circumstances people find themselves in. What we have tried to do, and what my predecessor did is reflected here also, is to take on board everything that has been said by victims, by survivors and by the rapporteur. I appreciate it does not go to the same lengths as some of the individual proposals, whether in regard to the medical card, the threshold or the individual figure that has been provided either to those abroad or regarding support from an educational perspective. However, it is reflective of the individual asks, whether on health, education or other areas. I acknowledge and appreciate it is not to the level or extent that some of the survivors had hoped or asked for. As I said at the outset, it is important that we pass the legislation to ensure survivors can access this and support it. I agree with Deputy Connolly. I am not saying that what happened in the past and the schemes that were put in place worked well or effectively, or that they were not overly complex for people to apply for. We need to learn from what we are doing and try to improve every step of the way. I am not saying everything here is perfect but I certainly think we have learned over time and we are better at engaging. I accept that is not going to change what has happened. Ultimately, it is not going to erase what is, as I said, a blight on much of our history over the past 100 years or so.
Sentiment score: 0.18