Vol. 1027 No. 6
94. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the assistance that he can provide to a service (details supplied) that is currently operating out of a club; if he will provide assistance to the service manager to draw down funding to expand this vital community service and provide much-needed places in the local area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50610/22]
My question relates to a community childcare provider in Kilkenny city. Unusually for a community facility, it is located in two private houses that it rents. The property was converted some years ago, so it is purpose-built in that sense. It is unusual, however, in terms of the rent that the provider is paying, unlike many other community facilities. It has an overspill into a local GAA club at the moment to try to provide an afterschool service. I will expand on this in the next round.
Ensuring high quality early learning and childcare is accessible and affordable is a key priority for me and there are a number of funding programmes available through my Department that seek to improve capacity which will be open to the Village Childcare and Community Services.
The new core funding scheme has a range of objectives, and that includes capacity growth. Although the scheme has only been in place since 15 September, initial analysis shows there has been a significant growth in capacity, with particular capacity growth for cohorts where it is needed, such as baby rooms and toddler rooms. To meet the cost of this capacity growth, I recently announced that the original allocation of core funding will be increased to €259 million for year 1 of the scheme. In addition, the full value of the core funding will be increased by €28 million, to €287 million, in year 2 of the scheme. Funding earmarked for the scheme in year 2 will be informed by the emerging data from year 1 and may focus on promoting further capacity expansion.
In addition, my Department secured €70 million under the revised national development plan for the building blocks capital programme, which is being designed to meet current and long-term early learning and childcare infrastructure needs. This programme has three pillars. The first is a €10 million modernisation grant to improve energy efficiency standards while also supporting the continuous improvement of the physical environment of services. The second pillar, which is probably the major one, is a €45 million capacity grant to address capacity gaps to fund an expansion in existing services and invest in the development of new services where most needed. Finally, there is a €15 million innovation grant to pilot a range of innovative initiatives such as outdoor early learning and childcare services. Pillar 1, the modernisation grant, will open for applications later this year. Pillars 2 and 3 will be open for applications from next year on.
As regards the Village Childcare and Community Services in particular, if it wishes to undertake modernisation of its buildings, it can seek a modernisation grant under the scheme which will be open from this year. The more substantial capacity expansion funding will be available from next year to it and all other services.
As I said, the service is an unusual situation as it does not own the building. The modernisation grant would be fine but, at the same time, it is sort of like when one is renting a house - one is putting work into something one will never own. I am interested in the second pillar, however, comprising €45 million in funding. That might be relevant to the provider. Will that funding be available from 2023? How does a provider go about accessing it? It is often the case when people come to a Deputy regarding a wish to expand or open a facility that one does not know where to start or to whom the person should speak. The service in question is already operating under the community model and does incredible work. It has expanded onto the grounds of the local GAA club - in fairness to James Stephens GAA Club, it has give the provider the use of its facilities - because it had around 100 kids waiting for a place in afterschool care. It was able to facilitate a significant number of those kids because of the expansion. It collects the children from school. It is a unique and valuable service and it is really valuable. The crux of my question is whether there is a way for it to apply for funding to get a vacant building?
We announced the €10 million modernisation scheme approximately one month ago. The best thing the provider could do is to engage with the Kilkenny County Childcare Committee with regard to making an application under that scheme. I understand what the Deputy is saying. Many community providers do not own their facility. Many community facilities are located in rented accommodation. I certainly will bear that in mind in designing the scheme for the capacity expansion grant, which is the larger grant scheme. I hope to open that later next year and funding will be then available. Previously, the Department had not done significant capital investment. It had a couple of million each year but now we have far more in the national development plan, NDP, which is positive, and we have to build up our capacity to get that money out to services. We will be getting many applications in, judging which are the best applications and targeting, particularly to the areas where we need expanded capacity.
The provider services a significant number of schools in the city area, particularly in the context of the collection service for afterschool care. That is invaluable for parents. I often wish I could have availed of that service at times. One never knows at what time one will be leaving the Dáil, however, so it is definitely not going to be suitable for me. It is such a great service that it offers for people. It is brilliant for the kids as well because there are lots of activities, as well as a bit of help with homework, and food is provided. It is ticking all the boxes.
I note the Minister stated that the scheme will be available from late 2023, possibly into 2024. Will it realistically be a scheme to which people can apply to purchase a building or is it more aimed at upgrading works? I am trying to find out because the provider has two houses at the moment and operates from the grounds of a GAA club and has such a level of demand that it could provide services for far more children if it had the space to do so. Can it apply to the scheme for funding to get a vacant building? Is that the right fund for the provider?
The modernisation fund which has been opened up already is not the right fund and is just for the modernisation and upgrading of their existing buildings but the capacity expansion scheme is about bringing new services online. We are still working on the criteria for it but it is certainly my desire that we want and need new capacity and we want services to expand.
It is interesting that the core funding that we brought in has already started to deliver expanded capacity and our focus in our debates here was very much about better wages for staff but it is also about increasing the capacity. I will be answering a couple of questions later on during which I will address that issue.
One more point on the capacity issue is in respect of the planning laws where we need to make planning regulations which are linked so that when 75 units of housing are built, a childcare facility is built. That is there at the moment but it is not delivering in many places. I have been engaging with local authorities to try to get the on-the-ground experience and we will also be engaging with housing to tighten up those regulations so that they deliver.
95. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the reason that the Government has not ratified the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which would provide a mechanism for people to challenge when their rights are not being upheld; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51023/22]
97. Deputy Verona Murphy asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth if he will provide an update on the position of the Government to ratify the optional protocol of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which would allow people with disabilities to take a case to the United Nations over violation of their rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50741/22]
Deputy Seán Canney is substituting for Deputy Verona Murphy.
The other evening in the debate around disability services, the Minister said on the optional protocol under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that ratification of the protocol is being scoped out and considered. Some seven years after we signed this protocol we are scoping out and considering. I find that to be an incredible answer to that question and I ask him please to explain what exactly he is going to do about this.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 95 and 97 together.
Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, on 20 March 2018. This marked an important milestone in the process to strengthen the rights of people with disabilities in Ireland and has gathered momentum since Ireland became a signatory to the convention in 2007. Ireland’s approach to meeting the obligations of the UNCRPD is one of continuous advancements each year moving forward on key reforms to strengthen consistently and uphold obligations and the rights arising from the convention. I recognise the importance of the optional protocol to the UNCRPD. As the Deputies will be aware, the optional protocol is an international treaty which establishes procedures on the strengthening of the implementation and monitoring of the convention. Ratification of the optional protocol is a commitment in the programme for Government and the timeline for ratification was intended to follow the conclusion of the State’s first review period before the UN committee. Due to the delays at UN level, I understand that Ireland’s appearance before the UN committee will now be delayed possibly for some time. In light of this, both the senior Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, and myself have indicated that we are open to earlier ratification, contingent on the State being in a position to meet its obligations thereunder. This reflects the State’s longstanding approach to entering into binding international obligations in good faith and at a point where the State is in a position to meet its obligations.
As Minister of State with responsibility for disability, I want to ensure that we are in a position to uphold all of our commitments under the UNCRPD once the optional protocol is ratified. In that regard, the commencement of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 is required before ratification can occur and for closer alignment with the convention. It is intended that the important legal reform will be in place once the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill is passed into law. This Bill has completed Committee Stage and we look forward to working with all Members to pass this legislation as expeditiously as possible.
In addition to the passage of the Bill, my Department is in the process of scoping what other requirements there might be before ratification can occur. If any further requirements for ratification are identified, these will be addressed as a matter of priority.
Addressing Deputy Smith directly, the basis of her question is on the scoping that is going on, which is to ensure that all Departments are in a position to ensure that the optional protocol can be enacted as quickly as possible. This is why the scoping is going on at the moment.
Can I ask the Acting Chairman the arrangements for these questions as we are sharing time?
Deputy Smith will speak for one minute, with a response from the Minister of State, followed by Deputy Canney for a further minute, and a response from the Minister of State, returning then to Deputy Smith. Each Deputy then will be given two minutes each in total.
I thank the Acting Chairman. I do not know what the Minister of State’s view is on this and I am aware that she was not the Minister of State back in 2015 when the UN treaty was ratified, but I find it extraordinary that after seven years, we are still at the point of scoping and of looking at what else needs to be done. If the Minister of State finds it extraordinary or unacceptable, please say so. She is the Minister of State for the Department and if she does not say so, we are going to assume that she thinks that this is okay.
Somebody, for example, who was perhaps seven years of age in 2015, is now 14 and suffers from severe disabilities and is not getting the attention that he or she needs from the State and does not have the right to go outside of the State to make a complaint. That is what a member of the UN committee on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said. I mentioned this the other night in my contribution on the rights of people with disabilities. Mr. Markus Schefer said at the Joint Committee on Disability Matters here that not ratifying the optional protocol has the optics that the Government does not really have confidence in its own system. The Minister of State has more or less said that now in a different way. Mr. Schefer maintained and told the Oireachtas Committee on Disability Matters in 2021 that the Government needs to move on and ratify the protocol. He did not say that the delay was with the UN. I do not understand why the Government is putting this delay back on the UN committee.
I will respond to the Deputy. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act and the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill are very good examples of why we are doing this. This Act was passed in 2015. I was not here at that time but I still do not understand why that Act was not implemented and in the seven years since, wardship, which is entirely in breach of the principles of the UNCRPD, has continued to exist and people have continued to be wards of court. We know that if we signed up to the UN optional protocol, we would be immediately found in breach of the convention because wardship is so against the UNCRPD, so we are working to resolve the breaches in those key pieces of legislation, where we are in breach.
That is why we have been working very hard to get the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill through. It is going on Report Stage in the Seanad now. Remember, by doing that, we are actually making lives better for people with disabilities. Because we are looking to get ourselves into compliance, something like wardship is finally going to be abolished.
For clarification, I have just come from the meeting of the Committee on Disability Matters, where we discussed mental health reform and advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities and mental health. One of the issues which came from that meeting and continues to come from many of the meetings we have in this committee is that people talk about doing something into the future, or that there is a pipeline of things to be done. As somebody said this morning, that pipeline seems to get diverted and it seems to go into the ether. The feeling is that we are not implementing the optional protocol on the basis that the services that we are delivering are not fit for purpose for the particular protocol and that we have to get our ducks in line first before we do that. From what I heard this morning, I also understand there is a pull between mental health and disabilities in respect of funding and as to who is responsible for what. At the end of the day we have 1,300-plus people living in long-term residential care under 65 years of age who should not be there.
We have other issues such as wardship, as the Minister mentioned. I understand that legislation and things have to be teed up but it is taking a hell of a long time. People are getting frustrated and believe that perhaps the Government is hiding behind this legislation that is not in place. Could we get reassurance on that point, please?
I fully understand why there is frustration out there on the delivery of services but also frustration on the legislative process. That is why myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, have put a great deal of focus on the assisted decision-making capacity legislation in respect of such legislation which falls directly within the remit of our Department. We were accused then of rushing this legislation on one side when we brought it to the Dáil. We slowed things down because people raised issues and we have addressed some of those in respect of amendments here and in the Seanad also. We have also found that some of the issues in that legislation are linked to mental health, which the Deputy raised, and the legislative solutions fall in different Departments.
That is why we are referring back to the scoping exercise that the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, was talking about. Not all of the solutions to this lie in our Department. We have to work with colleagues in other Departments to make sure they are putting the same priority into amending legislation that will allow us to be fully UNCRPD-compliant and advance our signing up to the optional protocol.
I am looking back on the record of the debate around this and see it has been going on since 2015. When former Deputy Finian McGrath was Minister of State, he made the same commitment in 2018 that the Minister is making here today. That is four years ago. Four years might not seem a long time to a Deputy or a Minister, but it is a long time in the life of somebody who has to live with a crippling and often crucifyingly painful disability, and who is not getting the services that the State should be obliged to give them. They have no redress and no recourse to come back on the State or the Department if they suffer, but the Minister and previous Ministers have told us that they are working hard on it and have promised they are going to deliver on it. Seven years on from 2015, it still has not moved forward. I find that unacceptable. The people who need access to this optional protocol, who need the mechanism to be able to call the State to account, must find it excruciating. Both the Minister and the Minister of State sit there patiently and say they are overburdened with Civil Service work and that they have to get the Bill passed. There needs to be a feeling of urgency around this issue, once and for all.
There is urgency. We have prioritised the advancement of one really important piece of legislation that will allow us to move towards full compliance with the UNCRPD, namely, the assisted decision-making legislation. I absolutely share the Deputy’s frustration. As I said, I still do not fully understand how a law that was passed in 2015 has never been fully enacted. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and I are looking to bring forward the solution, which is this amending legislation which will make the relevant changes, simplify the processes, allow the decision support service to be established and allow us to have a situation where people who have some limitations with their capacity are supported to make decisions, rather than that incredibly Victorian notion of wardship, where basically all decisions, big or small, about such a person's life are put in the hands of a High Court judge. By making that change, not only are we legally compliant but we are making lives better for the thousands of people who are in wardship and will want those supports.
A good example is the need to ensure transport supports are there for people with disabilities and to deal with the mayhem around the primary medical certificate. Effectively, the appeals board dealing with the primary medical certificate resigned. The criteria by which the board members would judge somebody to be entitled to a primary medical certificate were deemed to be unfit for purpose and they resigned as they could not work with them. That happened a year ago but we still do not have an appeals mechanism and we still have the same criteria. People have come into my office who have been refused medical certificates and who I know need them, but they have no recourse. They do not want to know about legislation; they want that put in place. Putting the optional protocol in place will be the stick that will make the Government implement rights for people with disabilities, rather than waiting to have it right first. It will not be got right without a stick, and that stick is the optional protocol.
This is an issue that Deputy Canney raises continually, as do I. It is why I am chairing the transport committee, which operates right across all of the various Departments, to find those solutions. The Deputy is right that it is unacceptable that the board has not been put in place. It is unacceptable that the legislation takes such a narrow view that it cannot be worked within. We are hoping to have a board put in place as quickly as possible but also that the legislation will be amended to take into account that it is no longer just about a limb or half a limb, or a leg or half a leg. That is no longer acceptable as the view of a person with a disability. We have to look at all of the other factors concerning people with a disability and be far more inclusive when we are setting the criteria. That is what I expect to come out of the consultation that is taking place at this time within all the Departments. It is not just for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and is also for the Departments of Health, Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Transport; it is cross-Government and cross-Department. This is exactly the scoping piece that we talked about. It needs to be sorted out as soon as possible because these are the barriers that are in front of people. I do not find that acceptable and I am trying to find a solution.
96. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the support that his Department is giving in terms of personnel, expertise and resources to the Minister for Justice in order that she can fulfil her duties in regard to supporting victims of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51017/22]
This question is in regard to domestic violence, and I am aware that we touched on this issue yesterday in committee. What supports has the Department given in terms of personnel, expertise and resources to the Minister for Justice in order that she can fulfil her duties in regard to supporting victims of domestic violence?
As the Deputy knows, the Government has made it clear that addressing domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, is a key priority for us all. This involves a number of Departments working collaboratively, in particular my own Department and that of the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee. In that Department, many positive steps have been taken in the fight against domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, including the launch of Zero Tolerance, the third national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence and the push to establish a new agency under the remit of the Department of Justice to tackle such forms of violence.
My Department established a comprehensive tri-party memorandum of understanding, MoU, with Tusla and the Department of Justice. This MoU and related documents outline the various engagements, at all levels up to and including ministerial and CEO level, between the three bodies to help us to ensure the continued operation of DSGBV services through Tusla during this transition. With significant support from my Department and Tusla, the Department of Justice has engaged in an ambitious programme aiming to: first, establish a statutory DSGBV agency by January 2024 that will be under the remit of the Department of Justice; second, manage the transition to the new agency of the DSGBV services that are currently provided by Tusla; and third, progress the recommendations of the interdepartmental group on the provision of accommodation for victims of DSGBV during the transitional period and in advance of the establishment of the proposed agency. My Department and its officials are very much engaged in this process.
In terms of funding, the recent budget had many competing priorities within my Department. I specifically secured an additional €37 million for Tusla and am currently preparing the performance statement for the Tusla business plan for 2023. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, secured an additional €7 million for Tusla that is specifically for DSGBV services. It is a very significant amount of investment and there is also the Zero Tolerance strategy setting out how we are going to move to this agency and also move to a wider range of measures to tackle DSGBV in the country.
I am delighted to hear that. I referenced this in my reply to the budget speech, in particular in regard to what exactly was the extra funding. It is €7 million, which is very welcome. Is there a breakdown of the funding between refuge space and additional income for refuges such as, for example, the Amber refuge in Kilkenny, which I regularly mention and which the Minister, Deputy McEntee, visited a month ago. I always reference two parts to this, first, counselling and how important that is, and, second, the Zero Tolerance strategy, which is vital to all of this. We are never going to get to the end of why these situations keep happening unless, as a society, we look at this and adopt that kind of approach.
Over the previous two budgets, I had secured specific increases for Tusla directed specifically to DSGBV services. As the Deputy knows, the Government has made the decision that these services will move out of Tusla to the new agency. In advance of that, the Department of Justice has responsibility for that part of Tusla's operation and that is done through a memorandum of understanding. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, was very successful in securing €7 million to support those services. My understanding is that this is current funding, although I am open to correction. She is also working on a capital programme and, in particular, on better activating the capital assistance scheme, CAS, in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and making it easier for services to be able to access that.
We have found that it takes too long for a DSGBV NGO or an approved housing body to draw down that funding and deliver the new refuge service. A great deal of work has been done to simplify the process. The Minister for Justice has set out a plan for the much-needed development of new refuge spaces around the country.
I agree with much of the sentiment of the Minister's remarks, particularly around housing. Housing is the reason so many people stay in toxic relationships and keep living with domestic violence. Finding housing is difficult, particularly now. Where can people go? Even if they find somewhere to rent, which is nearly impossible, there can be other difficulties. For example, someone's name could be on a property, which is a complex issue. Getting accommodation depends on who they meet on the day and whether they are open to hearing the people's cases. It is good that this responsibility will rest with the Department of Justice - that is the correct Department for it - and that there will only be one agency.
I will briefly mention a fund provided by Safe Ireland that I only became aware of last year. It allows women to access many services, for example, if they need a fill of oil after finally finding somewhere to live. It is a community welfare-type payment. There is great demand for it and it has been successful. The Minister may not have an answer for me now, but could administering a similar fund be considered?
I do not have an answer about that fund, but the Minister for Justice works closely with NGOs, as I did when this matter fell within my remit. She listens to them and works to support their actions, expertise and knowledge on the ground.
Regarding the pressure on refuges, it is worth highlighting two measures, namely, the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, which we debated yesterday and will debate again today, and the new five days of paid domestic violence leave, which is an important support that recognises that the victims of DSGBV are also likely to fall into poverty. The paid leave provides them with some income support when they are moving or receiving services needed as a result of the violence they have experienced.
The Minister for Justice is examining how we can change laws to ensure that the victim remains in the house and it is the perpetrator who leaves. That is a priority for her.
98. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth the status of the development of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme Bill 2022; when the Bill will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50718/22]
Will the Minister update the House on the status of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme Bill? Forgive me if I am emotional, but also quite professional, on this matter. I have followed it at every level so far. I am asking my question in the hope that the Government has learned from the Ombudsman's report in 2017, which referred to a lost opportunity, and that we have learned from the cross-party recommendations, the OAK consultation process and many other documents.
I am acutely aware of the sense of urgency surrounding the establishment of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme and I am focused on delivering that scheme as soon as possible. On Tuesday, I brought the Bill providing for the payment scheme to the Government and obtained approval for its publication and presentation to the Houses later this month.
The scheme will provide financial payments and an enhanced medical card to eligible survivors in acknowledgement of suffering experienced while resident in mother and baby and county home institutions. Recognising the impact that mother and baby institutions had on much of Irish society, the scheme will be one of the largest of its kind in terms of the numbers expected to benefit. Some 34,000 survivors will be eligible for financial payments and 19,000 will be eligible for enhanced medical cards under the scheme. The scheme's overall value will be €800 million. All mothers who spent time in an institution and all children who spent six months or more in an institution will be eligible for a payment, with the amount increasing based on their length of stay. There will be an additional work-related payment for women who were resident in certain institutions for more than three months, while an enhanced medical card will be available to everyone who was resident in a mother and baby or county home institution for six months or more.
Recognising the importance of delivering this scheme for survivors, I hope to bring the Bill through both Houses swiftly. Subject to the legislation being passed and enacted and the administrative structures being established, the scheme will open for applications.
I will discuss two changes of significance in the Bill. We have banded the various payments so that an individual who was in an institution for five years and one month and another individual who was there for five years and 11 months will receive different payments in recognition of the longer time. Importantly, absences from an institution of less than 180 days will be discounted, recognising that those absences were often due to illnesses as a result of the stay in that particular institution.
I welcome that the legislation is to be published and will appear before the Dáil. I welcome the change to the bands as well as the changes regarding the absences. However, the Minister is persisting with a scheme that maintains the imbalance of power and the division and is coldly and calculatedly directed at reducing costs. The Minister is excluding the babies who were resident for less than six months, which is at odds with the committee's report and what was recommended by the experts - 34 clinicians who work in the area of childhood trauma - who contacted him. Childhood trauma, which includes separation from primary caregivers and being exported to multiple caregivers in an institutional setting, has the greatest impact early in childhood. Thus, to state that young children who might have been in mother and baby homes for a period of two to three months early in life are less impacted by those who spent longer there is not scientifically correct. Indeed, the opposite is true.
We have sought to learn from previous schemes in how we have designed and will implement this one. We examined the residential institutions redress scheme, under which individuals had to appear before a committee to give evidence and face cross-examination. Everyone understands that that was a retraumatising process.
We have designed this scheme based on the length of time in an institution. A person will receive the relevant payment according to his or her length of time in the institution. This means that all an applicant needs to do is prove the amount of time spent in the institution. There will be no calling in, no questioning and no retraumatisation. This is the best way forward in trying to design a scheme that provides individuals with payments quickly - recognising the age of many people - and does not result in a retraumatisation. That is why we have gone with a scheme based on time spent within institutions.
One minute cannot do justice to this issue or to those who have suffered as a result of Government decisions and the behaviour of institutions. The Minister is persisting with a cold, calculated scheme that is based on reducing costs. He is excluding all of those who were boarded out. He is excluding the thousands who spent less than six months in an institution. He is ignoring scientific evidence, the OAK consultation and the UN's concerns about the systematic racism experienced by those who are not white and who spent longer in institutions and suffered more. He is ignoring what the Ombudsman told us in 2017, namely, to learn from the debacle that was the Magdalen redress scheme. Ignoring that is an opportunity lost. Given that there will be a waiver system under this Bill, the Minister is failing to learn from the redress scheme that he referenced, which also had a waiver system. On every level, there is an utter failure to learn. What is horrible and unacceptable about all of this is that the Minister is persisting with a language of equality and justice that bears no connection to the scheme that he is proposing.
I welcome this legislation and the work that the Minister, his Department and the committee have done to shape the scheme. In recent weeks, it has been great to see many people coming forward to register their interest in receiving information on their time in mother and baby institutions and their adoptions. It is fantastic that those records have been made available.
I have been contacted by someone who spent less than six months in an institution. It would be great if this issue were considered in terms of redress.
Anyone who spent time in an institution for more than six months and was subsequently boarded out will be able to qualify under the scheme. A broad statement was made that boarded out people were being excluded, so it is important to clarify that anyone who was in an institution and was subsequently boarded out can fit within the remit of the scheme.
On the suggestion that this will be an exclusionary scheme, I have worked at all points to broaden it. Consider the original recommendations from the commission in respect of the scheme that it proposed - no one included after 1974 and no one included if he or she were accompanied in the institution. Those recommendations would have applied to approximately 6,500 people.
The interdepartmental group used an overall timeline of six months. This would have included approximately 19,000 people. What I am bringing forward will include 34,000 people in the payment scheme. This payment scheme is one part of the State's response.
Deputy Higgins addressed other aspects in the context of information and tracing, the Institutional Burials Act 2022, free access to counselling and the records and memorials centre. The State is bringing forward a wide range of responses to individuals who spent time in mother and baby and county institutions.
